Hello everyone,
I have always been a little puzzled when Bart Ehrman argues that Jesus was rejected by most of his contemporaries. I am sure this is true, but what does this actually mean? Bernie Sanders is also rejected by most of his contemporaries, yet he is very popular. OK, maybe this is a bad comparison. I sometimes like comparing Jesus’ movement to the hippie era in the 1960s, because they were also teaching peace and love and telling people to “drop out” etc. Someone like Timothy Leary, for instance, was rejected or even hated by many of his contemporaries, but he was still *very* popular. Is this a good comparison? Or was Jesus actually considered to be weird and obscure by virtually everyone outside his small group of followers?
I read Bart’s book “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium” (which I think is a very good book), but I have not quite figured out what it actually means when he writes that Jesus was rejected by most people.
If anyone on here understands what Bart is trying to say, or if anyone has an own idea of how popular Jesus really was during his lifetime and what kind of popularity he had, I would be happy if you could share your views here.
Thank you
PhilipS said
Hello everyone,I have always been a little puzzled when Bart Ehrman argues that Jesus was rejected by most of his contemporaries. I am sure this is true, but what does this actually mean? Bernie Sanders is also rejected by most of his contemporaries, yet he is very popular. OK, maybe this is a bad comparison. I sometimes like comparing Jesus’ movement to the hippie era in the 1960s, because they were also teaching peace and love and telling people to “drop out” etc. Someone like Timothy Leary, for instance, was rejected or even hated by many of his contemporaries, but he was still *very* popular. Is this a good comparison? Or was Jesus actually considered to be weird and obscure by virtually everyone outside his small group of followers?
I read Bart’s book “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium” (which I think is a very good book), but I have not quite figured out what it actually means when he writes that Jesus was rejected by most people.If anyone on here understands what Bart is trying to say, or if anyone has an own idea of how popular Jesus really was during his lifetime and what kind of popularity he had, I would be happy if you could share your views here.
Thank you
Think your comparison with hippies is a bit off. That someone is ignored by their peers, doesn’t mean they are unpopular. Not sure how the response by one group means another group must be the same. Karl Marx was ignored by economists during his life. His ideas became increasingly popular. His contribution to economics was 0, but he contributed a set of powerful, dramatic ideas to people who had no interest in Economics.
The question about Jesus popularity seems more complicated if only because of the amount of time. I doubt he was as popular as the NT claims. To be sure, we can say he seems to have attracted followers the disciples and some benefactors to fund his ministry.
I remember reading a book in college about this topic and the argument is that many Scholars feel that Jesus had a ministry that was under the radar and at his time was not well known. His ministry may have actually been short 3-6 months maybe and then when he went to Jerusalem he caused trouble and was executed for it. I think this is highly possible. He may not have had as many followers as the NT suggests and had a short ministry that ended quickly. The NT makes it seem like he was famous throughout Israel. But the truth may be that he went by virtually unnoticed which is why no contemporary source wrote about him.
I doubt he was very popular, but he was popular enough for there to have been, almost immediately after his death, several competing Jesus groups. I say he probably wasn’t very popular because, during his lifetime, if the Gospels are to be believed, he was at odds with the Pharisees, the priestly elite, the Romans, and he was also somewhat lax with regards to Mosaic Law. He was also willing to spend time with the lowest castes of Jewish society like the sick, lepers (even worse than people who were merely sick), the demonically possessed, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. How popular would that have made him with those in higher levels of social strata?
That said, he was still popular enough for there to have been, according to some scholars, several competing Jesus groups almost immediately after his death. There was the Q community, the Thomasine community, the “Jerusalem pillars” and the various communities spreading various oral traditions (although those would not have necessarily been different from the previous three in my opinion). This is to say nothing of Pauline Christianity which was different from ALL the others.
Greg Matthews said
I doubt he was very popular, but he was popular enough for there to have been, almost immediately after his death, several competing Jesus groups. I say he probably wasn’t very popular because, during his lifetime, if the Gospels are to be believed, he was at odds with the Pharisees, the priestly elite, the Romans, and he was also somewhat lax with regards to Mosaic Law. He was also willing to spend time with the lowest castes of Jewish society like the sick, lepers (even worse than people who were merely sick), the demonically possessed, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. How popular would that have made him with those in higher levels of social strata?That said, he was still popular enough for there to have been, according to some scholars, several competing Jesus groups almost immediately after his death. There was the Q community, the Thomasine community, the “Jerusalem pillars” and the various communities spreading various oral traditions (although those would not have necessarily been different from the previous three in my opinion). This is to say nothing of Pauline Christianity which was different from ALL the others.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you say, I’m just thinking we should differentiate between popularity and being well known. A person can be popular within a small group but not very well known outside that group.
Greg Matthews said
Ok but what’s the point in caring how popular he was? Maybe personally he was a real bastard, but a bastard who had mind blowing ideas. But what of interest does that illustrate?
I think it gives a more historically accurate picture of Jesus and his ministry and answers some important questions. For example, the NT paints a picture of Jesus that was well known and drews thousands of people wherever he went. Also, he supposedly did all these miracles such as raising the dead. Certainly, that would have lead to someone writing about him during his life and ministry, but there is not. If the more accurate picture is that Jesus had a short ministry and a small group of followers, and that would account for the reason nobody wrote about him during his life time.
We’ll never know the historical Jesus. You should forget about that possibility. Paul tells us practically nothing about the man Jesus (he wasn’t interested in the man). The earliest Gospel, Mark, was written nearly 2 generations after Jesus and the others were more than 3 generations later. Forget the picture the NT paints of Jesus. Each author had an agenda, sometimes multiple agendas. Taking into account the Gospel of Thomas there are at least 4 depictions of Jesus (I don’t know how finely you can split Matthew and Luke) and they can’t all be right. So, what to believe? Describing historical facts was probably way down the list of important “things to do” when those Gospels were written. That’s not to say there is no historicity, but the bits that are known to be historical are few and far between.
Greg wrote
We’ll never know the historical Jesus.
Well yeah barring any unexpected and unlikely discovery there is a sense in which the historical Jesus will forever be occluded. (In that sense it doesn’t matter whether he actually existed or not. Christianity certainly exists.) But I’m not nearly as despairing as some. I think Mark 1:15 expresses the teaching of the historical Jesus and I think we have pre-Easter historical memories captured in the gospels. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ethical teachings encapsulated in the “Sermon on the Mount” go back to Jesus though perhaps not that neatly expressed.
I’m becoming more and more interested in the figure of Jesus as a literary character which is of course not identical to the historical Jesus. Sometimes I worry that in trying to pick apart the literary sources to penetrate to some essential historical reality behind them we are doing violence to the intention of the writers. It’s like trying to see the back of the Mona Lisa’s head. We can imagine the back of her head and probably develop a reasonable idea of what it looks like but that’s not what the artist was presenting to us. And that’s all we can guarantee that we have is what the artist is presenting to us.
Stephen said
I think Mark 1:15 expresses the teaching of the historical Jesus and I think we have pre-Easter historical memories captured in the gospels. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ethical teachings encapsulated in the “Sermon on the Mount” go back to Jesus though perhaps not that neatly expressed.
Of course, but none of that is the man, the historical Jesus. To make matters worse, how do you separate the agenda of the authors of the Gospels from the actual teachings of Jesus? You can’t because none of those authors were writing for a large audience. They were each writing for their own communities and the community of Mark was far from concerned with the community of John which had very specific concerns. At best, all we can say is “this pericope probably has some basis in oral tradition”. “Oral tradition” should not be confused with historical fact either (for obvious reasons for those who have read the book 
).
Well I’m not sure it’s that hopeless. After all looking at our sources it appears that Jesus wasn’t that unique. Apparently in first century Palestine you couldn’t shake a stick without hitting a self-appointed divine prophet each with his own little group of disciples. Jesus’ followers just happened to be the ones that went on to found an organization that developed into a major world religion. That’s what makes him seem special not anything specific about himself. I suspect if you could actually interview him you would find a garden variety first century Jewish apocalyptic fanatic who would wear out his welcome real quick. What else would you want to really know about him?
Liam Foley said
Certainly, that would have lead to someone writing about him during his life and ministry, but there is not. If the more accurate picture is that Jesus had a short ministry and a small group of followers, and that would account for the reason nobody wrote about him during his life time.
That’s a pretty modern assumption. Given that literacy, at that time and place, has been reliably estimated (see Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine) to be about 3% , I don’t see why one would assume that 1.) anyone one would have run home and started writing about this guy when most people probably did not even know how to read, much less write 2.) You confuse whether people would have written about him with whether we have anything someone might have written.
I certainly don’t think he was as popular as the NT makes out. I suspect his ministry lasted about a year. Consider, that he had benefactors financing his ministry. So I don’t see him as an “apocalyptic fanatic who would wear out his welcome real quick” given that his benefactors would have needed to be impressed enough by him to give him money. It’s highly probable, that he was simply unknown even within the communities he preached in.
I am just trying to figure out what historians like Bart mean when they say that Jesus was rejected by most of his contemporaries. Many people who are rejected by the majority of people they have contact with can nonetheless be very well known and very popular at the same time. Or was Jesus more like a salafi preacher in the West today, whom virtually everyone rejects, but who has a small number of very devout followers? There is a big difference between these two kinds of popularity.
Bart intimates in a lecture that maybe people in Jerusalem have heard of Jesus even before he went there: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
How can he be both not well known and rejected by most people, yet people have heard of him in Jerusalem? If word of Jesus’ ministry could have spread so far, he must have been very well known in Galilee.
spiker wrote
So I don’t see him as an “apocalyptic fanatic who would wear out his welcome real quick” given that his benefactors would have needed to be impressed enough by him to give him money.
Well my comment was written from TODAY’S perspective of course. In first century Palestine they would have lapped it up and his actual popularity is still an open question.
Stephen said
spiker wroteSo I don’t see him as an “apocalyptic fanatic who would wear out his welcome real quick” given that his benefactors would have needed to be impressed enough by him to give him money.
Well my comment was written from TODAY’S perspective of course. In first century Palestine they would have lapped it up and his actual popularity is still an open question.
No doubt, most if not all, inhabitants of the first century would quickly wear out their welcome today. But bare in mind, the crop of messiah’s available (The life of Brian may not have been too far off on that score 🙂 ) and those we know of that had some degree of success. I agree the question is still very much open; although most of us probably reject the level of popularity conveyed by the NT. Careful consideration of indicators like benefactors, demographics etc could give us a better guesstimate.
We would also want to consider how popular a message including the idea that God would overthrow his enemies (the Romans no doubt) would have been.
By popular do we mean well liked? well known. We can probably agree that a person who is popular in the sense of being well known is not necessarily well liked and vice versa. Permit me the comparison, Karl Marx was probably well known, but he was completely ignored by his contemporaries in economics.
In his post today discussing his next book, Ehrman gives us another metric to look at the question of popularity:
“I will also explain the most reasonable view that by the beginning of the fourth century Christianity had moved from, say, 20 followers of Jesus in Jerusalem to being something like 5% of the empire….”
The piece I am interested in here is the estimate of 20 followers. What does that tell us about the question of popularity?
Stephen said
I think Mark 1:15 expresses the teaching of the historical Jesus and I think we have pre-Easter historical memories captured in the gospels. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ethical teachings encapsulated in the “Sermon on the Mount” go back to Jesus though perhaps not that neatly expressed.
What’s interesting here is that much of our understanding of Christianity, what Jesus meant, etc is derived from the reformation. Similarly, it seems the understanding of the Gospel writers may have been this deeply affected by Easter sensibilities. How dependent were the gospel writers on the Easter tradition for their understanding of pre easter memories. Conversely, how many pre-Easter historical memories were shaped by Easter, if you will and can you really separate them?
spiker said
In his post today discussing his next book, Ehrman gives us another metric to look at the question of popularity:“I will also explain the most reasonable view that by the beginning of the fourth century Christianity had moved from, say, 20 followers of Jesus in Jerusalem to being something like 5% of the empire….”
The piece I am interested in here is the estimate of 20 followers. What does that tell us about the question of popularity?
Hello spiker,
Well the number of followers does not tell us much about his popularity. He could have been revered by hundreds or even thousands, but only have a small group of close followers, I would think.
Again: Ehrman thinks people may have heard of Jesus in Jerusalem before he even went there. That would suggest that he was at least very well known in Galilee.
Greg Matthews said
Seems to me with all these different angles of looking at this that some of you guys keep pointing out that you want to make out like Jesus could have had a single follower and been the most popular person of all time.
LOL!
With the estimate of 20 followers, we can take the NT claim of 70 or more with a grain of salt. It sounds like a reasonable figure considering Jesus origins etc.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert