I think I’ve gone on about Aslan’s Zealot long enough. Maybe more than long enough, many of you may think. My plan is to make this the last post. Let me reiterate that I think it is an exceptionally well-written, engaging book, and we can all be thankful to Aslan for bringing important historical issues about Jesus to the public attention. I may think that he’s wrong about his central thesis, and I may recognize a lot of errors in his book (about history, about the NT, about early Christianity). But I appreciate very much that he has gotten people talking about Jesus from a historical perspective – something that I think is of utmost importance, especially in our American context where Jesus typically is only spoken of by believers who do not appreciate the importance of history for knowing, well, about the past!
In this final post I want to speak about a couple of threads, loose traditions that are sometimes used to argue that Jesus was most likely a zealot, someone who was so zealous for the law, and the land, that he believed that the Romans should be driven out so that Israel could have what was hers as prescribed in the law of Moses. I’ll just deal with both of these traditions briefly, since I don’t want to belabor the point. In my estimation both traditions actually say the *opposite* of what they are said to say by those who support the idea that Jesus was a zealot. The first tradition is that he had a follower called Simon the Zealot, and the second tradition is that his disciples were armed when Jesus was arrested and that they put up a fight for him (what were they doing with swords if they were not in favor of violent opposition to the Roman invaders?). I will argue that the first may be accurate, or not, but in either event it shows that Jesus himself was not a zealot; and that the second is not a historical datum.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.
I have a question that is not related to the Aslan book (though I think you did a great job with your critique and I do agree that Jesus was not a militant Zealot).
***Question*** a friend asked me if there are any references to the apostle Paul that are NOT in the NT and that are NOT Christian sources….such as Josephus. I don’t know of any. Josephus make two references to Jesus which are probably added to Josephus’ history. Paul created more of a fuss than Jesus in the Greco-Roman world than did Jesus, but I know of no one who mentions him. Do you know of any? A quick answer is OK. thank you.
No Paul is never mentioned outside the New Testament, except in later Christian sources (although 1 Clement, which mentions him, is late first century).
“Allusions to the Apostle Paul in the Talmud” by Harris Hirschberg looks like an interesting read. I see it at jstor.org.
I have to remember your question, toddfrederick. Elements of Paul’s biography are so similar to elements in Josephus’ biography that Paul might as well be Josephus.
Were swords hard to come by among Galileans? Presumably they had kitchen knives (e.g. for slaughtering cattles) which could function as swords? Hence Peter could have just picked up a large knife for self-defence?
Great question! I doubt if they were hard to get. If it was a knife then the text has it all wrong. (Live by the knife and die by the knife? Doesn’t quite have the same ring….)
“Live by the knife and die by the knife?” You know how legends develop. Peter originally has a kitchen knife for self-defence, then it got embellished into a soldier’s sword…Or maybe Galilean peasants’ knives to butcher cattle were as large as swords.
It may have been fork! They did just come from dinner…. 🙂
Bart,
Finally, I can agree with you, mostly. Jesus was not a zealot. He was a Master (or his character was based on one). Please sit down, read this carefully all the way through. I can teach you something incredibly profound. Will you please allow me? I want you and all your smart, investigative readers to learn what mysticism looks like in the gospel disguise of “the Betrayal”.
First of all, I have to say there is textual proof that there was NO swordplay at all. Forget the paintings, forget the movies. There was NO swordplay. It has to do with the John 18:9 prophecy (from John 17:12, and maybe further in the OT). The conjunction (Gr.) ‘ouv’, “Therefore”, leading off 18:10 is continuative — “necessarily following what goes before” — unlike the subordinate one, (Gr.) “hina” — “That” — which leads off 18:9 and is usually translated “This”. “That the word which he had spoken, “Of those whom thou gavest me I lost not one”, THEREFORE, Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest slave and cut of his right ear.” That’s the correct reading for John 18:9-10. CHECK THE GREEK:
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3767: οὖν
οὖν a conjunction indicating that something follows from another necessarily;
http://biblehub.com/text/john/18-10.htm
John 18:9 and 10 are A SENTENCE. John 18:9 is not to be married to 18:8 — or to stand alone as a clause, as in the KJV and a few others, which is even weirder. The prophecy, “That none should be lost” has to do with the Malchus ear-cutting, NOT the arrest in 18:8. What does salvation have to do with escaping arrest? This is a symbolic initiation. Only someone familiar with mysticism, like myself, will appreciate that this is symbolism. The right side is the side on which the subtle Word is audibly heard in meditation. I do this myself, every day.
Peter (in John), “one of them with Jesus” (Matthew), “one of them” (Luke),”one of those who stood by” (Mark) does the sword handling. The ambiguity in the Synoptics is significant. This is James, the successor to Jesus in many non-biblical accounts, including the early church fathers. John has him as Peter, following the developing Petrine-primacy tradition of the 90s-100s. The successor is initiating Malchus, who is the one for whom Jesus says “should I not drink the cup that the Lord has given me?” — referring to the sins (or ‘karmas’) that the Master assumes by baptism (initiation).
Now Bart, please listen very carefully: this is mystic metaphor, and there is no doubt in my mind. The RIGHT ear is the ear that is ‘cut’: cut by the “sword” of a disciple OF A MASTER. “Sword” is Holy Spirit symbolism (Rev. 1:16). He strikes the ear, after the disciples ask Jesus if they should “strike with the sword” in Luke 22:49. In Luke 22:48, Jesus says, “Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss” (remember this for later in Nag Hammadi parallel). In Mark, right after the kiss (14:45), Mark says “they laid hands on him [!] and SEIZED him.” (14:46). “Laying on hands” has another meaning besides arrest. It is a different kind of apprehending here. The subtext is spiritual, as usual. Coming right after the kiss, the disciples “lay hands on” and “seize” the new Master! This is *the same placement in the narrative* as Luke’s “Shall we strike with the sword?” — confirming our assumption (until now) that the “arrest” is a spiritual metaphor! The sword is then used on the RIGHT ear of the slave, Malchus, Jesus interrupts, touches IT (spiritually with the WORD — Rev. 1:16) and heals HIM — not the ear!
Jesus interrupts, touches “it” and heals “him”. He does not heal THE EAR, but heals “HIM”, Malchus, by “touching” the ear.– meaning spiritually. That he says “him” and not “it” is incredibly significant. And the word in Greek is “haptomai”, meaning “touching TO INFLUENCE” (Strong’s).
The dynamic here is one of succession, “My Deliverer [not ‘betrayer’] is at hand” (Mathew 26:46), “I know whom I have CHOSEN” (13:18), I am HE [spiritually]” (13:19), “NOW is the Son of man [Spirit] glorified” (13:31), “That none [the given] should be lost” (18:9), and “the one who ate my bread *has greatly supplanted* me” (not “lifted his heel against” me) — John 13:18/Psalm 41:9 DRB version. And remember, the ‘bread’ goes to JAMES in the Gospel of the Hebrews (now lost). The ‘kiss’ OF SPIRIT goes from James to Jesus in First and Second Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi, inverted as a betrayal here. In the Gospel of Judas, ‘Judas’ sacrifices “the man” (James) that “bears me” (Jesus as his Master), in order that THE TWELVE may again come to completion in their God.” -36:1. This is James (as ‘Judas’) leading the other disciples to the Father after Jesus merges into him spiritually, forming the new Master *who IS Jesus*, spiritually! > “I am HE” (John 13:18). This is THE SAME as “woe to that man by whom the Son of man is delivered”!!!! (Mark 14:21/Matthew 26:24) . The Son of man, as you know, is not Jesus personally, but the spirit IN him (just as it is IN John in John 1:6-13! and IN James in John 13:31, NOT Son of man, Jesus!)
This is how the gospel “Betrayal” hides the advent of the successor Master, James — until now in the narrative a minor player, but known from Apocryphal sources to be the preeminent leader of his day, bigger than even Jesus. “Stephen” hides his stoning death at the hands of Paul (‘Saul’), Acts 7, and Judas hides his succession in the Matthias’ selection by lots (the crucifixion ‘casting lots for his clothes’ source?) of Acts 1. This Acts business was Eisenman’s contribution. I just walked on over to the ‘Betrayal’ for a look. “Lookie here!”
What do you think? Judas dreams he is STONED in gJudas, and not by just anybody, but fellow disciples — just like in CLEMENT and Hegesippus. The text of “James” immediately precedes the Gospel of Judas in Codex Tchacos. This is not by chance, I would say. James ceases TO BE in it, after merging into “the One who Is”.
I could go on and on, I wrote 45 pages like this, with much more, like Zechariah 13’s “Strike the shepherd ..” being mistranslation of all versions, actually being, “Rise up, O sword, within the one who is my companion, says the Lord of Hosts. Strike, O Shepherd, that the sheep may be troubled [spiritually, again].” Poetically and theologically, this must be the textually correct reading. It resolves the “good shepherd/bad shepherd pericope of 11-13, begun with, “Open your doors, O Lebanon, … Wail, O cypress …” The “little ones” — disciples — are refined as in FIRE (13:8-9), the “striking” being done with that — yes, spiritual — ‘SWORD’ of the Mystic Master.
I’m not quite buying your argument about the fight at Gethsemane. I’ve always thought that if the whole thing had been fictional, it would have followed one of two patterns. 1) There’s no bloodshed whatsoever. Maybe Jesus’ followers draw swords, but he himself is determined to accept his fate. So they accept his command to refrain from any violence. 2) There’s a real battle royale. The soldiers who come to make the arrest barely succeed in carrying it out, and several of them meet gruesome deaths in the process.
The story as actually related, in all its multiple attestations, is something in the middle. There’s violence, but only a little. To me, that smells just like the sort of thing that would happen in real life rather than a myth. (My sense is that in myths, if there’s going to be violence at all, it tends to be pretty serious violence.)
Also, it didn’t have to be the case that the disciples were seriously armed. Maybe a few of them were just carrying small knives that they mainly used as tools rather than weapons. I can imagine a scenario where soldiers come to surround them, and some of the terrified disciples pull out those knives just because they have nothing else to defend themselves with. Then one of them lunges at a slave accompanying the soldiers–quite likely, the slave himself is unarmed. Jesus senses that things could get nasty very quickly, so he calms down his own followers and agrees to go off with the soldiers. Nothing about that scenario strikes me as especially far-fetched.
If that is what happened, I wouldn’t expect the disciples as a whole to get rounded up. Maybe the one guy who injured the slave did get arrested. Or maybe he ran off and eluded arrest while the soldiers were busy with Jesus himself.
Anyway, this is certainly tangential to whether Jesus was a Zealot. The scenario I outline above seems like it could have unfolded even if he had no Zealot tendencies at all.
Often people view Jesus as a pacifist, insofar as Yahweh was going to do the destruction. Where does Luke 19:27 fit into this picture? It certainly seems like something Jesus may have said based on the criteria of dissimilarity. Withering out of season fig trees is funny, slaughtering people before Jesus’ feet less so.
I don’t think it passes the criterion. The followers of Jesus were all to happy (gleeful at times) to think that at Jesus’ return his enemies were going to be slaughtered (see 2 Thess. 1: 7-8 or, well, the book of Revelation!)
Hello, Bart! Are the stories mentioned by Ryan (Luke 19:20-27; Mark 11:12-14,20-26, Matthew 21:18-22) found in the earliest manuscripts or are just later additions? How likely it is, that Jesus himself expected the actual slaughtering of people during the apocaliptic event he preached about taking into account the “new rules” of God’s kingdom? Why in your opinion it was important for early Christians to preserve the stories about cursing the fig tree? Was it about a simple demonstration of Jesus’ abilities or was it something else?
Yes, they are in the earliest manuscripts. I have no trouble imagining Jesus believing that the wicked would be absolutely destroyed by God. He seems to say so a lot! On the fig tree: usually this is taken to be a later Christian addition, based on the idea that the nation of Israel is sometimes likened to a fig tree in scripture.
the fig tree is a later Christian addition when it appears in Mark? The fig tree is definitely mentioned in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by MacDonald.
It wasn’t added later to Mark. I’m saying that it was created in the oral tradition before Mark.
“The followers of Jesus were all to happy (gleeful at times) to think that at Jesus’ return his enemies were going to be slaughtered.”
Psst. Many still are! You’ve not recently been to a fire and brimstone preaching church as of late, nor heard it shouted from the pulpit, to the uproarious delight of the masses no less, “Just you wait until Jesus comes back!”, have you? 😉
Yes, it’s been a while since I’ve had that little pleasure!
I don’t find a hint of anyone finding delight in the upcoming torment some will suffer.
As one of the members who was constantly bugging you about doing a review of Aslan’s book, I just want to thank you for all these great posts! I’ve learned a lot from these.
I’m glad you’ve found them useful!
Thanks, Bart. Mindsets are not easily changed, but I better understand now. Jesus was not a warrior. His disciples were not warriors. Nor were they revolutionaries, as the church so commonly teaches. Truth be told, when it came down to the nitty gritty, once confronted by a band of Roman soldiers, they did nothing, but for Peter who supposedly cut off the ear of a Roman soldier. I suspect that had that really happened Peter wouldn’t have survived to tell the tale.
As for: “But if that’s what he was teaching, why would he urge or allow his followers to be armed in the first place?”
How about: Why wouldn’t they be armed should the need ever arise to protect him, their lord and future king? Our presidential candidates scurry about with their entourages of armed guards while campaigning, and forever thereafter, do they not? Why not Jesus? Even such a pacifist might have needed protecting during those days, weeks, months, prior to the arrival of God’s heavenly armies. There were those who were out to kill him, after all.
Malchus was not a soldier. He was the “high priest’s slave” (RSV).
At his immediate disposal were 12 legions of angels
Speaking of one-liners, in Luke Jesus tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man, and ends by saying, “…neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.” Then in John you have the story of a Lazarus being raised from the dead, and sure enough, instead of being persuaded they plot to kill him along with Jesus. Might this be an example of the story in John being built upon the reference to Lazarus in Luke? Or could the name Lazarus have been inserted into the Luke parable to sync with the story in John? (Seems odd that in this one parable Jesus uses a specific name.)
I don’t think John knew Luke’s Gospel, but he may well have heard some version of this story….
That’s very perceptive, fishican.
Hegesippus, via Eusebius (since Hegesippus is lost to history) says those “believing on Jesus” did so because of what James said of him (History of the Church, Penguin Pub., page 59), the same dynamic in John 12 regarding Lazarus. Now here’s the amazing part. Robert Eisenman pointed this out: In Luke 16, the rich man parable has Caiaphas as “rich man”, and the five “sons” in the parable as brothers in law — the Ananus brothers, all high priest(Caiaphas married the sister of Ananus), ending in Ananus ben Ananus, the one Josephus records as the leader of the kangaroo-court Sanhedrin trial of JAMES the Just for blasphemy (Albinus was enroute from Rome yet, to replace Festus who died). James was killed subsequently by a mob led by Paul, as ‘Saul’ in Clement’s Recognitions, 1:70. >
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.lxx.html
With the tie ins to Lazarus in John 12, of the “believing on him because of his testimony”, and the phony trial and killing, Lazarus ‘is’ James, covered, in the rich man parable. John 12:10: “So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well”. For what? People believing on Jesus “because of him”. James in Hegesippus: not telling the people that “Jesus wasn’t still Christ” . They won’t “believe” — “even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31). Lazarus is, therefore, James.
Sepp and Drioux, 19th century biblical scholars are the first to point out this connection of Luke 16 to John 12. Eisenman added the Lazarus as James, from the Hegesippus link. I add to THAT the Lazarus as James as the ‘beloved disciple’ link: “Jesus wept”, and “See how Jesus LOVED HIM” (John 11:35-36). Lazarus is James, and Lazarus is the beloved disciple, and both are ‘Judas’, the one who receives the bread (James, in lost Gospel of the Hebrews) after Peter asks him who is “the one” who delivers (not ‘betrays’) him, as he is “laying close on his breast” (John 13:23). All these cover characters are James, who is the successor to Jesus. That is why the NT was written — to hide the successor, James.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-throck.html
http://www.textexcavation.com/gospelhebrews.html
But this is too far out for most of you here. I can see that my posts are not well-received. That’s fine. I know I’m right no matter what others think.
How difficult it was for common folks to obtain swords? I imagine swords were expensive, so Jesus and his followers would have had to obtain enough money and find a seller were they to arm themselves.
I’m afraid I don’t know!
Luke says “Look, here we have TWO swords.” – Luke 22:38. Where did they come from? Jesus just told them to sell their ‘mantles’ and go buy some. These must have been there. I think they are symbols of spirituality. “For I tell you that the scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was reckoned with the transgressors.” This must mean sin, somehow. I’m not sure in what way, exactly.
I know this is of no historical or theological importance, but I have a question about the “garden of Gethsemane” itself.
Some years ago, when there were more discussions of things like this on TV, I heard someone offer the opinion(?) that it was really an *olive-press*. The idea being that Jesus and his disciples expected to be walking back from Jerusalem to where they were staying in Bethany; and since they wouldn’t all be together at some point (if only because Judas had an “errand” to run), they picked a place to meet up. The place they chose was a small structure used during the day for pressing olives – a *shelter*, which would be a good meeting-place in case of foul weather, might even have benches. A place used the way we might use a *bus shelter* today – not some fancy “garden”!
Does that seem plausible? Or is there real evidence for a “garden”?
Yeah, that’s something someone made up! It’s not a fancy garden, just a place where plants grow. There’s nothing in the stories about an olive press….
Excellent post connecting a lot of the dots. This has been a great series and I find it helpful when you discuss new books like those of Aslan, Spong, and O’Reilly. Thanks.
I still find it discouraging that so much of the Bible is not historical. I also find it discouraging that so many claim that the Bible is all historical, and even inerrant, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary
I am convinced by your idea that the stories were invented so the gospel writer had occassion to use the already-known one-liner, or wisdom saying.
But since we’re ont he topic of the “sword”, I’ve had other thoughts about this in the past. Through much of human history and in many cultures, travellers on the road banded together for security against brigands, etc, and many or at least some of those in the band might have carried weapons for defence and deterence (staffs, swords, daggers). So I don’t see how when a group is confronted at night, in the dark, suddenly, that the emergence of a weapon or two would equate necessarily in any way with evidence that it was a group of armed “rebels.” I would suspect 99% of groups sleeping int he wild outside a city had a few defensive weapons amongst them.
I have never run across any indication that the Romans ever disarmed the common people in the provinces they occupied. That would be a gigantic chore and probably one they wouldn’t have wanted — rather they would have wanted subject peoples to police themsselves and keep the tax engine running at the lowest possible expense to the Romans.
Not to my knowledge is it necessarily incongruent with what Jesus’ message might have been. I don’t see in him a Jainist. I see him railing agaisnt violence, but I don;t see him saying “submit to your murderer” either (I think, like your comment on slavery, that in fact it isn’t addressed — ‘turn the other cheek dioes not, to me, mean that).
No, I don’t think the Romans did (or could) disarm indigenous populations. Of course it *could* be possible that a group of pacifists were carrying swords for security; but they were hanging out in Jerusalem, so I don’t know, seems unlikely to me.
EricBrown had mentioned “groups sleeping in the wild outside the city.” I’ve had the impression we were meant to believe Jesus and his disciples were staying with supporters in Bethany. Walking distance, possibly on a well-traveled road? What’s your opinion on what sort of accommodations they might have had, in that era?
And they were “hanging out in Jerusalem” *during Passover week* – might there have been a greater risk for violence then, with robbers targeting pilgrims there for Passover?
My guess is that they found shelter usually, but sometimes must have slept outside….
Just had an irreverent thought. For all we *know*, Jesus *may* have *pleaded desperately* with Pilate, trying to convince him that he’d called himself “king” in a sense that didn’t make him a threat!
Would that we knew!
“Maybe more than long enough,” I think, but still a valuable addition to the topic at hand.
I pretty much agree with your assessment of Simon the Zealot, and Peter, and *some* of the other disciples being armed, much less cutting off the ear of the High Priest’s servant. I even have doubts about naming Judas, “Iscariot,” since it’s an obvious smear of the “betrayer” as a sicarii Jew or “stabber,” the worst kind of Zealot. But none of what you mention necessarily keeps the Roman authorities from thinking of him and treating him as a *potential threat*, just as King Herod Antipas thought of John, the popular and outspoken Baptizer, as someone who was actively stirring up the people, and therefore a legitimate candidate for capital punishment. Jesus may or may not have thought of himself as a Davidic King, but many of his followers probably did, and he seems to have said and taught things that could have been construed as dangerous enough to be threatening to Rome, or at least the local status quo. They did not track him down and arrest him and execute him because he was declaring himself or “calling himself *the king,” but more likely because his “Jewish Movement” had the potential for becoming increasingly extremist . In other words, Pontius Pilate wasn’t teaching Jesus a lesson, he was nipping insurrection in the bud and making Jesus an example to his family, his clan and all other religious malcontents who could have been harboring rebellious (or Zealous) inclinations.
After all, when he proclaimed, “Yahweh’s kingdom is at hand” (Mk.1:15)! it implied that “Roman rule was coming to an end,” decades before the fourth “philosophy” became politically active. Yes, and his disciples (who numbered far more than twelve, btw) felt the same as he did. They collaborated with one another in pursuit of a common goal which their Master/Messiah was best equipped to articulate. “Behold, I give unto you the power to tread on serpents and scorpions, all power over your enemies, and nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Lk. 10: 19). Moreover, “When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory” (Mt. 25: 31)…“And I will give unto you the keys to the kingdom…” (Mt. 16: 19). Indeed, these and other sermonizing, even hostile statements (Mt. 10:34-36) were what caused priestly collaborators and Roman overlords to accuse him of “perverting the nation” and “forbidding the payment of tribute to Caesar” (Lk. 23:2). It is what moved Pilate to ask him straight out, “Are you the king of the Jews” (Lk. 23: 3)? It also explains why the rebellious “Galilean” spoke as he did. In his demeanor and his unique responses he showed the audacity of a rebel, without being one, who pronounced what amounted to a not so veiled threat. “Hereafter,” he said, “you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, coming in the clouds of heaven” (Mt. 23: 64; Lk. 22: 69)!
What else could the Romans do? They could not even conceive of a passive, non-violent, would-be king.
Yes I think we agree more than disagree.
Just want to mention that I’ve read that there’s another, perhaps more likely, explanation for the name “Iscariot”: that it comes from a place name, “Kerioth.” I think it was stated that there were several towns or villages by that name, the most plausible reference here being to one near Hebron – though it’s not certain any of them existed at the time of Jesus’s ministry. Also, I think I’ve read that in one reference to Judas, he’s identified as the *son* of (Someone) Iscariot. That would seem to make it even more likely it’s just the name of a “home town,” used to differentiate between him and the other disciple named Judas/Jude.
Love the blog. New to this field. encouraging all my friends to join. Could you direct me to the best source to explain the ‘Son of Man’ idea/tradition. or if you could do it in a nutshell……looking forward to new book release. keep going Bart.
It’s a hornet’s nest. I will try to post on it soon. I’m not sure what books for the non-scholar would be best for it….
http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/
http://www.scienceofthesoul.org/product_p/en-056-0.htm
http://www.judaswasjames.com/
As you discuss Luke and the Passion narrative as traditions it prompts me to ask how much you believe is historic in the gospels? I’ve been reading Mark and noticed that the whole gospel can be classified as part of five themes:
The Disciples Narrative including the Family Narrative
The Jewish Narrative including the Passion Narrative
The Gentile Narrative including the Baptismal Narrative
The Messianic Secret which is part of the overall gentile narrative
Early Sayings Traditions
–
Scholars have been discussing the gospels story by story for a couple of hundred years which makes me wonder if part of redaction study is the recognition that not just the stories but also the themes of Mark (excluding the Early Sayings Traditions) are not historic.
–
The disciples narrative moves from Jesus’ call of the disciples to their being unable to understand his parables and miracles. The mid-point is Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah which is followed by Jesus rebuking Peter as Satan with his mind on the things of men rather than God. The Transfiguration scene illustrates the disciples’ understanding of Jesus as one of the prophets. Immediately the story turns darker as the disciples argue over who is the greatest and who can sit at Jesus’ side in his glory. The ending of course is Peter, James and John unable to stay awake with Jesus the night of his arrest, the desertion of Jesus at his arrest and Peter’s denials of Jesus even as the trials resulting in crucifixion are occurring. Finally the women flee the tomb telling no one of the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection by the young man dressed in a white robe who represents the Marcan community and their beliefs.
–
This is too well crafted a story to be the result of 45 years of oral tradition. It is instead clearly a Hellenistic community’s effort to discredit the disciples and Peter. The Galilean tradition interpreted Jesus as the true prophet with a baptism of repentance later called John’s baptism. They emphasized Jesus’ life and teachings practicing the ethical practices of the Two Ways. They believed Jesus was exalted to God’s right hand but these believers were Jewish and remained Jewish.
–
The Hellenistic Syrian church interpreted Jesus as the resurrected Christ with an ecstatic baptism of the Holy Spirit. Their emphasis was on Christ’s death and resurrection and their teachings were the worship of Christ as God’s Son. They believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus followed by his ascension and their religion included syncretism with the gentile pagan religions eventually becoming Christianity.
–
Mark was a successful attempt to supplant the Jewish Galilean tradition with the Hellenistic interpretation of the Christ figure. The point is that the disciples, Jewish, gentile and messianic themes are not historic. This is best seen in the letters of Paul who spent his life defending his apostleship. He had major problems with Peter and James and yet never once mentions these Marcan themes. Nowhere while denouncing Peter to his face does the reader find mention of any of Peter’s failures in the Marcan disciples narrative. An argument from silence can be a strong argument when it’s not credible that Paul would never mention any of the Marcan disciples narrative while in vehement disagreement with Peter and James. Let us not forget this is the Paul who speaks of eternal condemnation for anyone who disagrees with his gospel.
–
The argument has always been that the disciples narrative must be true because no Christian would talk of the disciples that way if it weren’t true. However if one form of Christianity disagrees with another and wants to discredit them that is exactly how they would describe them. Look to how the Gnostics were treated and later the Jewish-Christians.
–
I don’t think much of Mark can be considered historic but once written it became embedded as the gospel tradition when Matthew and Luke used Mark as their primary source. The reason I ask how much you believe is historic is that despite a couple hundred years of higher criticism scholars routinely speak and write as though the themes of the Marcan author have historic value and can be cited as evidence for theories rather than simply being the traditions of Syrian Christianity.
I lay out most of what I think we can trust as historically reliable in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Rosekeister,
I can tell you know your Bible.
Here is a note that you may find productive. I have for years now tried to tell Bart that the climax to the Gospel of Judas is the mystic (‘gnostic’) sacrifice OF JUDAS, to merge into his Master, Jesus, and become the new Master (“Your horn has been raised …”). It is the ‘Gospel of JUDAS’, not of Jesus. He is the ‘Good News’. What introduces the sacrifice of Judas is “You will exceed them all …” and this saying in gJudas comes right where the argument among disciples as to who is “greatest” comes. This is telling. I think, as in the gnostic texts First and Second Apocalypses of James — the First of which is the text immediately adjacent to gJudas in Codex Tchacos — that James is the successor Master. He is heralded at the climax, and it is James who is stoned to death in historical accounts, just as ‘Judas’ dreams in gJudas. He leads the Twelve “to completion in their God” at 36:1, as an obvious redeemer figure after “someone” (Master Jesus) is to “replace you”. What I am saying is that the ‘Betrayal’ is a coverup of the installation of James as successor. The church wanted it hidden, so they could write the rules without a living Master’s interference. James was too well known to leave out, as was the story of the betrayal by then, so they had to give it a nod at the very end of gJudas. Go to judaswasjames.com and you will see more detail than I can present here on Bart’s blog. I am hoping to find receptive people who want to learn more about the mystic teaching in the Bible. My personal email address is also there.
The disciples were not standing guard and falling asleep, but meditating and falling ‘asleep’ — their consciousness slipping down. This is “watching”, in addition to prayer, and “for an HOUR” (who prays for an hour?), and it has something to do with avoiding temptation, which is just what meditation is for — raising consciousness. “Rise up! Let us be going” is not getting up off the ground, but raising consciousness. In the gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, Christ denies Peter three times, not the reverse. It was tendentiously reversed in the canon to efface Peter, a threat to Paul’s prominence. Look for yourself. It is at the end of paragraph one, and is in regards to meditation, Jesus seeing Peter is not ready for inner vision:
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html
“Woe to that man by whom he is betrayed” – Luke 22:22, comes just before the “dispute arose among them, which of them would was to be regarded as greatest”. This is the sames as “sacrifice the man that bears me” in gJudas, the words that immediately follow “You will exceed them all …” “betray” is tendentious, as “paradidomai” is the Greek word for “to deliver” as it is translated everywhere else it is used but the ‘Betrayal’. (see John 19:16).
I hope Bart is listening. I have a number of textual variants like this for him. John 18:9-10 is not what you all think, for example. The Greek is not what you read in the translations for it — ALL of them! “Strike the shepherd” and “lifted his against me” are both mistranslations, also, this time in the Hebrew…
Bart, I recall that many of your students chose Aslan’s “Zealot” to critique this past semester. Overall, how well did most of them do in identifying the biggest problems with the theme of the book? Thanks.
Most of them really liked it, and didn’t see any real problems with it. 🙂
Bart,
There was a great one-liner in circulation that probably goes back to Jesus (it coincides well with all the other pacifist things he says in the tradition): “If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.” Since I think the disciples could *not* actually have been armed in the garden, I think the story that they *were* armed is one of those stories that was made up in order to provide a narrative context for this one-liner. The “invented context” is that Peter pulls out a sword and lops off the ear of a servant of the high priest, and Jesus rebukes him, “If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.” In other words: don’t use a sword to oppose those who are your enemies. That idea is in line with Jesus’ teaching otherwise, as attested all throughout the Gospels. It may go back to him. But if that’s what he was teaching, why would he urge or allow his followers to be armed in the first place? He almost certainly wouldn’t. The story that they were armed was made up in order to provide narrative support for a great one-liner of his. That, in my judgment, is the best way to explain the evidence.
____
The Johannine version with Peter doing the striking doesn’t have “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword”. That’s only in Matthew. What *is* in John is “Should I not drink the cup that the Father has given me”, as also in Luke. The context is about “rising” and prayer “to avoid temptation” in Luke (22:46), and the striking of the right ear of Malchus in both these gospels. This is symbolic initiation. The RIGHT ear, like I have been trying to TELL you, is very significant. Why will you not comment? Nag Hammadi has support for this being an initiation setting. The “sword” comes out of Jesus’ MOUTH in Revelation 1:16. It ISN’T a metal sword. It is The Word. Where did the disciples come up with TWO of them so quickly in Luke? They refer to something else.
Bart Ehrman: The problem was that he was calling himself the king. Of course he wasn’t a king.
Steefen: The biblical Jesus is a composite character. When people write fictionalized history, they are at liberty to combine more than one historical character into a literary character. In the Gospel of John, Jesus as “only begotten” son is a verbatim reference to King Monobaz calling his prince, Izates, “only begotten son.” Second, when Jesus is said to have fed 4,000 or 5,000 (listed separately by Craig Evans), that is a clear reference to the fact that those weren’t sermon picnics, those were famine events. Who fed 4,000+ people? Prince Izates-Jesus who by that time was King Izates-Jesus. Third, in the generation after King Izates, we have the Manu brothers: King Manu V and King Manu VI. Because Queen Helena, mother of King Izates, holy patriarch, had given so much money for famine relief and had given gold to the Temple of Jerusalem, there was some vested interest in Jerusalem, Judea on the part of this royal family tree. This family tree did use politics and violence to justify the faith of their conversion to Judaism (Queen Helena and King Izates converted with Queen Helena being a Nazarite for not 7 but 14 or even 21 years). When Joseph (latinized Josephus) was given the body of a crucified man who survived crucifixion, it is likely he was given a descendant of King Izates-Jesus. So, Izates-Manu V-Manu VI are valid components of historical Jesus interpretation. Conclusion: the biblical Jesus, sourced from a number of real people, partly was a king. Why? The biblical Jesus is called Em-Manu-El. This is a direct reference to King Manu V and King Manu VI with family allegiance to Queen Helena and King Izates.
Dr. Ehrman:
He had no army, no political power, no huge following.
Steefen:
He fed 4000 – 9000 people and probably more and had no following? I’m not persuaded.
(One may say the biblical Jesus based in some miracle worker of 30-36 C.E. did this; and, as stated above, one may say the biblical Jesus based in King Izates’ feeding of the mulititudes of 47 C.D. did this.)
He healed people and these healing drew crowds. I’m not persuaded.
He was popular in Syria. I’m not persuaded.
Without separation of church and state, Jesus and his crowds were a political force. I’m not persuaded.
Dr. Erhman:
His followers were no threat to an established order. But he could not be allowed to call himself king, as crazy as the claim was; and so the Romans executed him.
Steefen:
Jesus is more than one person of the past. One of the persons was stoned by the Jews as stated in the Babylonian Talmud. Being the executioner of Jesus just lends power to the Roman Empire, given the context of the pressures exerted on messianic literature in a post-Failed Revolt time period in which TWO spies of Vespasian nand Titus both support the fictionalized account of Jesus: Josephus with his Testimonium Flavianum and the testimony of Yohanan ben Zakkai. Both Josephus and Yohanan were given gifts of land on the plains outside of Jerusalem. It is highly likely that these two rabbis concurred with the way we now understand the biblical Jesus.
Bart Ehrman:
Jesus throughout his ministry preached non-violence. He was not a zealot.
Jesus let us know that after God delivered the kingdom of the Son of Man, the first king had the right to kill those who killed the messengers who tried to invite people to the Son of Man’s celebration for taking a queen (we might as well stretch the parable to the Son of Man king having a queen). Furthermore, while one may say capital punishment is allowable when innocent messengers are killed, this first Son of Man king would burn the cities of the murderers therefore harming innocent people. Second, those who did not want the Son of Man king to be king were to be killed before the eyes of this new king.
As for Jesus not being a violent zealot, Jesus was a purist who WHIPPED the money changers and turned over their tables.
And re: Jesus – Izates – King Manu V and Manu VI connection, Jesus was mocked with a crown of thorns and the official design of the Manu king crowns were a web over the helmet crown with thorns on top.
Eusebius provides attestation to the importance of military and political help beyond the Euphrates, pointing to Adiabene and Osrhoene by either inventing the King Agbar – Jesus letter writing exchange because the New Testament and Josephus understate their importance. Matthew says Jesus was popular in Syria. A Roman officer’s daughter was healed by Jesus which could have been an input to the development of the Roman church. Prof. Eisenman says we should count as a third Antioch: Edessa. In conclusion, Eusebius also points students of history to a connection between Jesus and Edessa. Edessa had operatives in Judea because Queen Helena had a palace in Jerusalem and a large place of burial. Why wouldn’t a Nazarite Queen Helena not support a Judaic purist such as Jesus and offer him help with his dreams of a Son of Man Kingdom and messiahship spoken of by Daniel, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Malachi, and Zecharia?
Steefen,
Interesting.
I think Jesus might be a composite of John and James, because of James’ speaking the famous “Father forgive them” and “You will see the Son of man coming in Power on the clouds of heaven”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html (pp 4 and 5)
Why does “only begotten” have to refer to Izates? This term may be a general use thing.
I understand that you were not involved in the Jesus Seminar. As a historian, what is your opinion of the methods used by the Seminar and their conclusions, especially their rejection of the idea that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet?
I think they were completely wrong on that one. That’s why I wrote Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium!
Joseph Raymond, author writes: “a large Jewish army allied with the Romans under Antipas had just been defeated by Aretas, king of Nabatea, thus reducing the number of local auxiliary troops available to the Romans in Judea. During this period the Roman emperor Tiberius didn’t even live in Rome thereby weakening his administration of the empire. Further, Tiberius previously executed his long-term and trusted minister (Sejanus) adding to the administrative turmoil in the province as officials loyal to Sejanus were purged. Two legions weren’t in Syria, they were on their way back from Parthia.”
The biblical Jesus wanted the Son of Man – Kingdom of God. This was his political-military window of opportunity. (You’re right, Jesus wasn’t looking to engage the Romans at their full presence.)
Professor Ehrman,
If you don’t mind, two quick questions about Aslan’s book before you move on:
First, a number of times, he uses the phrase “Jewish cult” or “temple cult” in the book. I’ve never heard of Judaism refered to as a cult before, and am wondering where this came from?
Second, what I found most interesting in the book was how Aslan describes the relationship of Paul with James, Peter and John. It gives one the impression that Christianity ended up being based on the ideas of the wrong person (and a bit of a crazy person at that, by his description of Paul). He also describes their views of what Jesus believed, as being in conflict. Do you feel Aslan is correct in these interpretations? Thank you!
“Cult” simply means “religious practices” — so the Jewish cult is simply the religious practices of worship engaged in by Jews.
The sharp contrast drawn between Paul and Peter/James has been around for a very long time, and is often *over*drawn. Maybe I’ll post on it down the line.
At the website of Jewish Review of Books, there is a review of Zealot by Professor Allan Nadler, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Jewish Studies Program at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey.
http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/449/reza-aslan-what-jesus-wasnt/
Prof. Nadler ends his review with this paragraph:
Finally, is Aslan’s insistence on the essential “Jewishness” of both Jesus and his zealous political program not also a way of suggesting that Judaism and Jesus, no less than Islam and Mohammed, are religions and prophets that share a similarly sordid history of political violence; that the messianic peasant-zealot from Nazareth was a man no more literate and no less violent than the prophet Mohammed?
With the usual dialogue format I use, his thoughts and my responses appear below in more than one blog response (permission has been granted by Dr. Ehrman. Let us be grateful. As you can tell from Dr. Nadler’s concluding question, we have new critiques and comments.
Prof. Nadler: The number of viewers of Reza Aslan’s Fox News’ interview had far exceeded the number of Israelites who crossed the Red Sea under Moses.
Steefen: Professor Nadler should use the scholarly name of the sea: the Reed Sea. It does not serve the needs of raising the standards of religious education to mislead people into even thinking God parted the waters of the Red Sea or the Gulf of Suez.
Prof. Nadler: Among his most glaring overestimations is Aslan’s problematic insistence that the Christian belief that Jesus was both human and divine, is “anathema to five thousand years of Jewish scripture, thought and theology.” The vast chronological amplification aside, Judaism’s doctrine about this matter is not nearly so simple, as Peter Schäfer demonstrated exhaustively in his very important study, The Jewish Jesus…
Steefen: What vast chronological amplification? http://www.hebcal.com/converter/ gives us a Hebrew year of 5774.
The Jewish Jesus by Peter Schafer came out in hardcover 2/26/2012 (Kindle version seems to be the same date).
Zealot came out 7/16/2013. If Zealot’s manuscript deadline was 7/16/2012 maybe he could have read Schafer’s book and incorporated it into his manuscript’s final draft—a hard thing to do if Schafer’s arguments weren’t in the shaping of previous manuscript drafts. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ by Daniel Boyarin, copyrighted 2012 but amazon.com is only showing a reprint edition of August 6, 2013–after Zealot came out.
Prof. Nadler’s claim that Aslan should have read and incorporated these books into his manuscript is invalid.
By the way, did any of these books win an award or make the cover of a scholarly Journal to catch Aslan’s attention? Was there some fantastic book tour for either Schafer or Boyarin?
Prof. Nadler: The book’s Prologue is both titillating and bizarre. Entitled “A Different Sort of Sacrifice” it opens with a breezy depiction of the rites of the Jerusalem Temple, but very quickly descends to its ominously dark denouement: the assassination of the High Priest, Jonathan ben Ananus, on the Day of Atonement, 56 C.E., more than two decades after Jesus’s death.
Steefen: It’s bizarre for me because the Revolt action is more than 5 years away. It is 20 years after the biblical Jesus crosses over in 36 C.E. Apparently Aslan is setting the tone for a Zealot, but it is not relevant to Jesus. I have given each chapter a letter grade, The section, in my mind, earned a B. I have to finish reading chapter 15 and the epilogue. I am reading the notes section of every chapter. But, so far, I have given an A+ to only two chapters: Chapter 7: The Voice Crying Out in the Wilderness and Chapter Eight: Follow Me.
Prof. Nadler: To address the obvious problem that the Jesus depicted in Christian Scriptures is the antithesis of a zealously political, let alone ignorant and illiterate, peasant rebel and bandit, Aslan deploys a rich arsenal of insults to dismiss any New Testament narrative that runs counter to his image of Jesus as a guerilla leader, who gathered and led a “corps” of fellow “bandits” through the back roads of the Galilee on their way to mount a surprise insurrection against Rome and its Priestly lackeys in Jerusalem.
Steefen: Jesus was asking for trouble with his carefully staged Palm Sunday conspicuous entrance into Jerusalem. The high priest’s Passover garments were held by Rome, distributed by Rome, and returned to Rome for safekeeping. The turning over of the tables was an act against Rome.
Prof. Nadler: The crucial distinction that Aslan fails to acknowledge is that what clearly sets Jesus so radically apart from all of these figures is his adamant rejection of violence…
Steefen: LOL. Jesus delivers a parable that ends with: those who did not want me king, bring them and slay them before me. Jesus delivers another parable in which a king’s messenger is killed. The king not only kills the murderers but burns down the hometown of the murders thereby harming innocent women, children, and men.
Prof. Nadler: There is not so much as an allusion to be found in Zealot to the fascinating debates between Jesus and the Pharisees about the specifics of Jewish law, such as the permissibility of divorce, the proper observance of the Sabbath, the requirement to wash one’s hands before eating, the dietary laws, and—most fascinating and repercussive of all—the correct understanding of the concept of resurrection, in response to a challenge by the Sadducees who rejected that doctrine tout-court.
Steefen: Dr. Nadler believes Jesus must have been an educated man. Here he opposes not only Aslan but Bart Ehrman as well. I agree Jesus was an educated man.
Prof. Nadler: As in his highly selective misuse of the Gospels, Aslan is here distorting the Hebrew Scriptures, conflating different categories of “foreigners,” and erasing the crucial distinction between the righteous ger, or foreigner, and the pernicious idolator, as well as the radically different treatments the Torah commands towards each. He mischievously omits the Torah’s many and insistent prohibitions against “taunting the stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, having been strangers in the land of Egypt,” and “cheating the foreigner in your gate”, and, most powerfully, the injunction to “love the stranger as yourself.” (See, inter alia, Exodus 22:20 & 23:9, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 24:14.)
Steefen: I agree!
Prof. Nadler: What will prove most shocking, at least to those with some very basic Jewish education, are Aslan’s many distorted, or plainly ignorant, portrayals of both the Jews and their religion in Jesus’s day. Aside from his apparent unfamiliarity with the critically important recent works of Schäfer and Boyarin, Aslan seems oblivious of more than a century of scholarship on the exceedingly complex theological relationship between the earliest disciples of Jesus and the early rabbis. The foundational work of R. Travers Herford in Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903) and, three-quarters of a century later, Alan Segal’s Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (1977) are just two of the hundreds of vitally important books missing from his bibliography.
Steefen: I’ve read Jesus in the Talmud by Schafer. (I gave it 3 out of 5 stars.) I have not yet read Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903). I have not read Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (1977).
Prof. Nadler: That Aslan has not read Schäfer is made most painfully clear in his pat dismissal of the Roman historian Celsus’s report of having overheard a Jew declare that Jesus’s real father was not the Jew, Joseph, but rather a Roman centurion named Panthera. Aslan says that this is too scurrilous to be taken seriously. While it would be unfair to expect him to be familiar with the common Yiddish designation of Jesus as Yoshke-Pandre (Yeshua, son of Panthera), one might expect him to have read the fascinating chapter devoted to this very familiar and well-attested theme in rabbinic sources, in Schäfer’s Jesus in the Talmud.
Steefen: Your claim that Aslan should have read the book is invalid as explained above. Second, please explain how a Roman paternity and Roman citizenship while one is Jewish through a Jewish mother.
Prof. Nadler: to his truly shocking assertion that rabbinic sources attest to Judaism’s practice of crucifixion.
Steefen: I’m not shocked. See http://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/archaeology-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/josephus-references-to-crucifixion/
Prof. Nadler: On the other hand, Aslan weirdly accepts at face value, and even embellishes, the dramatic accounts in the Gospels of Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem allegedly just before the Passover, as the Jewish crowds wave palm branches and chant hosannas. But were he familiar with the basic rituals of the Sukkot festival, Aslan might somewhere have acknowledged the skepticism expressed by many scholars about the Gospels’ contrived timing of this dramatic event to coincide with Passover.
Steefen: Please explain.
Prof. Nadler: Finally, there is Aslan’s description of the fate of the Jews and Judaism in the wake of the destruction of the Temple. In his account, all of the Jews were exiled from Judea, and not so much of a trace of Judaism was allowed to survive in the Holy Land after 70 C.E.. Astonishingly enough, Aslan says not a word about the tremendously important armistice arranged between the pacifistic party of Jewish moderates led by Yochanan ben Zakai, or of the academy he established at Yavneh (Jabne, or Jamnia) some forty miles northwest of Jerusalem, and which flourished for more than a half-century, breathing new life and vitality into rabbinic Judaism in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. And none is less convenient than the fact that a significant, and ultimately dominant, faction of Jews of first-century Palestine, far from being nationalist zealots, were pacifists whose accord with Vespasian gave birth to the religion we today recognize as Judaism.
Steefen: “Pacifists whose accord with Vespasian..”
WHOAAA, WAIT A SECOND: Paid Pacifists who were of one accord with Vespasian. WE KNOW VESPASIAN GAVE YOHANAN JAVNEH and we know Vespasian gave Josephus land in the same area. WHY? Both Yohanan and Josephus called Vespasian king, messiah, and emperor. We know Josephus helped Vespasian and Titus defeat the Jewish revolt. To what extent Yohanan helped the Romans is TBD–but, Vespasian asked him (why play dead to escape Jerusalem,) why didn’t you come to me sooner?
Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said: Woe unto “him who makes himself alive by the name of god.”
Rabbi Johanan (ben Zakkai) replied: Woe to the nation that attempting to hinder the Holy One when he accomplishes the redemption of his children: who would throw his garment between a lion and a lioness when these are copulating?
– Talmud IV Sanhedrin 106a
Ralph Ellis in his book King Jesus: From Egypt (Kam) to Camelot (Chapter 10: Saul-Josephus and Modern Judaism) says: This extract says that Rabbi Lakish condemns “the one who resurrects himself by the name of god.” This is actually a coded reference to Jesus and the Talmudic notes confirms this.
So, Vespasian gives Josephus and Rabbi Johanan land on the plains outside of Jerusalem. The former has the Testimonium Flavianum (once thought to be a later insert) but the latter also defends an important part of the Gospel story.
Prof. Ehrman,
I found this in the LA Time Review of Zealot. Is this correct?
“Aslan had an epiphany, however, when presented with a basic fact of biblical scholarship: When Jesus called himself the Messiah, he had a specific Jewish idea in mind. In Jewish thought, he could never be a divine being.”
Christians made Jesus divine but Jesus did not believe he could be divine?
Maybe this is partly what it means when people say Jesus was Romanized because Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar were divii (divine). Also, Pharaohs, say 18th dynasty, were divine.
Well, the messiah *could* be divine. But he wasn’t for Jesus. I deal with this at length in my new book, where I argue that Christians came to think of Jesus as divine, although he did not see himself that way at ALL.
Jesus dies.
The Catholics say he went to visit the souls in Hell or something–I went to Catholic schools from 7th to 12th grade. I don’t quite remember.
2nd draft:
Jesus dies.
He ascends to Heaven where God transfigures him into the Son of Man.
Jesus comes out of his tomb on Easter Sunday as Son of Man to rule the Kingdom of God.
For Jesus to go from Healer-Teacher to a Son of Man, king of the Kingdom of God, with the Easter story, Jesus would have to be divine.
Dr. Ehrman, the Son of Man at the right hand of the Power HAS TO BE DIVINE.
Dr. Ehrman, you say the messiah could be divine, but he wasn’t for Jesus. Even without Jesus being transformed into the Son of Man between crucifixion and resurrection, if the messiah was the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power, how could he not be divine? Do you really explain in your book that Jesus did not see the Son of Man as divine given his proximity to the throne?
Most people didn’t think the Messiah was the Son of Man seated next to God on a throne.
“Jesus standing before Caiaphas quotes not only Daniel 7:13 but also Psalms 110:1 (The Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’). The integration of Daniel 7:13 and Psalms 110:1 according to T.F. Glasson (an author published by a university press–Cambridge University Press) is Jesus making a natural connection. Glasson notes that in Daniel, the coming of the Son of Man with the clouds of heaven symbolizes the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Once Jesus is exalted to the right hand of God, the kingdom he preached will emerge as the new community of saints. The reference to the Psalms demonstrates Jesus’s personal exaltation [to divinity] while the reference to Daniel indicates the inauguration of the kingdom on earth–an event that must begin with his death and resurrection.
Glasson believes that this is the moment when the two titles Messiah and Son of Man come together for Jesus.
(See page 256 of Aslan notes to Zealot’s Chapter 11.)
Dr. Ehrman, you must agree that while “most people didn’t think the Messiah was the Son of Man seated next to God on a throne,” Jesus reinterpreted the messianic title.
Yes, Dr. Ehrman: Jesus and Stephen the Martyr were killed for this reinterpretation but we cannot have Jesus’ Son of Man movement divorced from the concept of Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, our Savior.
So: I’d like to advance the discussion to this fork: either Jesus becomes divine at the right hand of God or Jesus is a human saint in heaven with his moment at the right hand of God.
(Given how large God can be, there can be many at the right hand of God.)
Dr. Ehrman,
“At UC Riverside, where Aslan teaches creative writing, his work was seen as weighty enough that the religious studies department has considered inviting him to become part of their faculty.”
Would your university do something like this? If a creative writing professor wrote Zealot, would it be good enough for him to teach one course in religious studies?
No, we would never do that at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Ohh-ho! Stephen Prothero goes beyond Professor Nadler in the Washington Post review of Zealot. See the last three paragraphs of his review.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth-by-reza-aslan/2013/08/02/029f6088-f087-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html
Great review!
Dr. Ehrman,
I realize I’m about 8 years late to the. party, but I just recently read Zealot and joined your blog and I would really like to have you opinion on something.
Judged as a scolarly historical work you’ve shown very well that Zealot is seriously lacking, but that’s not how I understand the book. I think Aslan was trying to create what he saw as a plausible narative of Jesus’ life. You’ve said multiple times that the job of a historian is to find what most probably happened, but when one constructs a narative one can’t say “this probably happened”, one has to say what happened and I would argue it’s perfectly valid to choose an option which is not the most probable as long as it’s not actually impossible. In this respect I think it’s more fair to compare Zealot with works of historical fiction, such as The Last Temptation of Christ. Judged by the standards of historical fiction, I would say Zealot was exceptionally well researched.
Do you think this is valid and more generally, by what standard do you think it’s fair to judge historical naratives of biblical figures?
I would not say it is historically well-researched, but I would say it is very well written. And Resa did not mean it to be a work of hitorical fiction. If you’ll read the rest of my posts on the book you’ll see some of the problems.
I read all of your posts before commenting. They were very informative!
What I meant was not that Zealot was meant as historical fiction, but that quite possibly it should be judged by those standards as opposed to the much stricter standards of, for example, your own historical books. My take on Aslan’s book is that he wasn’t trying to create a strictly historical account, he was trying to create a cohesive narative for Jesus, which is a different objective and so I’m personally willing to cut him some slack.
Aside from Zealot I was mainly curious by what standards you feel more narative or even historical fiction stories should be held.
He definitely was trying to give a strictly historical account. I think the standards for fiction involve it being interesting and written well, and hopefully thought provoking instead of brainless.
Re. “If the disciples were armed and fought those who came to arrest Jesus: why were they not arrested and tried as well,” Dale Martin provides what sounds like a strong counterargument in https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X14544863?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.2, and then further in his response to Paula Fredricksen’s critique of his paper.
How would you respond to Dale’s argument?
Ah, I forget his argument — could you summarize it to remind me? He and I had a long argument about it on a beach one time….
“Some scholars argue that Jesus must not be numbered among those rebellious Jews who occasionally rose up against the Romans because, when push came to shove, the Romans were content to execute Jesus without pursuing or attempting to capture or punish his followers (Sanders 1985: 294-318). But there is no reason why they would have done so. The Romans typically exerted themselves only enough to squash any rebellion. They felt no need to exert themselves more than was necessary. The Romans were pragmatists. When the so-called ‘Samaritan prophet’ promises to uncover the golden vessels that Moses had buried on Mount Gerizim, many people flock to him and arm themselves. Pilate responds by blocking their way up the mountain. Pilate has many of them killed in a skirmish and takes ‘many’ prisoners, but he then executes only the ‘principal leaders’. There is no mention of any attempt to pursue the many others who had fled. Pilate does not seem to care about the followers once he has killed the leaders and disbanded the group (Ant. 18.85-87).”
Yup, sounds like vintage Ed Sanders!
“Our Gospels are fairly unanimous in saying that upon his arrest Jesus’ followers fled into the night. If that actually happened, the Romans had no reason to get out of their barracks to chase them or hunt them down in the following days. The men who arrested Jesus in the night, by all our accounts, were either a mob or guards and police under the authority of the high priests and Sadducees, the authorities of the temple and thus of Judea under provincial Roman gubernatorial rule. Yet the execution of Jesus was done by the Romans. I consider it possible that Romans themselves arrested Jesus, and that later Christian accounts shifted the blame to Jewish authorities. But in either case, the Romans, once Jesus’ followers had fled into the night, had no reason to pursue them and attempt to arrest them also. They could see that, for the moment, they had taken care of the problem. With the ringleader in their hands, they could predict there would be no armed uprising the next day.31”
“The most obvious example of authorities executing a person suspected of rebellious leadership and yet not pursuing his followers is that of John the Baptist. According to Josephus (who differs here from our Gospels), Herod Antipas arrested and executed John because he was afraid John’s popularity might lead to some kind of uprising (Ant. 18.113-19). But Herod never made any attempt to pursue the followers of John. We hear of them present during Jesus’ ministry while John is in prison (Mt. 11.2 and par.), his disciples are said to retrieve and bury his body (Mk 6.29 and par.), and we see them still active during the time of the early church depicted by Acts (Acts 18.24-26; 19.1-7). Herod followed the Romans’ example: in the absence of an actual assembled and armed band or large mob, just kill the ringleader and let the mob disperse. Execute the leader, disperse the crowd, brush off your hands and go back to Caesarea or Jerusalem.30”
I wondered where I got that from. I thought it wsa someone else!