(28 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I provided an excerpt from Jesus Before the Gospels where I summarized the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ “Triumphal Entry.” Here is the second part of that two-part post, another excerpt, where I call this tradition into question, arguing that it cannot be right historically and that it must, therefore, represent a distorted memory.
“Memory,” of course, is not simply a recollection of what we ourselves experienced (what you had for dinner last night; the name of your first-grade teacher; etc.). Memory involves anything that you “call back to mind” (the literal meaning of “remembering”). It can be factual information (what is the capital of France?), even of something you haven’t experienced (e.g., if you have never been to Paris); it can be a shared understanding of a person from the past (Einstein; Karl Marx), even if you never met them. And it can be a recollection of a past event even if you were not involved, such as the Triumphal Entry, to pick one example out of countless trillions.
Christians “remember” the event every Palm Sunday. But is the event itself an accurate memory? Was there really a Triumphal Entry?
******************************
The very broadest gist of this memory is no doubt true. Jesus almost certainly came from Galilee to Jerusalem the final week of his life, and he must have entered the city one way or another. But
Would you like to see why the story appears to have historical problems? Join the blog and you can see the entire post! Joining doesn’t cost much at all — starting at $2.99 a month! — but you get huge benefits; and every penny goes to charity. Click here for membership options
Is there an accurate memory concerning Caesar’s death and the Ides of March? The broadest gist of Caesar’s memory is no doubt true – a general wanting to be emperor. But the assassination account is highly implausible. Roman authorities were particularly keen on preventing disturbances and were stationed all around Rome. How could 23 swords kill Rome’s greatest general when he had body guards? How could Caesar be declared king if Rome was a Republic? Clearly Caesar’s wife ‘dream’ of his murder reminds me of Pilot’s wife – the same story teller? Were Romans so fickle to want Caesar as King one minute and their beloved Republic the next?
Latter day Roman monarchists sought to besmirch the Republican senate. Republicans called into question the venality of the monarchy. Thus this story is nothing more than a reflection of political divisions in Rome.
And then there was Shakespeare.
There is no proof Caesar was assassinated. With a consummate understanding of ancient Latin I have sorted through these strands of mythology to write my book ‘Caesar before the myth makers.’
Well taking your post at face value, it is clear to see that you can except why so many people do not regard the Bible as reliable and why you can’t either. Of course some people are objective and look at the body and diversity of sources. You could help your case by listing a comparison of existing Roman sources vs those about Jesus. Christians usually don’t want to do that in these arguments.
But can you point out any group today claiming Caesar is a god based on Roman writings? Do historians regard Caesar as a God? Some people can’t distinguish between “this is what surviving writings say about x” and others taking it literally. Dr. Ehrman is çlear about “this is what the Bible says” but also looks at it as a historian just like other historical documents. Hopefully you are using the same standard for the Bible as other writings. There are a lot of writings existing about many gods, so no reason to just settle on Christianity with so many documented miracles and Gods to choose!
Here’s an idea for a blog post series – the growth of anti-Semitism within Christianity. It’s depressing to see it on the rise again, and it might be interesting to see where it all began.
That’s a great idea I would love to see materialize.
If the temple elite at that time, the chief priests, were “Herodian”, with loyalty to Rome, even if they were somehow involved in the events that led to Jesus being crucified, couldn’t a case be made that what happened to Jesus was entirely a Roman affair? I’m not exactly sure that the gospels should be characterized as “distorted memory”– “tendentious fiction” might be more apt, and HEAVILY influenced by Paul. And, if Jesus was pretty much a nobody outside of his small circle of followers, you have to wonder what DID get him in trouble. He couldn’t have raised much of a ruckus at the temple. It seems to hinge on the betrayal story, but I have to wonder how much of that is even close to being veridical. If Jewish authorities executed him, for blasphemy maybe, he would have been beheaded, or stoned, or tossed off of a high place, or hung “from a tree”. (By the neck??) Still a mystery after all these years… although I can think of some possibilities.
Yes, a case could be made that it was an entirely Roman affair. But the Jewish authorities were responsible for keeping the peace in Jerusalem.
Do you think Jesus was arrested w/i a day or two of arriving in Jerusalem or was he likely there longer?
I ask because in the Synoptics Jesus challenges his arrestors by saying day after day (or for many days) he had been preaching in the Temple and they had done nothing …. Do you think he said ~that?
BTW This is a slight contradiction that also leans against a triumphal entry – why not point out the recently concluded Palm (and ticker tape) donkey/colt parade which in context is stronger than saying “you guys could have arrested me at any point over the last few days when I was in the temple”.
Dr. Ehrman. Sukkot is one of the Jews’ most important festivals. One of the main reasons for the Israelites to celebrate Sukkot is to remember how the Lord led Israel out of the wilderness, where they lived in temporary dwellings.
“And you shall take on the first day the fruit of splendid trees, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.” Leviticus 23:40
The verse in Leviticus says branches of palm trees are to be used to “rejoice before the LORD.”
Do you think the symbolism from this celebration of Sukkot, where Yahweh from the Exodus was to be hailed with palm branches, has had an impact on this pericope?
Yup, I think there’s some connection there, even though this is Passover and not Sukkot.
That’s one thing I don’t understand about the palms. Where did they come from? Were palm fronds a common part of Passover temple processions? Is it possible the gospel authors confused two different Jewish pilgrimage festivals, mistakenly associating a symbol of one (Feast of Tabernacles) with another (Passover)?
There are palm trees in Israel. But yes, some people have wondered if the story mixed up the festivals.
My understanding is that this refers to the Maccabean revolt. They couldn’t celebrate Sukkot when they were supposed to, so they did it later, after cleansing the temple. Palms, as you mention, were used during Sukkot to both build the “booths”, and also to pray for rain.
The palm branches in the gospels represented how the crowds were expecting Jesus to be like another Judas Maccabeus. So, you could kind of describe this as a “flash Sukkot”. Yes, this would have made the Romans very nervous.
I think they even minted coins with palms on them, to replace the coinage bearing the heads of their oppressors.
Its a speculation Bart; but prompts a couple of questions:
– what about the titulus on the cross; ‘King of the Jews’ (in Mark)? Are you proposing that it is a later invention? ‘King of the Jews’ isn’t a Christian title for Christ; the only occurrence in the Gospels before the Passion narrative is on the lips of the Magi (in Matthew). Against historicity perhaps, is that none of the canonical Gospel writers agree on the wording (as nor does the Gospel of Peter); but then all versions could readily be derived from the tradition in Mark. But if Pilate did order the title ‘King of the Jews’ to have accompanied Jesus on the cross; he must have got it from somewhere; and the triumphal entry account supplies the most plausible occasion.
– do you accept, with John, that Jesus visited Jerusalem for Passover several times in his ministry? If so (and the synoptic accounts do seem to present a Jesus who had done all this before); then for Pilate, Jesus in prospect would have been a known, harmless, quantity. There must have been some ‘unexpected’ event this Passover that changed things.
No, I think Jesus was indeed crucified for calling hiimself the King of the Jews. The term would not have been made up for the titulus, since the term is never used by early Christians of Jesus elsewhere, so far as we know (so they wouldn’t have invented it to explain his death). And no, I think this was Jesus one and only trip to Jerusalem.
Then why was Jesus tried for sedition ? The triumphal entry is the only event that would justify the charge.
Because he was known to have called himself the future messiah/king.
I see it as a story that we tend to exaggerate. The crowd that hails Jesus on the way into Jerusalem is his crowd from Galilee, not the Jerusalem crowd who later want him dead. We know that Jesus’ followers don’t change their mind about Jesus. The “palm sunday” crowd and the the “Good Friday” crowds are different crowds. One crowd is Jesus’ followers who have come with him from Galilee. The other crowd is the Jerusalem-aligned (temple-aligned) crowd who see him as a problem for the preservation of the temple complex. Perhaps the author of Matthew preserves a historical memory when he notes that upon entering Jerusalem, the people there are asking who this Jesus guy is. This would make perfect sense. He is essentially unknown in Jerusalem. So Jesus’ people, prompted by a conflicted Jesus who orchestrates this symbolic entrance (Jesus wants the kingdom, not the cross), praise him as the coming king. The event is quite small and could have escaped the eyes of the Romans.
I’d add that the crowds switched from hailing Jesus to denouncing Jesus in a less-than-12-hour span in the middle of the night, either at the start of Passover or just before it – when everyone, including the priests who supposedly managed this switch, would have been exhausted from the festival preparations and sacrifices.
I think what really happened is not that Jews hated Jesus but that they were indifferent – and indifference, not hate, is the opposite of love. They just didn’t pay much attention, and the Jesus Movement couldn’t accept that.
I think the Jewish leaders didn’t arrest Jesus on the spot on Palm Sunday because they didn’t want to start a riot. Jesus was the focus of attention and adulation and the people there would have been outraged by his arrest. They decided to do it later at night with Judas’ help and no one was around.
It’s not the Jewish people but the leader’s that reject the prophet’s because they are the ones the prophets are criticizing. The regular people fall in line out of fear. Ken
Big thanks for this consistent and concise summation of the real issues driving the narrative of the triumphal entry. Besides this, all the loud hoopla seems staged like a literary device to excite readers in preparation for yet another betrayal by fickle nonbelievers. It has all the markings of a dramatic metaphor for humanity’s off-again-on-again faith condition, not to mention yet another condemnation of those “guilty Jews.”
It’s unlikely the Roman solders were spread out evenly. Figure 1000-2000 soldiers in the city. And figure Jerusalem was about 1.5 square kilometers. Spreading the soldiers out evenly would put them about 100 feet apart, which is too thin to be effective. It would be smarter to station them in force at hotspots.
A large contingent would be in the Antonia Fortress on the NW corner of the Temple Mount.
Another large contingent would be in Herod’s Palace on the west side of Jerusalem. The three tall towers in this palace would have let them see most of the city.
Supposing Jesus came down the Mount of Olives to the Kidron Valley, he had 2 routes to the Temple:
1) Go around to the north side of the Temple Mount (right past the Antonia Fortress).
2) Go south down the Kidron Valley to the gate near the Pool of Siloam and then up through the Ophel District to the Temple Mount.
The route past Antonia would have led to a massacre.
But the southern route would have been invisible from both the Antonia and Herod’s Palace. And the narrow streets would have thinned the crowd and dampened their enthusiasm over a half-mile trek.
Ringermanson, I was also thinking that the streets were pretty narrow, plus Roman soldiers didn’t have communication devices… e.g. “send 300 guards to the corner of Main Street and Temple Street.” Does it really change the story if there were 30 or 100 people strung out welcoming him?
ringermanson, you say, “But the southern route would have been invisible from both the Antonia and Herod’s Palace. And the narrow streets would have thinned the crowd and dampened their enthusiasm over a half-mile trek.”
Thank you. Maybe that’s why Mark’s description of Jesus’ actual entry into the temple itself seems so anticlimactic. He strolls in (no followers mentioned), he gawks like a tourist, he leaves.
Thanks, pmilloy. I might add that anyone going up on the Temple Mount would be expected to immerse in a mikveh so as to become ritually clean.
The Pool of Bethesda was likely a public mikveh for just this purpose, and it was close to the entrance to the Temple Mount on the north side.
At the southwest corner of the city, there was another large pool (the Pool of Siloam) that also probably functioned as a public mikveh.
I’ve been to both of these sites, and they’d be large enough to process hundreds of people.
There was also a large complex of smaller mikvehs just south of the Temple Mount.
The important point here is that any large procession of people would hit a major speed bump by having to immerse at one of these spots. Ritual immersion requires you to get completely naked, and that’s got to slow things down.
If you have a big crowd, even a violent crowd, and they all have to immerse, that’s going to put a damper on things, in all senses of the word.
Once a big crowd loses momentum, it’s not easy to get it back.
Just listened to your lecture on Paul’s soteriology. You went through two different models – Participationist and Forensic – and mentioned that there were two. How do these models relate to each other? Does he see these models as competing or complementary?
Ha! I explain that in the lecture! They complement each other; Paul intertwines them.
Should have been “mentioned that there were two.”
Dr.Ehrman
Isn’t it a bit odd that Jesus would tell the 2 disciples if anyone questions them about the colt,they are to say “The Lord needs them.”
I find it odd that Jesus would reference himself as “lord.” Would anyone know what the disciples were talking about,anyway? This little scene feels out of place,to me.
Yes, it’s odd. But two things: first of all, the word “Lord” at the time was simply used of anyone whom you respected: your husband, your boss, your master. Second, and more important, I don’t think it really happened; the story is a later legend and so Jesus never even said these words, imo.
Sounds interesting! Can you post a link pls?
Thank you.
But the romans did sit up take notice and act accordingly – they killed him a week later.
Not an easy decision to make – to arrest him immediately and risk a riot or allow events to play out and risk fomenting a rebellion.
Interesting Bart. So, are you then saying that these Jews,who later called for his crucifixion and always unfaithful, expected Jesus, if he truly was the Messiah, to somehow dismantle/overthrow the Roman empire with the help of God, so the Jews would be in power?
Not exactly. I don’t think the Gospel accounts of Jews calling out for his crucifixion are historically accurate. There would not have been any crowds there when Pilate was judging the three criminals he dealt with that day — no major public trial.
Did the Romans keep record of the people they put to death?
Or did anyone at all,keep record of the Jews put to death by the Romans?
No, they didn’t. And no.
Excellent analysis…reasonable and quite plausible…this one of the reasons I joined this blog…many thanks!
This Easter we looked at a documentary of jesus from Nazareth and you are in it. And then it hit me. Was jesus in contact with the essenes? I think we have cleared it out, he was not one himself. What I am asking is if he, the historical Jesus, could have spent time with them after he got baptised by John.
It is said that if anyone of these people were an essene, it had to be John. I am theorizing that John sent Jesus in the wilderness to them and the meeting with the devil in the wilderness is Jesus symbolical own doubts in becoming a messiah figure. I also want to add that scriptures talk about many false prophets. What if they are not false the way we think about being false, but rather false in the sense of not succeeding? For many jews, jesus also did not succeed and was a false prophet. The resurrection made it possible to convince that he was not because his spirit or memory made his followers keep fighting. I really would love to hear you theory of the historical Jesus in the wilderness after the babtism.
My view is that Jesus was not an Essene and was not at all aligned with their views. Maybe I should post on this; the explanation would require more than a short reply here.
That would be awesome if you did. You are a goldmine in my home studies. My father keep joking that you are my hero. I always reply the same. We dont always agree dad. Lol. But your work is priceless. Thank you
I vote for a post on Jesus and the Essenes.
You have acknowledged that there might be a connection of the Leviticus 23:40.
You are writing about if the triumph entry could have happened. And you argue no, it did not. In the way it is written in the bible I agree with you, but what if we change the question a little? In what sense could it have happened? The palm branches and garments and so on can then be toned down due to the symbolical value. Simply said, people support him, possible silently, but enough for them to know. That way the risk of imprisonment is decreased drastically.
Fact. Some people/sects supported an uprising, some did not. Why some hail him and some “send him to death”.
More symbols. The riding of a donkey is related to David, dream of Daniel and addressed by zachariah. That the messiah, if the people are NOT worthy, he will arrive on a donkey.
Does it really have to be a distorted memory? Cant it be just an exaggerated one? Also, joseph and the pregnant mary have symbolical attributes to the donkey. Is that too a distorted memory?
I don’t think there is anything in the Bible connecting Joseph and Mary to a donkey.
But yes, I think the Triumphal entry is based very loosely on something that happened, but only insofar as Jesus really did come to Jerusalem at Passover and his disciples (or some of them) (but not the crowds) saw this as the king coming to his city. They were completely devastated when it didn’t turn out that way.
True. It’s the prote evengalium of James I think that brings in the picture of mary riding a donkey. Sorry for the mixing. However the symbolism in it is much the same. Maybe because of the different attempts to show when Jesus became divine?
I sort of agree with you on the coming to Jerusalem, but I think this is a story that tells about a confirmed uprising. That if Jesus hadn’t been arrested, there would indeed be great turmoil in the city. That would explain why they were so devastated other than loosing a leader and friend. If I’m right the story of barabass is put to even more mockery/falseness from me, but there is already doubt on that one because of his name. Also, if 3 people were crucified that day, why were the people only to choose between 2? It makes no sense.
I agree!
Maybe the Romans choose a different time to arrest Jesus because of the large crowds there. Wouldn’t arresting someone who is admired while the people were there have led to mass hysteria and even more chaos than taking a more cautious approach? But interesting observation nonetheless! Thank you for this excellent post!
Prof. Ehrman,
I was wondering if you’ve seen ( and if so, what your thoughts were on) the recent film “Mary Magdalene”, told from her point of view, and notably lacking the familiar triumphal entry story. Instead Jesus just walks in to Jerusalem with his entourage. I’m wondering if the writer may have simplified it for the reason you gave. (possibly having consulted you or your books)
Another film that made an impression was “The Passover Plot”, an obscure 1976 adaptation of the eponymous book.. I personally don’t think it transpired as the author argues, however, I will say it comes closest to an authentic portrayal of Pilate, brilliantly played by Donald Pleasance – a ruthless governor who has no time for the finer points of Jewish law and doesn’t think twice about sending Jesus to the cross, after a 2-minute trial in which he simply asks him “are you the king of the Jews”? (by contrast Caiaphas, is interestingly, more sympathetically portrayed than usual)
Should you ever feel so inclined, I would gladly welcome a blog entry on the relative merits of various films and tv series about Jesus (both for historical accuracy as how much they convey Jesus’ message).
Thanks!
I’m afraid I haven’t seen either. I’m teaching my Jesus in Scholarship and Film class now, but we have time only for a very limited repertoire. Tomorrow we’re seeing clips from crucifixion scenes: silent Ben Hur (1925); Ben Hur (1959); Greatest Story every Told (John Wayne!), and Jesus of Narareth. The question is: how does a film maker deal with the different accounts of the Gospels? Reconcile them? Ignore the differences?
I had always thought that the “triumphal entry” crowd greeting him were his followers who had travelled with him, and a few in Jerusalem who had been informed, so quite a small group that would not have been threatening to the Romans, but a symbolic crowd enlarged by the later gospel writers. Then the crowd outside the, “palace of the Roman governor” was made up of those who came with the high priest etc. I am no scholar so I may be totally wrong, but how big a crowd would have been allowed near the, “palace of the Roman governor” before it was deemed a security risk by the touchy Roman authorities?
This would not have been next to the Antonio Fortress, but at one of the gates where the crowds would be flocking in in any event…
What strikes me as I reread the narratives of the Triumphal Entry “into” Jerusalem is that everything (palm branches, shouted Hosannas) seems to take place on the road *outside* the city. This is particularly true in Luke, but none of the accounts explicitly says he rode the donkey (and/or its colt) *into* Jerusalem (though Mt 21.10-11 comes close). So one possibility is that the Jewish and Roman authorities *in* Jerusalem were simply unaware of the event.
“Roman soldiers would have been stationed around the city. How can we believe that with this wild celebration of their future conqueror would not make them sit up, take notice, and act accordingly? ”
How do we know that they didn’t? Maybe Jesus was indeed now a marked man?
The gospel writers offer reconstructions of Pilate’s knowledge and motives; but there is surely no reason for us to accept any of it. What we do know with certainty, is that a matter of days after Jesus arrived in Jerusalem that Passover, he was dead on a Roman cross. And in one account, John 18:3, his arrest was at the hands of the Romans.
Plus that all accounts agree that there were others crucified at the same time; it is not implausible that Pilate will have considered operations against these as a higher priority for his overstretched soldiery; and deferred arresting Jesus for a few days.
Had there been a ‘triumphal entry’ with no response from Pilate at all; your argument would be stronger; but can we justify substantial revisions to multiply attested events, based on nothing more than an unexplained delay?
We have a sense of what it was like at Passover from Josephus. As to the delay, I think the idea is that Jesus started rousing a following and that caused the problem; only later did story tellers say that he came in to the acclamation of the masses. In part that story-line is used to set up the hypocrisy of “the Jews,” since the same crowd is calling out for his blood five days later.
This page is not loading correctly, it seems. This is all I can see: “The very broadest gist of this memory is no doubt true. Jesus almost certainly came from Galilee to Jerusalem the final week of his life, and he must have entered the city one way or another. But”
Not sure what the problem might be. The best thing to do would be to contact Support (click the Help button)
Could a case be made that since Jesus called himself King of the Jews that he did have some type of entry with a following of disciples although not embellished and nearly as epic as the gospels portray? Is it plausible that him and this small following saw this entry as a turning point for the Kingdom of God and we’re celebrating it somewhat? Am I out of bounds for thinking that there is some plausibility here and that it did play a role in the crucifixion of Jesus? Or am I way off?
I’d have no problem believing that he came into Jerusalem (since he did!) and that his followers anticipated that this wold be when he would assert himself as king; and that later it was blown up into the Triumphal Entry story. But the idea he was welcomed by the crowds as a coming messiah strikes me as completely implausible.
I wonder if another reason for the triumphant entrance scene was to further the tragic misunderstood anti-hero trope that Mark uses in the gospel. Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem was so encouraging but then it was followed by betrayal and an inglorious death. When all seemed lost, there is a suggestion of hope at the end (Mark 16:1 – 8) that maybe it is not completely over. It reminds me of a horror film when it appears that the supernatural entity has been defeated then something happens that makes you think maybe it is still lurking around waiting for its opportunity to strike again. Great story telling.
From our perspective, I can see the implausibility of the story as recorded. How would have early readers, both in out of the communities the stories were written to, respond to the implausible tale?
Probably just like modern readers. They would have been Christians who simply believed that’s what happened.
“[Thebes in front of the royal palace. The main doors are directly facing audience. There are altars beside the doors. A crowd of citizens carrying laurel branches garlanded with wool and led by the PRIEST has gathered in front of the altars, with some people sitting on the altar steps. OEDIPUS enters through the palace doors]
OEDIPUS
My children, latest generation born from Cadmus,
why are you sitting here with wreathed sticks
in supplication to me”
Verses:
“And many spread their garments upon the way; and others branches, which they had cut from the fields.
And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna; Blessed he that cometh in the name of the Lord:
Blessed the kingdom that cometh, of our father David: Hosanna in the highest.
And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things,”
And oh yeah, Jesus/Oedipus sacrifice themselves to save the city even though both were/will be responsible for the suffering of the city (I could go on Ad Nazorean).
And the Prophet Joserias asked King Ehrman:
Do you think the author of GMark was familiar with Oedipus Rex?
Joseph
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
Professor, are you familiar with the works of Ellis Rivkin (professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew Union College later 20th Century)? In his “What Crucified Jesus” he drew heavily on Josephus to make the point that Pilate was an effective Prefect of Judea over a relatively long (10 year) period by understanding the special Jewish Roman relationship and being very proactive in nipping potential unrest in the bud. To the point that any charismatic who could draw a crowd in religious fervor would probably have been crucified?
Yes, but I haven’t looked at his work for a very long time. And yes, Jospehus makes that point very clear.
Prof Ehrman,
I am undertaking a research on the cultural influences on Christianity and have stumbled on the etymology of Easter.
Please, what is your view on the root of the word `Easter`. The more I read on it, I notice how scholars are split on what Bede posited regards to its connection to the goddess `Eostre`.
Q1. Would you say that the name Easter (although now has a different resonance with contemporary Christianity) is yet another example of pagan strand of tradition that may have in some ways influenced Christianity either extrinsically or intrinsically?
Q2. Your recent book `Heaven & Hell, history of the afterlife` has been very helpful in my research. Please, can you recommend any material on Greek cultural influence on Christianity?
Thank you.
1. I’m afraid I’ve never looked into it! 2. It really depends on what time period and what kind of influence you have in mind. THe influence of pagan understandings of divine men on traditions about Jesus in the first century are very different from the the influence of pagan philosophical traditions on Gnosticism in the 2nd century and quite differently on Christological controversies in teh fourth and fifth centuries. I don’t know of a study of the entire thing that way.
Doctor E… In response to Veritas you wrote: “There would not have been any crowds there when Pilate was judging the three criminals he dealt with that day — no major public trial.” 1. I had understood that only Roman citizens got Roman trials awhile everyone else got “justice”. Is this not correct? 2. If there were trials of Passover insurrectionists, why would someone as important as Rome’s governor to the region spend his precious time with them?
1. No, trials could be held for non-citizens 2. Threats against hte state were usually handled by high officials.
Most of the time the palms tree refer to the date palms that are abundant in the area. On the other hand, the crowd that acclaimed Yeshua was not the same that later asked Pilate for his death. The latter, logically, were paid men by the authorities to support their case against Pilate. The establishment also offered money to the soldiers to silence the resurrection event. The problem here is that historians do not believe in miracles and in Israel, as was said, to be rational, you have to believe in miracles.
Bart –
As usual, you presented the argument in such a logical and compelling manner. It all makes so much sense.
Although, I recall reading somewhere (Reza Aslan, possibly?) that Jesus rode into Jerusalem in this mockingly triumphant fashion – on a donkey walking over palm fonds like a conquering general returning to Rome in all of his glory. That Jesus was a social revolutionary – similar to a Gandhi or MLK, intent on having a showdown with the powers that be. Thus, an intentional act of civil disobedience; a provocation that invited a response.
Maybe it’s the storyteller in me that wants to believe there was an “event” of sorts. Much like Gandhi’s march to the sea to make salt. Spitting in the face of an adversary with overwhelming power exposes their immorality and corruption when their response is disproportionate to the perceived threat. I like to believe that was Jesus’ agenda. He baited them into metaphorically pulling back the curtain back on themselves, revealing their fraud.
Unfortunately for that story-loving part of me, your explanation is far more logical in the scheme of things.
I was under the understanding that Palm Sunday happen every year and the people had this procession every year. They weren’t there for Jesus. Jesus just got on the procession like others did.
I don’t think they acclaimed everyone riding into Jerusalem the messiah every year — that would be the difference.
This isn’t relevant to any current posts, but just thought it would be something a lot of your subscribers might enjoy. I read a recent interview with Bruce Springsteen in which he was eventually asked what he thought about a possible afterlife in which he would be reunited with friends, family, etc. In ten words he beautifully encapsulated agnosticism in a way that demonstrates why he is a world famous artist and we are not. “It’s a nice idea, but I wouldn’t count on it.” Reminded me of how Bob Dylan summed up the entire civil rights movement in the first line of “Blowin’ in the Wind.”
Yup, before Dylan became a born again Christian!
So not to get off-topic, I’m listening to a debate you’re having with Richard J Bauchman and I’m having a bit of a problem with his arguments, he says or I think he’s suggesting that most or some of the NT are historically accurate based on memories of Jesus, how does Bauchman explain all the mistakes, changes and edits in the gospel made by scribes or does he believe that Mark, for example, wrote Mark?
He doesn’t see many mistakes and thinks the edits stressed various points but were not contradictions. Yes, he does think Mark wrote Mark and was basing his views on eyewitness testimony.
Are there very many in the scholarly community who agree with this, it was always my thought that most of the traditional authors of the NT didn’t write those books and that others did?
I’d say most of the evangelical Christian scholars wholeheartedly agree. Scholars who do not have a theological reason to deny that the Bible can have mistakes usually realize that it has lots of them. (These scholars aren’t committed to it *having* to have mistakes; they just look to see if it does)
So I bought a copy of ECM Catholic letters but don’t know much Greek would the A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and O/ Early Christian Literature 3rd ed. (BDAG) be a good translation tool ?
Ah, there’s probably better ways to go about it. Yes, BDAG is the standard lexicon. But you don’t need ECM: it’s very complicated. Just get a UBS edition or the Nestle-Aland, maybe one with a facing page English translation. It would work *much* better for you, and the differences between them and ECM, in terms of the Greek words they print, will almost certainly have no bearing on your undersanding of the passages. They are very, very minor.
1. Hey Bart, I recently read an argument that someone thinks that the Gospel writers, such as John, could have had scribes that turned their Aramaic into polished Greek and they said these scribes were available during this time, thus they see no problem with the objection of literacy. What is your opinion on this?
2. Also what is a response to those who say that since the enemies of Christianity said the disciples stole the body that this presupposes the empty tomb?
Thank you for your time professor.
1. I’ve written at length on the topic (do a word search on the blog for “secretaries”). I’ve looked at just about every reference to scribes in Greek and Roman sources and have not found any instance of any one using scribes this way. I’m afraid it’s a modern myth. (When someone tells you something like this, ask them what their ancient source of information is!)
2. I’d say it doesn’t presuppose that the tomb was empty; it presupposes that hte Christians *said* it was empty. And that ain’t at all the same!
Have you done any posts about the Cleansing of the Temple? I know EP Sanders connected Jesus’ execution to the cleansing – although Paula Fredriksen’s made some arguments against that view.
Personally, I still think Jesus was executed because of Judas’ betrayal and I don’t really know if the cleansing had much to do with it at all. Perhaps he really did make a public display foretelling the destruction of the Temple, but I don’t know if that led to the execution. Do you think the cleansing really did lead to the crucifixion as Sanders argued?
(I do think a post about your thoughts on the cleansing would be awesome.)
Yes, I agree with Sanders, that the cleansing is what drew Jesus to the authorities’ attention, and that they arranged with Judas to “betray” him. My view is that he did not simply tell them where they could find him apart from crowds (that would be easy to know apart from an informer) but he told them the insider informatoin they needed to put him on trial, that he considered himself the future king of the Jews.
Hi Bart, I just finished reading Paula Fredriksen’s Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. Her thesis is basically that Jesus was a known quantity to both Pilate and the high priests, and that he probably preached in the Temple at every Passover. They knew that he posed no real threat to those in authority. Still, this particular time there must have been a perceived danger that things could get out of hand, which is why Pilate thought it prudent to be rid of him. Her idea is that this danger came not from Jesus, but from the crowds hailing him as the Davidic Messiah upon his entry into Jerusalem. Regardless of what Jesus thought of himself, it was this crowd proclaiming him king on this particular Passover that was the reason Pilate ordered him crucified, rather than just killed quietly some other way. In other words, her view is that there must have been a “crowd”, however small, hailing him as king. It’s for this reason that she gives weight to the “triumphal entry” as being roughly historical.
Yes, Paula is a terrific scholar. And we completely disagree on this. (In part she’s depending on John’s account about Jesus frequently going to Jerusalem; I think that not only stands at odds with all three of our earlier Gospels but also that it’s historically implausible)
Thanks for your reply. I think the issue she’s trying to throw a spotlight on is why it was that Jesus was crucified, and, especially, why none of his followers were. If Jesus and his message of non-violence weren’t known to Pilate and/or the chief priests beforehand, they probably would have been justified in assuming the whole group posed a danger and rounded up the entire posse. The other issue is why they felt the need to arrest him at night, assuming that is also historical. The only reason to do this would have been to keep his arrest out of sight of the crowds. I think her underlying assumption is that it wasn’t really that important to the authorities what Jesus or his inner circle thought about who he was, but what others, who did not know him, thought.
Yup, it’s a really important question. But that sort of thing did happen. They also arrested and killed John the Baptist but not his followers. Sometimes the authorities were just weorried about the figure head. If Jesus is calling himself the king, and they kill him, it pretty much takes away the threat of his followers trying to make him king….