Dr Ehrman wrote
A compelling reason for thinking so is this: if Christians later wanted to MAKE UP a charge against Jesus – that is, if they wanted to invent a reason for Pilate wanting Jesus’ death – they would NOT have made up the charge that he called himself the King of the Jews. Why is that? Because early Christians, so far as we know, never called Jesus the King of the Jews.
i saw carriers reply to a question asked about pilates question
i quote
That’s a literary story, using the technique of irony: Mark is having Pilate accidentally admit that Jesus is the King of the Jews, meaning the Lord of the Kingdom of God. The same technique appears later when he has a Roman official (the Centurion) admit at the crucifixion that Jesus is The Son of God. He uses a converse technique in the same sequence when he has “false witnesses” proclaim that Jesus will tear down the temple (the author knowing that in fact the Romans will), when what they are quoting is the parable intended to communicate something greater, that Jesus will destroy the entire universe, and replace our thus-destroyed bodies with new ones (the general resurrection). The technique appears again earlier in the narrative when Mark has the Jews marvel at the work of his hands (miracles) and say “Is this not the carpenter?” The word actually being craftsman, a common word for the Creator. Thus they inadvertently admitted that Jesus was God’s appointed agent of creation (one of the few covert references to the cosmological truths behind the mundane narrative of Mark). And so on. Mark uses this device a lot (e.g. in his many reversals of expectation, such as having the least be first to discover the empty tomb, or to have a different Peter carry the cross after Jesus had earlier said the apostle Peter should).
Richard Carrier has a vivid imagination. He’s a mythicist. Everything he says is something to further that agenda. He believes Jesus never existed and the authors of the Gospels made everything up. As such, what he’s saying is that Mark put words on the lips of the historical Pilate which resulted in Pilate asking Jesus if he were the King of the Jews. For Carrier this is merely a literary technique to “get the idea out there” if you will. The idea being the “fact” that Mark, according to Carrier, wanted his audience to think that the made up character of Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews and the way to achieve this is to put the question on Pilate’s lips.
The same goes for the other claims of Carrier in your quote.
gmatthews said
Richard Carrier has a vivid imagination. He’s a mythicist. Everything he says is something to further that agenda. He believes Jesus never existed and the authors of the Gospels made everything up. As such, what he’s saying is that Mark put words on the lips of the historical Pilate which resulted in Pilate asking Jesus if he were the King of the Jews. For Carrier this is merely a literary technique to “get the idea out there” if you will. The idea being the “fact” that Mark, according to Carrier, wanted his audience to think that the made up character of Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews and the way to achieve this is to put the question on Pilate’s lips.The same goes for the other claims of Carrier in your quote.
I think you’re right about this one. Most of Carriers thinking is agenda driven supposition . All things being equal Mark could be doing as Carrier contends or not. BUT if Mark is just getting Pilate to confirm Jesus status, why not ask if he is the Messiah, son of god, etc.
One might object that only the “king of the Jews charge” would be the only one Rome would care about; a political charge; yet
a claim of being Messiah, even in Jesus teachings is a challenge to Roman authority to the extent that predicted or implied the destruction of Rome. Even the son of god ID implies a kingly status conflicting directly with that of the Caesars.
A backwater peasant calling himself the very thing accorded to Caesar. It may be that the King of the Jews charge was directly related to either title and each of those notions would be more palatable to Christians.
I would add that Ehrman’s explanation of Judas betrayal makes a great deal of sense as the source of the charge: Judas isn’t
paid to follow and identify Jesus, he gets paid to spill the beans about what Jesus teaches his inner circle about how they will all rule in
the comming kingdom
gmatthews said
Sure, I think we have to acknowledge that all of the Gospels have things that were made up to serve an agenda (whether the writers were conscious of it or not), but that doesn’t mean the majority of the books or the main character is created out of whole cloth.
Not sure, I follow you, G. I certainly never alleged that “the main character is created out of whole cloth.”
My claim was that I agreed with you about Carrier and thought his conclusions were driven by his agenda.
As a matter of putting a question in Pilate’s mouth, there wouldn’t be much difference to Rome whether the guy was saying he was the King or the Messiah. Each would stand as a challenge to Rome; each claim could bring a charge of sedition, treason etc So if Mark is employing some literary technique, why not have Pilate ” accidentally admit that Jesus” is the Messiah.
In short, I think Ehrman’s reasoning is correct : “if they wanted to invent a reason for Pilate wanting Jesus’ death – they would NOT have made up the charge that he called himself the King of the Jews. Why is that? Because early Christians, so far as we know, never called Jesus the King of the Jews”
gmatthews said
Sure, I think we have to acknowledge that all of the Gospels have things that were made up to serve an agenda (whether the writers were conscious of it or not), but that doesn’t mean the majority of the books or the main character is created out of whole cloth.
One can have a fictional character that is not made up of ‘whole cloth’. Consider how Fleming created James Bond:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The options are not a historical Jesus verse a literary Jesus created ‘whole cloth’…..
Methinks the Jesus historicits, in their never-ending search for that illusive gospel figure, might do well to consider Jewish history. Historical figures whose lives and deeds were well documented would be a ready source of inspiration for creative minded gospel writers…such figures are grist for the mill of any author indent upon giving ‘life’ to his creation. Sure, if one did not know history then one would be at a disadvantage in ‘reading’ an author’s work – which is what has happened to readers of the Jesus story. To the early readers of that story – with history at their fingertips – the historical reflections in the Jesus figure would be easily seen. With time and faded memories the literary creation took on a life of it’s own….
spiker said
gmatthews said
Sure, I think we have to acknowledge that all of the Gospels have things that were made up to serve an agenda (whether the writers were conscious of it or not), but that doesn’t mean the majority of the books or the main character is created out of whole cloth.
Not sure, I follow you, G. I certainly never alleged that “the main character is created out of whole cloth.”
My claim was that I agreed with you about Carrier and thought his conclusions were driven by his agenda.
As a matter of putting a question in Pilate’s mouth, there wouldn’t be much difference to Rome whether the guy was saying he was the King or the Messiah. Each would stand as a challenge to Rome; each claim could bring a charge of sedition, treason etc So if Mark is employing some literary technique, why not have Pilate ” accidentally admit that Jesus” is the Messiah.
In short, I think Ehrman’s reasoning is correct : “if they wanted to invent a reason for Pilate wanting Jesus’ death – they would NOT have made up the charge that he called himself the King of the Jews. Why is that? Because early Christians, so far as we know, never called Jesus the King of the Jews”
I’m sick. I don’t know what I was saying 
maryhelena said
gmatthews said
Sure, I think we have to acknowledge that all of the Gospels have things that were made up to serve an agenda (whether the writers were conscious of it or not), but that doesn’t mean the majority of the books or the main character is created out of whole cloth.One can have a fictional character that is not made up of ‘whole cloth’. Consider how Fleming created James Bond:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The options are not a historical Jesus verse a literary Jesus created ‘whole cloth’…..
Methinks the Jesus historicits, in their never-ending search for that illusive gospel figure, might do well to consider Jewish history. Historical figures whose lives and deeds were well documented would be a ready source of inspiration for creative minded gospel writers…such figures are grist for the mill of any author indent upon giving ‘life’ to his creation. Sure, if one did not know history then one would be at a disadvantage in ‘reading’ an author’s work – which is what has happened to readers of the Jesus story. To the early readers of that story – with history at their fingertips – the historical reflections in the Jesus figure would be easily seen. With time and faded memories the literary creation took on a life of it’s own….
I wasn’t saying Jesus or anyone else was created out of whole cloth. I was defending their historicity. I was saying that just because parts of any NT book are creations of the author doesn’t mean the whole thing is made up.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert