Loading...It is often said that one of the best pieces of evidence that Jesus is to be understood as a political insurgent who favored the overthrow of the Roman empire by means of (human) force is that he was crucified on charges of political insurgency. If he was charged with insurgency, he was probably an insurgent. There is, of course, a powerful logic to this view, but it has its flaws, and an alternative explanation actually works better.
In terms of flaws, it needs to be noted and emphasized that in our sources the other two people crucified with Jesus were called lestai (sometimes translate “robbers” – but Josephus uses it to refer to someone engaged in guerrilla warfare against the ruling authorities, an armed insurgent). So too in the Gospel of John, Barabbas – the one the crowds preferred to Jesus – is also called a lestes. But – here’s the *big* point: Jesus is NOT called a lestes in these accounts. Ever. And he is not condemned to death –as are these others – for being a lestes. He is condemned for calling himself the king of the Jews. There’s a big difference.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
I agree with what you are saying as the primary thesis of your post. I have, however, a question that is not directly related to who Jesus said he was and why he was executed, but has to do with the *sources* of this information.
I also agree with the idea of dissimilarity as a criteria for authenticity, but I want to ask a question that I have asked before but still do not have a clear understanding.
Evidently the “Q” source is quite authentic, but why? And, other sources of Jesus’ sayings may be related to oral traditions and even to early church teachings that were fed back into the Gospels and are less authentic.
Jesus did not have a scribe walking with him taking notes. There was no one writing down what was said by Jesus to his disciples, or the conversations with the high priest or with Pilate or a secretary writing down the details of the miracles and on and on.
I find it hard to accept that what we have in the New Testament is the authentic material was was actually said and done by Jesus (in the strict historic sense).
You said that the statement about Jesus relating to God’s Kingdom on earth and who was to rule and that Jesus thought he was the King of the Jews and that Judas reported that to the religious authorities. How do we know that this is historically accurate?
How can we know that one item is authentic and others aren’t? I did read your book dealing with the criteria, but I am not convinced.
I came to your blog believing that most of what was written was based on lost early documents or reliable oral traditions handed down from times early in Jesus’ ministry, and so on. I have since changed that view based on the scholarship you have presented here and in your books.
***Question*** How do we know, absolutely and historically, that even those sayings of Jesus that meet the criteria you use are authentic and not simply the teachings of the early church fed back into the Gospel documents?
These are great questions — and they show what a miserable job of communicating I’ve been doing!! Rather than answer here, I’ll devote a post to them.
Bart…thank you very much. Todd
I like your comments very much, Todd. You are so right, Jesus did NOT have a personal biographer like Boswell, taking notes and “reporting” what was being said and done at any given moment in time. It is a mistake, I think, to treat the the Gospels, including the Book of Acts, as *history*. They may reflect slivers of truth, of course, but very little that is definitive. Instead, we should understand and approach what was written purely, or at least mostly, as *literature*, where characters and events reveal a different kind of truth, something akin to ancient storytelling with literary themes and fictive embellishments. More than that, I find the dependency of modern historians/scholars referring to theoretical sources like the Q documents, and relying on interpretive devices such as multiple attestations, dissimilarity, etc., to be a convenient but misleading way of picking and choosing between historical fact and non-historical fabrication. In essence, this is not much different from what other great thinkers have done (even distinguished scientists like Isaac Newton) in bygone days.
Perhaps what we need is a new way of talking about biblical truth, something more literary, less historical and nonreligious.
I don’t think that what occurred in Jerusalem in the middle of the first century can be known, even in outline, with only one point of view, that of Josephus available, except in fragments. I still remain curious, for instance, if Paul was not a Roman Citizen, why he was sent by Felix to Rome for trial. It hints, to me, of him being involved in some larger political adventure, or at least being accused of being involved in one, and what political adventure was current in Palestine at the time besides Jewish independence?
Acts is our only source that indicates Paul was a Roman; it is also the only source that indicates that Felix sent him to Rome for a trial. So if it’s not reliable for the first claim, there’s no reason (on the surface) to trust its other claim
Bart,
You speak of “two other people who were crucified with Jesus” as if it were an established fact. What corroboration is there for this besides the four fictional NT gospels?
And what’s up with this?
The twelve disciples of Jesus will be twelve rulers of the future kingdom. The reason no later Christian would make up this saying is that among the twelve Jesus is talking to is Judas Iscariot, who obviously and definitely – for early Christians – would NOT be one of the rulers of the future kingdom. Then why is there a saying of Jesus that indicates he will be? Because this is an actual saying of Jesus, spoken before the events of his last days and hours – before Judas’s betrayal. In other words, it’s an authentic saying, something Jesus really said.
Maybe the gospel writers just screwed up and forgot about Judas. Seems Paul did, too! (- 1 Cor. 15:5)
There’s no other corroboration, although Mark, Luke, Acts, and the Gospel of Peter all have independent attestations of the claim.
So, therefore, it is historical? These are “independent”? Not derived?
You didn’t take on the second question. Paul’s silence on it speaks volumes. He loved to say what happens to those who cross his Lord.
Do you think Jesus was important enough to actually merit a trial before Pilate? With only a couple of dozen Galilean followers who apparently abandoned him at the first sign of trouble?
Great question. My sense is that he was in town precisely for such occasions. The way I imagine it is that he had a daily agenda, including — that morning — three capital cases that may have taken about a minute each to deal with .
What are your thoughts about using Gamaliel the Elder as a historical withness to an actual Jesus figure? The Martyrdom of Pilate and Gospel of Gamaliel are 5th cen but arent there much older references in koine Greek and Syriac? If I am unaware of some obvious objection of scholarship on this forgive me as I am all too aware of my limitations from this arm chair. Thanks.
I don’t think we have access to the historical Gamaliel. The later sources, from centuries later, are simply Christian legends.
If the Q source never knew of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, it could make up such as statement by Jesus. It could make up such a statement because the source beleived Jesus was the Messiah. Are there reasons that you beleive the Q source material are really statements of Jesus and not made up? I beleive the Q source material contains the temptations of Jesus in the desert which I beleive was not historical.
I absolutely do NOT think that the Q source contains historically accurate material and nothing but historically accurate material! Quite the contrary. I’ll talk about this in a post soon.
Are there any other references to the twelve tribes ruling again in other sources (non-canonical, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, etc.)? Or is it a historical reference only made by Jesus? Thanks.
No, the twelve tribes do not rule; they are *ruled* — i.e. Israel will exist, in full, yet again.
Very interesting – a coherent explanation which explains a lot of pieces. I would be interested in reading a “scholarly” opposing, critical (in the good sense of the word) view to this theory. Thanks for putting so many pieces together.
You might want to read other Jesus scholars, such as Borg and Crossan.
Hmmm? For me, the weak link in your post is your thesis that Jesus said things to His disciples that He did no say in public. If, indeed, Jesus, did say such things, wouldn’t the disciples have told others this information, after the death of Jesus, and wouldn’t such information then haven gotten passed along via oral tradition and then included in at least one of the Gospels?
They did tell others. That’s why we have traditions about what Jesus taught them in private (e.g., Mark 4).
Maybe a minor point, but when asked by Pilate about being king of the Jews doesn’t Jesus say, “You say so,” rather than “Yes”? Maybe that’s just a clever way of avoiding a direct answer. And of course that’s a Greek translation of what I assume would have been an Aramaic response, if the gospel writers even had any real knowledge of what Jesus and Pilate said, if in fact there was any meeting between them at all. But I certainly don’t see Jesus advocating a rebellion against Rome for the simple reason that it would be unnecessary – he thought God himself was soon going to take care of that evil empire and establish his own righteous kingdom.
Yes, my view is that we have no clue about what *exactly* was said at the trial, or how it was conducted. But my sense is that it was short and sweet. Jesus was accused of calling himself King, and Pilate asked if it were true, and Jesus either said yes, didn’t reply, or didn’t say anything to get himself off the hook.
Why do you think Jesus thought he qualified to be king over God’s coming kingdom? Was he the only apocalyptic prophet who claimed to be God’s appointed king?
He’s the only one I can think of. I’m not sure why he thought it. There are a lot of people who feel like God has called them for a special purpose. (E.g., the apostle Paul!)
The protagonist of the NT gospels, while ambivalent about his role in the coming kingdom (at least according to Schweitzer’s “A Psychiatric Study of Jesus”), must have been aware of his own heritage. Even Matthew and Luke managed to open their stories with his family bloodline, a royal lineage, it seems, extending all the way back to King David and Adam.
What did early Christian tradition preserved the saying about the twelve ruling over the kingdom, when it must have been well-known at the start of the Christian movement that Judas was a black sheep?
Sometimes they just didn’t edit out all the problems!
There is still one detail I don’t get – why from perspective of Pilate and Roman authorities, the claim to be king of the Jews is a more serious political offence (deserving death penalty) than claiming God will destroy the Romans (not deserving death penalty)?
They weren’t interested in theology. The claim to be a king was a political claim. The Romans couldn’t execute every apocalypticist — that would have been a massive portion of the entire Palestinian population!
Bart,
Would Jesus coming down on the practice of slavery gotten him in trouble immediately with the Romans?
I don’t think there are any traditions indicating that he opposed slavery.
Dear Dr. Ehrman, I remember reading this theory in you book on the Gospel according to Judas and thought this was quite convincing, it ties a lot of loose ends together. I have a question, is this view a ‘consensus’ view among scholars? If not, what is the consensus on why Jesus was crucified? Was it just the ruckus in the temple a subsequent pre-emptive execution by the Romans?
This view is widely held (I didn’t come up with it!); I’m not sure what the consensus would be, but my guess is that it is something like this.
Shubjhang,
Please. It is NOT the Gospel “according to” Judas. BART — correct this kind of error, will ya please? You wrote A BOOK about it , for cryin’ out loud. It is the Gospel OF Judas. There is a difference, a BIG difference. The Coptic title is “NIOYUDAS” — check it out if you think not, “NI is “of” not “according to”. This is the Good News OF Judas. That’s why the whole thing is about HIM and not Jesus, even at the sacrificial climax. It is a MYSTIC self-sacrifice!!! There are textual reasons to confirm this.
Many of us (including you, I know) believe Jesus had no reason to imagine either that he possessed miraculous powers, or that there’d been anything remarkable about his birth. But if he’d started out as just a man who’d been impressed by John the Baptist’s message, and begun preaching when John was no longer free to do it, how did he come, ultimately, to have such an exalted view of *himself*? Do you think he really did have some kind of “vision” experience when he was being baptized by John?
Great question! I’m always dubious of the idea that we can pinpoint it (It was at the baptism!). But lots of people have exalted views of themselves where we can’t figure out when they started having them. I guess that’s what I think about Jesus.
Presumably Jesus had been to the Temple for Passover many times during his life. Isn’t it peculiar that he only felt incensed at the activities in the Temple during his last visit?
I think the last week of his life was his first time there. It was about a week-long walk from Nazareth, and for people trying to eke out a hand-to-mouth existence there simply wasn’t time or money to make the trip.
Jesus made only one trip to the Temple in his life: so are scholars pretty confident that Luke 2’s account of the boy Jesus in the Temple was apocryphal?
Yup. (It’s foreshadowing the resurrection: notice they find him “after three days”)
Ever notice Hosea 6:2 has “in three days he will raise US up”? Maybe that’s just a general reference to “a little while”.
OFF-TOPIC QUESTION (no disrespect intended): Are there any handy computer apps that busy scholars at your level use for archiving, appending and sorting large images of documents and miscellaneous textual notes?
There probably are! But I’m living back in the Pleistocene Age…..
This view seems to make the most sense as an explanation of why Jesus was crucified. In my view, it’s unfortunate that the early followers of Jesus continued to embellish the aftermath of the story to say that he rose from the dead and that he was one with God and was God, and further claiming that his death was the ultimate atonement for the sins of the elect. In any event, on a related note, I wonder about Reza Aslan’s recent book, “Zealot,” that claims that Jesus was a non-violent follower of the zealot doctrine (based on Jesus’ teachings concerning the Kingdom of God)? Specifically, I wonder if the zealot idea has any merit or played any part in the decision to crucify Jesus? -sbt
I apologize for my question — I’m now reading your earlier posts regarding Reza Aslan’s views! -sbt
ah, OK!
That’s what I’ve been discussing on the blog for the past few weeks!
A sincere mea culpa! I should have looked before I made my comment-leap! To be honest, I’ve been away from the site for a while and, upon returning from my hiatus, immediately accessed the newest post on 1/6. I also used my B&N Nook, rather than my PC, to see what was new. Unfortunately, due to the restricted view on my small Nook screen, I didn’t simultaneously see all the related (and voluminous) links on this topic until it was too late. Is there a way to retract comments after they’ve been submitted by dummies like me? Thanks for considering!
p.s. I’m really looking forward to your forthcoming book, “How Jesus Became God,” due out in March. I also recently discovered and have been enjoying the high quality videos posted on your You Tube channel. I hope you will continue to add more of them over the next year!
Bart.
Is the fact that the disciples of Jesus weren’t rounded up and sentenced as he was sentenced evidence of his “non-violent” message, do you think? Or was the number of followers he attracted so small that it wasn’t worth the hassle of tracking them down?
Yes! And possibly!
Professor, why would the Romans, or even the Temple authorities, care if an obscure peasant ran around secretly telling his little band that he was to be the king one day ? Even if this is what Judas spilled, would they not simply dismiss it as the raving of some lunatic or dreamer ? Perhaps the incident in the Temple had more of an effect; it brought Jesus to the attention of the Temple authorities who needed an excuse to be rid of a troublemaker and found it in Jesus’ claims to kingship.
My view is that the Temple authorities didn’t want him to get a following, since it could lead to a riot. And the Romans didn’t give a damn either way, so crucified him as a potential trouble maker with delusional views of himself.
6 hours is very quick to die on the cross. do you think he died this quicky?
thank you
If he was flogged first, it’s possible. I don’t think flogging was the normal custom. Maybe in his case it was because he made a political claim about himself?
Shades of the Passover Plot ! Schonfield theorized that Jesus did NOT die so quickly; he wasn’t dead at all !! Instead, he was drugged and appeared to be dead, so his followers could claim his body and revive him later. Surprised by the appearance of death so soon after crucifixion, however, one of the guards wanted to make sure that the victim was dead by sticking a lance into him. (An acquaintance of Josephus lasted days on the cross). It was that “unanticipated circumstance” that actually resulted in Jesus’ death shortly after he was taken down alive. Really interesting idea !
Yeah, what a fascinating book! And very strange indeed!
Good morning, afternoon, or evening, whichever the case may be.
I find no real Biblical evidence to support the claim that Jesus told Pilate he (Jesus) was king of the Jews. In response to Pilate’s inquiry: “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus responds, according to which version of the Bible one’s reading and in most instances, thusly: Mark 15:2: NIV: “You (Pilate) have said so.” KJV: “Thou saith it.” ISV: “You say so.” ASV: “Thou sayest.”
Christian commentary would add to that “Thou sayest that which is true.” Which is not what Jesus said. The book of Mathew (26:25) in its various versions, also suggests to me a certain evasiveness on the part of Jesus, neither admitting to nor denying being the King of the Jews, which makes sense if one considers that had he denied it he would have instilled a good deal of doubt among those to whom he said he was king, and who believed him. If he clearly admitted it, he would be sure to be crucified. I don’t believe his intent was to be crucified. I believe his having said, “I lay my life down for my sheep,” has a whole other meaning.
This evasiveness, in my opinion, is supported by his prayer in the garden, in the hours prior to his arrest and eventual crucifixion, seeking escape from the inevitable – the crucifixion. “Take this cup from me!”
That he prayed, “Thy will not mine be done”, I believe has little bearing, as he truly must have believed that God would deliver him, which would account for his anguish on the cross when He (God) didn’t. “Eloi, lama sabachthani?” Is there any other sound explanation for such anguish?
It’s all so convoluted, now that I look upon it all outside Christianity. If the mission of Jesus was to save the world by the shedding of his blood on the cross, why blame either the Jews or Pilate/Romans? Why all the hatred, the anger, the wars, the slaughterings. Christianity has also slaughtered its millions. Who would there be to blame but God, who’s will it allegedly was, or so it has been written in the new Testaments, even that Jesus knowingly, willfully, wantonly, laid his life down? Had Jesus never been crucified, had his blood never been shed, as that once for all sacrifice, who would be saved, per post Pauline Christianity?
Pauline Christians, I’ve come to understand, can’t have it both ways. They cannot rightfully accuse the Jews (or anyone else) of having killed their savior when had he not died, had he not been accused and crucified, none of them would be saved – by grace through faith in the blood of one sacrificed. In this respect they should be thanking the Jews, or the Romans, or both, wouldn’t you think?
Food for thought, that deserves some consideration:
Deuteronomy 12:30-31; Jeremiah 19:4-6; Psalm 106:37-38; Ezekiel 16:20.
In particular: Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Micah 6:6-8: Wherewith shall I come before Adonai, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will Adonai be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Adonai require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Do justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly. This I believe is the true message of Jesus and all that God (whoever and whatever He may be) requires. Anything else is just commentary.
(I offer my apologies for yet another long post.)
willow,
The best way to understand “Take this cup from me” is that of Jesus being remorseful that he would soon be leaving his disciples. I have known two Masters (saviors). They are never self-concerned. I can assure you this is true. The ‘Betrayal’ is a cover-up of the succession of James. It is knowledge that redeems (Isaiah 53:11) not blood.
judaswasjames.com
Add to that, if you will please: “He was killed not for promoting violence against Rome, but for daring to think that he would be the king in the new kingdom yet to come.” This further supports my belief that Jesus did NOT intend to be crucified, but to live to see the day he would be crowned.
I agree.
In this framework, what would be the role of thuis different entity, the Son of Man, be in the future Kingdon? Only its bringer? Or does the Gospel ever say that the Son of Man will rule in this Kingdon?
Yes, some Gospel traditions say that, but I don’t think that is what Jesus thought.
Bart, are you saying that under Roman rule, it was a capital crime to proclaim privately and peacefully, to a group of 12 but not outside the group, that one would be made king of a Roman-occupied territory, not through any insurrection or breach of the peace, but by a supernatural act?
If so, wouldn’t the 12 disciples have also been executed for accepting this teaching, and for presumably proclaiming themselves as future tribal kings? Wouldn’t any Jew be executed for reading out loud Exodus 15:18, or Isaiah 24:23?
I can see your argument if the Romans considered Judas’ testimony, and added to it Jesus’ temple cleansing, and the always-present danger of violence during the Passover season in Jerusalem. Perhaps these factors in combination made Jesus seem like a threat to public order. But it seems unlikely that the Romans were interested solely in what Jesus “dared to think.” If the Romans crucified every Jew who “dared to think” something contrary to the Roman right to rule the Jews in Palestine, there would have quickly been few or no Jews left to rule there!
I don’t think the Romans were interested in theological niceties. If anyone claimed to be the future king, they were dealt with ruthlessly.
If Pilate thought Jesus called himself “king,” then why didn’t Pilate round up Jesus’ followers and execute them as well? Do you honestly believe Pilate would have let such people escape Roman justice? You accept the idea that Judas betrayed Jesus, so Pilate would have known about Jesus’ closest followers. Why didn’t he just round them up and deal with them? Given what other credible sources indicate about Pilate, the scenario you have described doesn’t seem to square with the evidence.
Great question. It’s not clear what the answer is. Pilate must have thought that Jesus called himself King, since that is the charge against him (and explains why he was crucified, instead of punished and released). The disciples didn’t make claims about themselves and so were not a problem. I don’t think Judas revealed to Pilate that the 12 would be rulers in the kingdom.
You’re like talking about what Luke Skywalker said and did with Darth Vader or Chewbacka. It’s funny really. This is all made up drama. Days of our Lives, Happy Days, Gone with the Wind. You actually BELIEVE this stuff really happened?
No. I recant. You DON’T believe it. You are too smart to believe it. You are playing with us. Toying. You know better, and you really don’t think this stuff happened like the gospels say.
A possible solution is as follows. Jesus was a hot-blooded Galilean who easily got angry with opponents, hurling invectives against them at most opportunities, when met with counter-arguments (“get behind me, Satan”, the cursing of the Galilean villagers etc) . During the Easter week ( or possibly before that) he became known to the temple priesthood as a sectarian self-proclaimed “prophet” capable of attracting large crowds. During one of those occasions he lost his temper and did something stupid that later evolved into the legendary “cleansing of the temple” story. Judas realized this side of Jesus’ personality and sensed that an ugly outcome was becoming imminent. Thus he simply offered the necessary information to the temple priesthood, in return for his own safety. May be he made it clear to them as well that the only person who mattered was Jesus, and that the remaining dimwits were completely harmless. Or the priests arrived at this conclusion themselves. A single arrested person would suffice to quench a possible religious rioting. They would gladly accept such a minimal intervention, as a means of sparing as many Jewish lives as possible. An then, as you say, Pilate received Jesus and spent a minute on the final decision, accepting the High Priest’s assurance that this would suffice to prevent popular unrest this year.
Yes, indeed. The protagonist in the gospels was shown to have had a temper. He got mad on occasion, and sometimes acted out his anger…aggressively! This was his downfall, more so than what he might have said or taught. Remember, he was an advocate of “Rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” etc. And like many another would-be celebrity who failed to control his urges (and upsets), he ultimately went too far.
Doctor Ehrman, i quote:
Mark 15:9-15
1. But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
2. And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? And they cried out again, Crucify him.
3. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
it seems to me that both pilate and the chief priests did not consider jc to be any kind of king. it seems to me that pilate had jc crucified because he wanted to make the crowd happy.
am i correct in thinking that according to mark , pilate was a crowd pleaser?
Yes, that’s the view of the Gospels. But that is not necessarily the historical reality. (Pilate otherwise did not have the reputation of being a crowd pleaser. The precise opposite, actually.)
I found this argument and the supporting line of reasoning to be persuasive. If this indeed was the case, in light of the fact that Jesus was crucified, did Jesus mean that even after his physical death he would come down to earth and preside over the new Kingdom? In other words, if he died, how could he be the King of this new Kingdom?
My view is that he didn’t expect to get crucified.
But how about his telling desciples that he will due and rise again? Was this added later by someone even though Jesus did not say it?
Yes, I think that was “invented” by later storytellers, who couldn’t believe that Jesus didn’t know what was going to happen to him….
“Yes, I think that was “invented” by later storytellers, who couldn’t believe that Jesus didn’t know what was going to happen to him….”
dr Ehrman
have you done any posts on your view that later storytellers told stories about how jesus predicted his own death?
No, nothing on that specifically. But it’s a good idea!
Dr Ehrman
so the jesus who kept on RUNNING away and “escaping thier grasp” completely got caught OF GUARD?
“28All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.”
jesus PREACHES in the temple daily
jesus goes into the temple and over turns the tables
When he arrived in jerusalem crowds lined the highway to catch a
glimpse of jesus.
pharisees debate with jesus
so can one argue that the mind which created a prediction for jesus WAS NOT the mind which said that jesus received VIP treatment by the crowds?
Bart,
Since gleaning historical data from the gospels requires careful reading and applying certain criteria to each story and event, can you recommend a book that provides this information, written by a credible secular scholar of course? If one doesn’t exist maybe you should write it. Say, the Bart Ehrman Annotated Historical Study Bible. Or better yet, the real news behind the good news!
That’s what hte Jesus seminar attempted with their “Five Gospels” (just the sayings of jesus, color coated according to how likely it is that he said them). I disagree with them a lot, though. It would be a LOT of work to crank out an edition like that — it would take years and years.
Doctor Ehrman,
i quote:
Mark 4: 10 But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. 11 And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, 12 so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’”
according to christians , jesus is using parables because the crowds had “hard hearts”.why did mark quote a verse from isiah in mark 4:10? if the crowds had “hard hearts” then what would it matter if the parable is explained to them in the open? they still wouldn’t get it. how is it that only 12 deciples get to hear the meaning of the parable behind closed doors?
here is what the christians says,
” Jesus is actually quoting from Isiah here with the intention to show that he uses parables as there are many who are hardhearted who cannot truly, see, hear or understand his message.”
but jesus made sure to ANSWER his deciples private question to him about parables behind closed doors.
this means that the deciples did not understand the parable when it was narrated in public.
It also means that, according to Mark, the purpose of telling parables was SO THAT people would not understand and repent. I have to read that passage aloud with my students several times before they see it — it’s so counter-intuitive and contrary to everything they’ve learned (they think that parables are meant to make these teachings easier to understand; Mark says the opposite: they are meant to keep people completely in the dark!)
Here are two great books in this genre:
Géza Vermes: The Authentic Gospel of Jesus
Gerd Lüdemann: Jesus After 2000 Years: What He Really Said and Did
both available from Amazon.
Do we actually know how crucifixion was performed under the Romans? For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses make a big deal out of their claim that centuries of Christianity mistakenly thought the “cross” consisted of two cross-beams, when in fact, it was a single vertical “stake”. Do we have descriptions in historical records or archaeological remains whether the traditional depiction of the cross-beamed cross is accurate?
There is very little evidence. But there is substantial evidence (e.g., crude drawings and casual comments) that the cross was indeed a “cross” with crossbeams.
Your first sentence is right (e.g., very little evidence); “substantial evidence,” by contrast, is substantially overstated.
What about the effigy from the Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius w/ Yeshua on a single stake, I.e. torture stake does not necessarily imply a crossbeam. It’s fair to say by the 2nd century the theology of Christ was already thoroughly Hellenized- engrafted w/ Gnostic Platonisms & convoluted w/ mythology adopted from other cultures (I.e. the cross from Egyptian & Babylonian idea of death & transcendence). What about the reference about Titus referring to the lack of lumbers & trees in Jerusalem due to use for crucifixion. Given that formality was generally not the concern- why would they waste the wood on an unnecessary crossbeam!?- were not Romans very practical in their methods of madness? Its not like Jerusalem is the road into Rome- where they are formerly making a lesson out of a Thracian & his relatively small rebel following. In fact Joseph & Jesus were not necessarily Carpenters, but masons, craftsmen, or laborers- due that wood was very limited in the desert. Make sense? Christian symbol was probably something like a fish, right?
The one archaeological discovery of relevance is of the partial remains of a crucified man Yehohanan who was crucified, apparently, on a cross beam.
What indicates the crossbeam? The wood would be rot by now. The puncture wounds would be the same no?
Forensic scientists looked at the ankle bone to determine, based on its physical characteristics how the body had been hung, and came to the conclusion. It’s a pretty interesting set of studies that emerged from it. You can probably find references to them online.
The findings of Zias and Sekeles do not indicate a horizontal patibulum cross-beam was attached to the victim’s crucifixion device. Evidence provided by Yehohanon is presumably not substantial from historical point of view. In fact evidence may even indicate that the hands were tied.
Thanks.
Bart Ehrman:
He is never called a guerilla warrior or a supporter of violent overthrow of the Romans. He is never said to have raised an army. He is not executed for supporting a violent overthrow of the Romans.
Jesus never taught this to the crowds – which is why nowhere in the earliest sources does Jesus proclaim himself, in public, as the future king of the coming kingdom.
Steefen:
Jesus is mocked with a crown of thorns. Jesus is called Em-Manu-El. Google King Manu and images.
See: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnvar/20130303/CG64195?max=400
What Jesus did not tell the public was that he was going to show Pontius Pilate the Power of the Manu Kings. Queen Helena and King Izates had already converted to Jerusalem. Maybe Jesus thought Rome would be willing to leave Jerusalem in the good hands of royalty beyond the Euphrates. Pontius Pilate was aware of the PALACE of Queen Helena.
What diplomacy or foreign relations existed between Jerusalem and Auranitis where we also have help from beyond the Euphrates because Queen Ourania was from Parthia.
If the Bible did not clue us in that the Romans mocked Jesus’ help from the Manu kings by putting a different kind of woven crown of thorns on his head…
If the Bible did not call Jesus Em-Manu-El…
Then you could say Jesus wasn’t looking for God to remove Pontius Pilate from office and install Jesus.
I believe there was not a King in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate was governing.
You say Judas spilled the beans about Jesus as king? He must have spilled the beans about support from beyond the Euphrates. The Romans who tortured Jesus and put a crown of thorns on his head knew about this secret alliance and behold: Jesus with a purple robe, bleeding from a crown of thorns.
We have the coins to prove what crown of thorns mean, Dr. Ehrman.
Dr. Ehrman:
The teaching of Jesus supporting pacifism toward the ruling authorities is abundantly attested all over the map.
Steefen:
That’s the Jesus of a Post-Failed Jewish Revolt re-created and mythologized as a pacifist spiritual teacher. What’s in the closet? What is half-packed in the closet stuck in the door? Answer: Jesus’ non-pacifist life and legacy. I’ve made this point sufficiently well on the blog over the last few months, but now I would like to add a new point.
Maybe I need to buy another copy of your Apocalyptic Prophet of the Millennium. (Please explain what you mean. I though a millennium was one thousand years. Every time I used to pick up my copy of your book, I would question that.)
Okay, to the point of your expertise: How can there be the War Scroll and there be a pacifist messiah? The Messiah is not the Good Messiah while some other entity is the Bad Messiah (using the Good Cop – Bad Cop metaphor).
Your apocalypse has blue skies, chirping birds, and rainbows?
There is crime and punishment in God’s apocalypse. If Pontius Pilate is now first in political power in Jerusalem, he becomes last after the apocalypse. But before justice, there is military defeat via battle.
Here or in a new post, please tell us about your Apocalyptic Jesus and how he totally divorced his Son of Man Movement from the War Scroll.
Jesus did not have a modus operandi of pacifism. As he would judge:
if you kill my messengers inviting you to a feast, I will kill the murders and born down their town with innocent people experiencing loss as well.
if you did not want me as king, after the apocalyptic event, you will be brought and slain before my eyes
So, as he would judge: as he would concquer.
And, Jesus’s God in the Torah was no pacifist.
Dr. Ehrman, since you hold the view that Judas betraying Jesus is an historical event, do you also view Judas’ suicide as an historical event? If so, what do you make of the varying accounts of Judas’ death in Matthew and Acts?
Also, what is your view on the Barabbas story in the trial narrative? How about the additional trial of Jesus before Herod Antipas?
No, I don’t think we know what happened to Judas (the accounts are at odds, as you note). And I think Barabbas is a Christian invention.
Dr Ehrman
if jesus thought that the 12 would , i quote:
“you also will sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28).
does this mean that jc predicting about judas + pete’s betrayal was fiction added later on?
Yes, the prediction about Judas is almost certainly after the fact. And probably Peter’s denials as well….
Dr Ehrman, you said, “…certainly after the fact”
can you recommend any books which go into detail about peter’s denial being an invention?
I don’t know of any off hand! I think Peter probably *did* deny Jesus. What I think was invented was Jesus’ *prediction* that he would deny him. (Invented to show that Jesus was not taken by surprise by it)
How do we know that Judas is NOT a fictitious character- or an ideological embodiment illustrating the idea that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. Since Judas=Judah=Jew. Yet Jesus brother is also named Judas- a seemingly popular name. Could it be that Judas Iscariot is a dramatized character written in altogether by Hellenisctic authors to obfuscate, perhaps a more original disciple like Judas- the brother of Jesus- as he was mentioned of the 12 in Acts as taking the place of Iscariot [of which may even refer to Sacari- I’ve read- given there’s no real correspondence verbatum to Greek/Arabic/Hebrew other than Scarios- as far as I’m aware- a word for assassin]. Also if the zealotry was a Ghandi like manifest of pacifism- why would the disciples carry weapons?
.You also mentioned something about the book of Acts being discredited- when responding to the idea of Felix & Paula Roman citizenship. Why does the author of Acts minimalize the disciples of Jesus by championing Paul as ththat the protagonist throughout the focus of the Book; & yet say contrary things like embarrassing details- like his Roman citizenship, & Romans mistaking Paul for an Egyptian, when such details give little account to supplement the narrative view promoted by the Author. You have posted concerning whether Paul knew Jesus; but what indicates whether the Author of Acts does or does not know Paul or advocate the same view as Paul, though traditionally writer Acts is considered to be the same author of Luke- a disciple of Paul?
Yes, some have argued that Judas is an invented figure. I give reasons for thinking that he is a historical figure in my book on The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot.
I don’t think the author of Acts was interested in discrediting the other apostles so much as he was interested in championing Paul. And this author almost certainly was *not* a companion of Paul.
What about the theory of the Safari held up in Matsada? Do you think sequence of suicide might be connected w/ Judas the Iscariot? If not what is an “Iscariot” & where do they come from? What is your take on Simon Magus in Psuedo Clement Homilies- sounds alot like Paul, no? It maybe a later text but there seems to be something ironic about it’s Jewiah fervor in Hellenistic text- like Peter holding onto the pietistic tradition of Jewish roots- yet Unitarian type of view- “1 Gd, 1 Law, 1 Hope’- while addressing an eccentric history like Coptic literature (i
.e. Enoch). Also do you write about the stauros & crux disambiguation? ThnkYou very much for direction Mr. Bart Ehrman. Forgive spelling- using a laggy phone.
No the stories about Judas were in circulation long before Masada.
Given the Hellenistic content- were not the Gospels after Madada & the fall of the Temple?
Yes, almost certainly for Matthew, Luke, and John, but probably not Mark.
I was looking for book commentaries & musta missed your bit on Judas. However I did watch the lectures via YouTube. kudos. I just wonder where else does the ‘iscariot’ title come from? Does it mean or reflect something that maybe more significant than what we see on the surface? To me the Platonisms in the Gospel of Judas, as well as in most Hellenistic aspects of the N.T.- are obvious- which again I think seems like Simon Magus, Valentinians, & Gnostics of course which to me discredits it as something consistent w/ what Yeshua may have originally taught. Don’t you object to such contrast as well? I understand no one really wants to be a dogmatist here. Which applies to all radical positions worth correction.
I give the options in my book on Judas, if you’re really interested.
Awesome
… once I find it. I’m still stumbling n’ fumbling around the sight. Thnx for actually responding Dr. Ehrman. So what about Simon Magus in the Homilies & the vision of Paul in Acts?
Sorry, you’ll need to ask again about them. I usually have time to answer only one query for each reader a day — no time for much more than that!
So I read an excerpt out of your “Lost Christianities” off Google Books- in which you actually cited the Homilies! I thought it was keen how you mentioned the dichotomy of Cain & Abel, Ismael & Isaac, Jacob & Esau- in contrast w/ Peter & Simon! Remember that? Great. Now my question– Do you think the Homilies are just as reliable, authoritative,or crediblen as any of the Biblical Canon? Is it really possible that Simon Magus is Paul? If so Acts* hack job. Especially given its way out of line from Josephus- who actually mentions a Saulus affiliated w HeSadducees.nd it peculiar how some Christians refer to Paul as the greatest Rabbi that ever lived. He misinterprets the *curse of those that leave another in a tree.
No, the Homilies are highly legendary, even more so than the books of the NT. For *parts* of the Homilies Simon Magus does appear to be a cipher for Paul.
Bart – you mention above that you believe the last week of jesus’ life was the first time in Jerusalem. This would be counter the story in Mark that John was preaching next to Jerusalem and that Jesus only went back to Galilee after John died.
Any thoughts?
John isn’t preaching in Jerusalem, but at the Jordan. Nothing places him (or Jesus before the last week) in Jerusalem that I’m aware of.
I guess the Mark passage could mean anywhere along the Jordan I was thinking that the tie into Jerusalem meant that John would have been closer to jerusalem or at least within a reasonable walk. And then the comment that Jesus went into Galilee after John’s death makes one thing Jesus wasn’t in Galilee prior to that point (probably following John).
What is it’s position? Ebionite? Opposing Acts & Paul’s dissolution of Torah? Or.. Do you think it teaches something contradictory of Jesus? Or misquotes Jesus? How much later was it written? And do not some scholars suppose that Paul wrote 1st & 2nd Peter? Does the text contradict itself or accidentally misinterpret Jesus. Is it not strange & distinguished from just about any other writing in that it teaches both Torah and advocates Messiaship of Jesus?
Parts of it have been called Ebionite — it does seem to embrace the ongoing validity of the law in places. It is a VERY long book.
No, no one thinks Paul wrote 1 or 2 Peter.
Oh excuse, thnkyou for correction & demonstrating patience for laymen. Are not the Homilies peculiar in rite that seems as an unorthodox view? In that merit, what other work of Greco Hellenistic literature can you find w/ the same tone of following Christ- keeping Torah- (a paradox in most Christology) & yet we have Jesus depicted as conceding the reality of “spurious sayings” in the Scriptures- & so in this unorthodox Jewish view & unorthodox Christian view- we are commanded to be like good money changers & discern false coin from real. Is it not particular distinguished & peculiar in that respect? If not peculiar where else can I find such literature that came out of the the great corpus of Greco Roman writings? As book of Thomas is way outta line some quotes maybe authentic- as you mention w/ reason for your deduction- some quotes maybe authentic whereas most are improbable. So what in specific other than a highly educated Hellenic (as I think the content suggest) writing for uneducated illiterate Hellenic makes the Homilies improbable? Due that what incentive is there for Hellenist to keep Torah & advocate a pacifist way of ratifying the view of Christ in a more Universal way w/ a less condemnatory tone. (Given that it is not as peculiar alone that some Hellenist have been committed to Judaism). Does not the text give even a little insight into early Christianity not provided elsewhere, as you mentioned Ebionite- is the earliest Christology which even the Theodocians may have accepted directly or indirectly.
The view that Christains need to continue keeping the law is not widely attested in surviving writings. Whether it was more widely spread in non-extant writings is anyone’s guess.
I meant- improbable, perhaps in regards to the idea of an educated aristocratic Hellenic scribing for Peter- an illiterate Jew- who some Pastors say Paul rebuked for being racist & such. You say it is improbable for several other reasons (that not being one you mentioned idt). Does it quote any of Paul’s writings (seemingly the earliest) or John- after it seems to quote passages from Mark Matt & Luke? & Contributing some novelties seemingly not found elsewhere (I.e. mentioned above).