In his book How did Jesus Become God Dr. Ehrman doubts the synoptic explanation of Judas’s coalition with the Jerusalem aristocracy which has the aristocracy needing Judas to procure a time and place for a covert arrest.
Dr. Ehrman questions, “Why didn’t they (the aristocracy) just have him followed?” Dr. Ehrman instead thinks that the real arrangement between Judas and the aristocracy was the furnishment of evidence: Judas was needed to bear witness to Jesus’ (private) self-declaration as Messiah.
There are multiple problems.
First, there can be no doubt that it would in fact be difficult for the Aristocracy to find Jesus; this is the Passover. The streets are packed. This is not the modern era where one can say, “the guy in the tank top with the mohawk”. Everyone looks the same. So when Dr. Ehrman asks, “why wouldn’t they just have him followed?” it betrays an astonishing lack of historical imagination. Are we to think that as soon as Jesus created a ruckus on the temple precincts an elite member of Jewish society grabbed the nearest bystander and said, “follow that guy!”? Such operations as surveillance in an aristocracy requires a council. Councils need to be convened. That takes time. The council itself takes time. By the time the Jewish aristocracy had convened and concurred that Jesus was a threat, well, Jesus’ whereabouts could be anywhere. There was only one way to track him. They needed an inside man, and Judas turned up.
There is yet another problem with Dr. Ehrman’s thesis that Judas was needed as a witness Jesus’ royal pretensions. What good would it do to have Judas speak against him? Biblical law requires 2 witnesses and Judas is one man; and even in the slanted Gospel accounts we see that the aristocracy was not willing to take just any testimony: it was precisely because they could not find concurrent testimony that they had to address Jesus directly.
I therefore find Dr. Ehrman’s theory weak. But I would love to hear comments.
Stephen said
I think at any kind of disturbance in the Temple during Passover, Jesus would have been arrested outright. Consequently the events recorded in the gospels between the Temple incident and the crucifixion, the trials and Judas’ betrayal, are probably not historical.
What about the explanation advanced to that objection in the synoptics, that the Temple hierarchy were afraid of the crowd?
While it’s inclusion is no proof of its historical accuracy, its inclusion would seem to indicate it was considered a plausible answer to that objection. If its plausible, we can’t conclude that he would have necessarily been arrested after causing a ruckus in the outer courtyard of the Temple.
Stephen said
I think at any kind of disturbance in the Temple during Passover, Jesus would have been arrested outright. Consequently the events recorded in the gospels between the Temple incident and the crucifixion, the trials and Judas’ betrayal, are probably not historical.
arrested immediately? for doing what? and this is during the Passover. there are hundreds of thousands of people. the mindset of every authority is not, as the gospel presents it, ON JESUS.
historically, every authoritative figure has a shit ton of responsibilities to think about during the passover. They are not sitting around lying in wait for Jesus to screw up.
Your assessment lacks historical imagination. One must imagine Jerusalem during the Passover and all that that massive holiday means for the aristocracy. They are busy, busy people.
Your answer that authorities would be on the scene “outright” betrays anachronism: even today, with automobiles, emergency vehicles take time to arrive at a scene. You think that the “authorities”, “on foot” would be there immediately?
Stop. Close your eyes. Imagine the scene. Imagine what it would take to create a movie of the scene. And make all that historically plausible.
Robert said
brown.connor4 said
… I therefore find Dr. Ehrman’s theory weak. But I would love to hear comments.I’m not familiar with all of the details of Bart’s view, but if memory serves (and at my age it oftentimes does not), I seem to recall that Bart believes that Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah but did not proclaim himself to be so publically. So one of his disciples would have been needed to reveal this to local authorities. And the Roman-installed local aristocratic sunedrion in Jerusalem, which was specifically tasked over its 80+-year history with replacing, limiting, or reporting any exercise or claim to royal authority would have found and dutifully punished or turned over to Pilate (at the time of Passover when he was present in the city) for punishment.
that is Dr. Ehrman’s view.
What is interesting, is that none of the gospels have Judas testify to any authority. Surely that is strange for Dr. ehrman’s view, yes?
Jesus gets arrested and tried without Judas.
So why does Dr. Ehrman think it so important that Judas is required to testify against Jesus?
Dr. Ehrman himself does not think Judas was present at the trial.
So why do we need Judas’ testimony when it is never used?
Answer….Dr. Ehrman’s theory is fascinating but wrong. Judas offered his services to the Jewish government precisely to inform them of a time and place when they could arrest Jesus without upsetting the Galilean sympathizers, who would all be asleep and preparing for Passover.
brown.connor4 said
Stephen said
I think at any kind of disturbance in the Temple during Passover, Jesus would have been arrested outright. Consequently the events recorded in the gospels between the Temple incident and the crucifixion, the trials and Judas’ betrayal, are probably not historical.
arrested immediately? for doing what? and this is during the Passover. there are hundreds of thousands of people. the mindset of every authority is not, as the gospel presents it, ON JESUS.
historically, every authoritative figure has a shit ton of responsibilities to think about during the passover. They are not sitting around lying in wait for Jesus to screw up.
Your assessment lacks historical imagination. One must imagine Jerusalem during the Passover and all that that massive holiday means for the aristocracy. They are busy, busy people.
Your answer that authorities would be on the scene “outright” betrays anachronism: even today, with automobiles, emergency vehicles take time to arrive at a scene. You think that the “authorities”, “on foot” would be there immediately?
Stop. Close your eyes. Imagine the scene. Imagine what it would take to create a movie of the scene. And make all that historically plausible.
Jesus’ lack of distinction is precisely my point. The Passover was a time of added tension. The Romans were in Town. The Temple Authorities would have been especially sensitive to disturbances on the Temple Mount. There had been incidents before to which the Romans had responded in their normal gentle fashion. The collaboration between the Temple Authorities and the Romans was wildly unpopular. Any disturbance, any disturbance, not just Jesus, on the Temple Mount, would have been treated as an implicit attack on the Temple system.
With the Temple security on heightened alert because of the Passover, and with the Romans hovering nearby, how could Jesus have gotten off the Temple Mount unmolested after some kind of disturbance? Jesus would been treated like anyone else. He would have been immediately arrested and executed as a political agitator. Neither the Temple Authorities nor the Romans would have cared a whit about Jesus’ “ideas”. The “trials” in the gospels are fantasies. He was treated like any other troublemaker. There were hundreds of thousands in Jerusalem, not in the Temple. For Jesus to magically slip out of the Temple, that would be special!
Robert said
brown.connor4 said
that is Dr. Ehrman’s view.
What is interesting, is that none of the gospels have Judas testify to any authority. Surely that is strange for Dr. ehrman’s view, yes?I don’t think it’s strange. The trials of Jesus, as they are presented in the gospels are theological fiction, at times with great dramatic flourish; they are anything but an historical account of whatever actually occurred.
Jesus gets arrested and tried without Judas.
So why does Dr. Ehrman think it so important that Judas is required to testify against Jesus?Because Bart does not think Jesus publically proclaimed himself to be the Messiah.
Dr. Ehrman himself does not think Judas was present at the trial.
So why do we need Judas’ testimony when it is never used?Who’s to say if there even was a trial? According to Bart, the ‘testimony’ of Judas was used, was even essential.
Answer….Dr. Ehrman’s theory is fascinating but wrong. Judas offered his services to the Jewish government precisely to inform them of a time and place when they could arrest Jesus without upsetting the Galilean sympathizers, who would all be asleep and preparing for Passover.
Is your view merely based upon accepting a higher degree of historicity of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ arrest and trial?
First, I notice you don’t quote and respond to my full sentences.
Second, you use the term “theological” in a very confusing way. Do you simply mean, fiction?
My view is that Jesus was in fact crucified. Starting there, I backtrack and ask, how does Jesus get to the cross? It seems unlikely that Pilate arrested and tried him independently. Thus the gospel tradition that has the Jewish aristocracy arrest Jesus and determine he is a threat enough to present to Pilate is plausible and should be accepted (granted, a hyperskeptic could launch all sorts of “maybe’s”; but good historians adhere to Occam’s Razor).
“According to Bart, the testimony of Judas was used and even essential”. I have not come across such a statement from Dr. Ehrman. I would be shocked if Dr. Ehrman ever gave one. There would be zero reason for any gospel writer to strike Judas’ public testimony against Jesus if such a testimony occurred. The fact that Judas is portrayed as a traitor against Jesus in every gospel but is also absent from the public hearings strongly suggests that, well, Judas betrayed Jesus but was absent from the public hearings.
Robert said
brown.connor4 said
First, I notice you don’t quote and respond to my full sentences.In my Post #8, I quoted the entirety of your Post #6. Is there a sentence you think I cut off?
Second, you use the term “theological” in a very confusing way. Do you simply mean, fiction?
Sorry you’re confused. I think Mark’s account of Jesus’ trail is fictional, perhaps an historical fiction if a trial before Pilate actually took place. Insofar as it also pertains to theological matters (God, the Son of Man from the book of Daniel) I refer to it as theological fiction.
My view is that Jesus was in fact crucified. Starting there, I backtrack and ask, how does Jesus get to the cross? It seems unlikely that Pilate arrested and tried him independently. Thus the gospel tradition that has the Jewish aristocracy arrest Jesus and determine he is a threat enough to present to Pilate is plausible and should be accepted (granted, a hyperskeptic could launch all sorts of “maybe’s”; but good historians adhere to Occam’s Razor).
Yes, I am aware of your view but I quote it here anyway because you seem sensitive to your whole post not being quoted or responded to in its entirety.
“According to Bart, the testimony of Judas was used and even essential”. I have not come across such a statement from Dr. Ehrman. I would be shocked if Dr. Ehrman ever gave one.
Probably because you’re assuming that I or Bart are speaking of Judas’ testimony at a trial before Pilate. Recall that I’m not convinced Jesus had a trial before Pilate, ‘though I think Bart may accept that Jesus had a trial before Pilate. But Bart is speaking of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus to the Jewish authorities, namely that he and his followers believed him to be the Messiah. Neither Bart nor I am speaking of Judas’ public testimony at a trial of Jesus before Pilate.
There would be zero reason for any gospel writer to strike Judas’ public testimony against Jesus if such a testimony occurred. The fact that Judas is portrayed as a traitor against Jesus in every gospel but is also absent from the public hearings strongly suggests that, well, Judas betrayed Jesus but was absent from the public hearings.
As far as I know, no one has ever claimed that a gospel author struck Judas’ public testimony at a trial before Pilate.
Here is from Dr. Ehrman, pg. 120-25 How Jesus Became God:
“I want to reflect on what it was that Judas actually betrayed…”
“according to the gospels…Judas appears to have been hired to lead the authorities to Jesus so they could arrest him…I’ve always been suspicious…”
“…if Jesus never preached in public that he was the future king but this was the charge leveled against him at his trial, how did outsiders come to know of it?”
“The simplest answer is that this is what Judas betrayed…”
“…he told the Jewish authorities what Jesus was actually teaching in private, and it was all they needed…”.
As for your last line, as far as I know that is true; no one, including me. Judas was absent from any court hearings, either dead or planning his death. What I argue against Dr. Ehrman is this:
1) The reason given by the gospels for Judas’ involvement–to lead the authorities to Jesus covertly–has more historical weight than Dr. Ehrman’s speculation that all of that was made up and the real reason for the coalition was to pin Jesus with Messianic pretensions. Dr. Ehrman’s comment that the authorities could easily have employed their own to follow Jesus betrays a lack of historical imagination, see the OP above.
2) Judas’ testimony would have been insufficient in a Jewish court. According to Torah, two witnesses are required. The authorities know this. They would not recruit a single person to testify against Jesus. Thus again, the reason given by the gospels has the stronger claim.
Stephen said
I think at any kind of disturbance in the Temple during Passover, Jesus would have been arrested outright. Consequently the events recorded in the gospels between the Temple incident and the crucifixion, the trials and Judas’ betrayal, are probably not historical.
Outright? As in, within thirty seconds of the disturbance? You seem to attribute an almost supernatural alertness and initiative to these very. very busy men. They have a thousand things on their minds. You seem to think that because WE are concerned with Jesus then THEY must be concerned with Jesus.
I promise you that is not how real life works. News would’ve come to them. They would’ve been unsettled. But there was no violence. It would have, no doubt, been weird. but they would have had to convene to discuss. That is how these things work in every situation involving authorities.
Your response betrays a lack historical imagination.
brown.connor4 said
Stephen said
I think at any kind of disturbance in the Temple during Passover, Jesus would have been arrested outright. Consequently the events recorded in the gospels between the Temple incident and the crucifixion, the trials and Judas’ betrayal, are probably not historical.
Outright? As in, within thirty seconds of the disturbance? You seem to attribute an almost supernatural alertness and initiative to these very. very busy men. They have a thousand things on their minds. You seem to think that because WE are concerned with Jesus then THEY must be concerned with Jesus.
I promise you that is not how real life works. News would’ve come to them. They would’ve been unsettled. But there was no violence. It would have, no doubt, been weird. but they would have had to convene to discuss. That is how these things work in every situation involving authorities.
Your response betrays a lack historical imagination.
I answered this already.
When a robber runs out of the store as the police arrive they arrest him …outright. The authorities were primed for disturbances in the Temple at Passover. They wouldn’t have given the proverbial plugged nickel what Jesus’ grievance was. The disturbance itself was the crime.
Before you accuse me of a “lack of historical imagination” perhaps you should educate yourself about the situation with the Temple. Based on the information we have from Josephus/Talmud/Mishnah a strict watch was maintained. The Temple guard was composed of three priests and twenty-one Levites. The priests were stationed at important strategic points. The Levites kept guard at all the Temple gates and at all the enclosures and courts. Anyone found lax in their attention was subject to the punishment of having their shirt set afire while they were wearing it! These folks were serious. This was the only non-Roman armed force permitted by the Romans.
A Roman cohort, say 500 soldiers, were stationed in the Antonia Fortress which directly overlooked the Temple Mount. They routinely patrolled the Temple porticoes to maintain order.
The Passover was a super-sensitive time. There had been incidents before and the Passover was frequently used by Jews to express nationalist independence sentiments.
Now I ask, again. Given this reality how in the heck could Jesus have created some kind of disturbance in the Temple at Passover and escaped unmolested from the Temple Mount? It seems unlikely. He would have been detained and immediately turned over to the Romans. The Romans would have assumed he was some kind of political agitator and sentenced him to death.
The accounts of the trials in the gospels make good drama but are fanciful. The account of the trial before the Sanhedrin violates what we know about how they operated. Are we to imagine that all capital offenders got a personal interview with the Roman Governor?
Several scholars argue that the character of Judas was a literary creation, perhaps invented to mitigate the culpability of the other disciples in abandoning Jesus and as an anti-Jewish polemic. They note that the details of the account seem lifted from several Old Testament passages.
Anything else?
Stephen said
.. Now I ask, again. Given this reality how in the heck could Jesus have created some kind of disturbance in the Temple at Passover and escaped unmolested from the Temple Mount? …
Not answering on behalf of anyone else, but one of the more plausible stories would be with the connivance of enough in the crowd. That would reinforce why the Temple authorities would want to have someone from Jesus’ inner circle to make an accusation which would turn the crowd against Jesus, with the crowd turning against Jesus later dramatized into the historical fiction scene of the freeing of Barabbas.
I wonder whether the author of John is aware of this weakness in the story as told when he has Jesus constantly slipping away from the authorities in earlier confrontations, so that slipping away again at this confrontation doesn’t stand out.
>> how in the heck could Jesus have created some kind of disturbance in the Temple at Passover and escaped unmolested from the Temple Mount?
I’m going to argue both sides here.
But (as Bruce and Connor have suggested, to say nothing of the gospels themselves), *if* Jesus appeared to have popular support from the crowd, the authorities may have found themselves in a situation where they could not take him in that moment without serious risk.
I once thought the story of Judas was too embarrassing to have been fiction. Starting from that, I reasoned back and concluded that the passion narratives (from the triumphal entry through the crucifixion) were basically right in broad strokes: Lots of people had heard of Jesus, he was a popular figure who could draw a rowdy crowd, that at least looked like it might be ready to fight for him. At passover, the population of Jerusalem would have swelled, and the Roman garrison–even reinforced for the holiday–was not nearly sufficient to suppress a full on riot. If Jesus popped up unexpectedly, when a crowd was already assembled, the crowd would be his protection because the authorities (not specifically prepared for the disturbance) could not apprehend him without risking a dangerous riot that they were not positioned to control effectively. But if they could take him while he was away from the crowd, so that by the time the populace woke up he was already secured in the praetorium, they might neutralize him without inciting a riot (since no one in the crowd wants to be the first person to charge into a fortified position, well guarded by soldiers prepared for a potential fight). Basically, the Romans, by apprehending him secretly, got to control the battlefield (and the psychology), in a way they could not if he simply popped up. There is a huge tactical difference between, in the moment, sending a handful of soldiers into a crowd to arrest a popular figure the crowd supports, and controlling a crowd after arresting the popular figure in the dark of night and securing him in a fortified position.
I am still tempted by that.
But I also became uneasy with how heavily the whole chain of reasoning relied on the criterion of embarrassment. Second, third, and fourth century Christians may have been embarrassed by Judas, but who’s to say that *Mark* was embarrassed by Judas? Mark is marked by his storytelling, and Judas’s betrayal is a fantastic plot point. So it could well be that Mark just made the whole thing up.
Yes, there is indeed a view in which to have a Son of God, Crucified, you need to have it be the fault of someone other than the reputed Son of God making a blunder of some kind, so that rather than being embarrassing, having him be handed over by one of his disciples who has turned traitor in secret may be the strongest dramatic move.
One way to sort things out are in terms of the public events and the private events. The public events are the entry on the back of a donkey, the disputations in the temple courtyard, and the upsetting the tables of the money changers, some form of turmoil when Jesus is presented as a criminal to be crucified, and the crucifixion. The private events are discussions and prayers in the Mount of Olives, the last supper, the arrest at the Mount of Olives, the trial at the Sanhedrin, the judgement of Pilate, and the treatment of Jesus by the soldiers before being taken to be crucified.
While details could well evolve, if there is a growing community of followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, after his crucifixion, it seems like there is more probably than not some kernel of truth to the stories about the public events, with the headwinds even stronger if there was nothing to the stories than if there was some kernel of events there for the stories to grow upon. But that argument for a more likely than not kernel of truth for the public events does not apply to the private events.
Still tales grow in the telling. Riding into Jerusalem on a Donkey accompanied by a walking demonstration of supporters waving palm fronds can turn into the road being lined with those in Jerusalem for the Passover waving palm fronds, clever rejoinders by Jesus’ opponents in disputations need not be repeated, confronting and haranguing the money changers in the Temple courtyard can become overturning their tables and lashing them with a whip, a demonstration against his arrest met with a larger counter-demonstration in favor of his arrest organized by the Temple hierarchy can turn into the whole hardly credible story of the release of Barabbas, and so on.
And it seems that Judas is primarily in the private events, which on that argument are even murkier than whatever was the kernel of truth behind the public events.
>> One way to sort things out are in terms of the public events and the private events.
Yes, and there was a time I found that compelling, but the more I’ve thought on it, the less convinced I am that we can presume Mark’s big public events were rooted in history.
Amplifying what I said earlier: I’m now torn between two fundamentally different approaches to holy week.
The one, historicizing, approach says that Judas did betray Jesus–and that makes sense if those big public events happened. Judas may have lost faith in Jesus at some point (one to many failed miracles?). When Jesus started doing thing like riding into Jerusalem while the crowd shouted Hosanna, or having open confrontations in the temple courtyard, he realized he couldn’t just stay quiet and ride it out. He saw where this train was headed. A Passover crowd might overrun the local Roman garrison, and drag Pilate through the streets, but he knew that eventually the legions from Syria would show up and a lot of Jews would die (as actually did happen a few decades later). That is the sort of calculus that could plausibly explain why someone would turn an intimate over to be tortured to death.
The other side says, wait a second, maybe Mark was just telling a really good story. The presumption that his readers would naturally fact-check him seems naive; just look how many people today, when we all have pocket computers that put practically all of human knowledge at our fingertips 24/7, can’t be bothered to check even basic facts. Would readers in Rome, or Alexandria, or Antioch go running off to Jerusalem to conduct interviews to confirm what happened four decades earlier?
Porphyry said
>> One way to sort things out are in terms of the public events and the private events.
Yes, and there was a time I found that compelling, but the more I’ve thought on it, the less convinced I am that we can presume Mark’s big public events were rooted in history.
Amplifying what I said earlier: I’m now torn between two fundamentally different approaches to holy week.
The one, historicizing, approach says that Judas did betray Jesus–and that makes sense if those big public events happened. Judas may have lost faith in Jesus at some point (one to many failed miracles?). When Jesus started doing thing like riding into Jerusalem while the crowd shouted Hosanna, or having open confrontations in the temple courtyard, he realized he couldn’t just stay quiet and ride it out. He saw where this train was headed. A Passover crowd might overrun the local Roman garrison, and drag Pilate through the streets, but he knew that eventually the legions from Syria would show up and a lot of Jews would die (as actually did happen a few decades later). That is the sort of calculus that could plausibly explain why someone would turn an intimate over to be tortured to death.
This can, it would seem, be intertwined with an “Essene-Like” Two Messiahs being pursued by John the Baptizer evolving, after John’s death, into a unified both Royal and Priestly Messiah story, with Judas coming in on board with supporting the soon to be Royal Messiah, and Hosannah, Hosannah, but now Jesus is switching into the Priestly Messiah shtick, haranguing the money changers in the Temple, and “wait a minute, this isn’t what I signed up for”. “What’s with this, it’s not the job of the King-To-Be to be haranguing money changers in the Temple courtyard and start acting like a Prophet”.
The other side says, wait a second, maybe Mark was just telling a really good story. The presumption that his readers would naturally fact-check him seems naive; just look how many people today, when we all have pocket computers that put practically all of human knowledge at our fingertips 24/7, can’t be bothered to check even basic facts. Would readers in Rome, or Alexandria, or Antioch go running off to Jerusalem to conduct interviews to confirm what happened four decades earlier?
But scribes who will copy your evangelion for free are not a dime a dozen in the 1st century CE … it has to be popular enough to get copied in order to be encountered all the way from Alexandria to Rome to Antioch, to the Greek heartland. If it’s at least close enough to the stories that have been heard, and has a bunch of extra inside goss besides, there’s a recipe to get copied.
The argument isn’t about a skeptical “let’s check it out”, it’s about the Mark text satisfying enough confirmation biases already in place that the “new information” in Mark gets to come along for the ride.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)