(15 votes, average: 4.13 out of 5)
Loading...Now I’d like the rubber to meet the road. If we think we can know a good bit of the gist of Jesus’ life, what can we say with relative certainly about how it ended? What do scholars who look at all the evidence basically agree on? And what (and how much!) is basically up for grabs?
Here’s how I discuss it in Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne 2016).
******************************
Gist Memories of Jesus’ Death
One of my purposes in this book is to examine later traditions about Jesus recorded in our Gospels, written between forty and sixty-five years after his death, to see if any of them include distorted memories, either in whole or in part. In this chapter I will focus on traditions involving the death of Jesus; in the next chapter, after exploring the question of whether oral cultures are likely to remember the past more accurately than literary ones, I will explore traditions involving the earlier life and ministry of Jesus. I want to begin with stories surrounding Jesus’ last days and hours because these were the most remembered parts of Jesus’ life. This can be seen simply by considering the amount of space devoted to this period in the Gospels. The Gospel of Mark devotes ten chapters to Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee, and fully six to his last week, days, and hours in Jerusalem. The Gospel of John covers the over two-year public ministry of Jesus in eleven chapters, but the final week of his life in ten.
The large majority of historical scholars would agree that some gist memories of Jesus’ last week, as recorded in the Gospels, are almost certainly accurate.[1] These memories are recorded independently in different sources and do not appear to be remembered in any prejudicial way – for example because they represent episodes of Jesus’ life that Christians particularly would have wanted to say happened for their own, later, benefit. Moreover, there is nothing inherently implausible about them. Among these memories would be the following[2]:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
If someone is beginning to read your books, what would you recommend be the best 5-7 books to start with?
Depends what they’re interested in! Historical Jesus? HIstorical problems with the New Testament? formation of early Christianity? Christianization of the empire? Forgery in the New Testament? Problem of Suffering? Origins of heaven and hell? My favorites are probley Misquoting Jesus; Jesus Interrupted; Heaven and Hell; How Jesus Became God; God’s Problem; and Armaggedon. I guess…. etc!disabledupes{3ecde3526c315249890481d1133c36a6}disabledupes
Yup, every source has to be scrutinized in detail, none is rejected. I don’t recall Paul talking about the motivatoin behind the crucifixion, though; and “betrayal” in 1 Cor. 11 is probably a mistranslation (Paul uses the word PARADIDOMI elsewhere to refer to God hading Jesus over ot his fate, not to the Judas story). The corroboratoi of two letters Paul himself wrote don’t provide any *additional* evidence ot what he says generally or only once. I think that basically leaves the Last Supper and the crucifixion as what he supports, and the claim that “Judeans” were ultimately responsible. All three are attested as well in the Gospels, of course.
Thank you. I had deleted my question when I realized your wording of bullets 4 and 6 in your post answered my question, I thought before you had reviewed and responded. I believe those bullets are the result of highlighting the importance of Paul’s letters in certain details of the historical Jesus. Should I resubmit the question so members will understand the meaning of your reply?
Good idea!
Hi, Dr. Ehrman. Do scholars have any theories as to why 1 Timothy 2:15 has (in English translations anyway) such an awkward, confusing phrasing, with first “SHE will be saved in childbearing” then “provided THEY continue in faith”, etc.? Is the letter itself cruder or less polished Greek than the other NT books? Thanks!
It’s because that’s what’s in the Greek: the first verb is second person singular and the second is plural.
Hi Bart, I really enjoyed your course on Paul! I’m not a scholar so forgive me if this is a silly question. You’ve discussed that it may seem like Paul does not know much about the life of Jesus, specifically, as we know it from the synoptic Gospels. But is it possible Paul didn’t know the story of Jesus in the detail given in Mark, because the story had not been constructed? Is it possible that Mark took the general, itinerant apocalyptic preacher who was crucified and raised from the dead, some sayings that went back to Jesus, and oral tradition about his life framework, then, used A LOT of creative license to construct his narrative AFTER Paul? i.e., Paul did not know the story we know because it had not yet been written? Or was the detailed story – parables, miracles, discourses, the various characters, etc. – already known when Paul was writing?
Yes, one of the possibilities I discuss in the course is that Paul didn’t know the stories, and one explanation for that would be that they were not yet circulating. I don’t think it works to say that Mark made them all up though, since we have similar stories in sources that are independent of Mark.
I think only you can explain gist memory this clearly. It made me realize these events seem more impressed in ‘collective consciousness’ — for me, I like Jesus because he holds lambs and babies.
I think those gist memories are in these lyrics. This album was Grammy nom’d last year and *no one has mentioned its resemblance to Passion Week* https://genius.com/Fleet-foxes-maestranza-lyrics
Starts after table-tipping sets things in motion:
Monday night
Rowdy in the road outside
I saw the gate coming down
And smoke all around the south hill
These last days
Con-men controlled my fate
No one is holding the whip
And the oil won’t stick
But I will
Now that a light is on
Now that the water runs
And the heartless are nearly gone
No time to get it wrong
Sunday end
Ache for the sight of friends
Though I’ve been safe in the thought
That the line we walk is the same one
Now that a light is on
Now that the water runs
And the heartless are nearly gone
No time to get it wrong
Sometimes it comes to this, no it’s true
This time, what comes of it, call it due
I do, I do
I do, I do
Now that a light is on
Now that the water runs
And the heartless are nearly gone
No time to get it wrong
What do you think?
Interesting!
I have a couple personal experiences that relate to memory; one re false memories and one re gist vs details. I’ll put them in separate comments. In 1992 I was in a serious accident. After two major surgeries to fix things up, I was on both morphine and percocet. Boy did I have hallucinations! And they were very real. Four or five still stand out in my memory 30+ years later. Two in particular were so real that I checked up on them. I asked my son about one (he was involved), and nope it didn’t happen. The other involved my hospital room being very large with my bed out in the middle. When I could move and look around, the room was a normal hospital room with the bed up against one wall. So I have no question but that false memories, whatever the source, can be so real that one believes they actually occurred. Mine were caused by potent drugs, but in other cases I expect that stress and other factors might be the cause, especially for persons who are suggestible.
The second case happened just today. I’ve been looking for a missing book for 2 or 3 months. I won’t go into the details, but I had a vivid picture of what it looked like: a light blue cover, pages stapled together, about 1/8 inch thick. I found it this morning, and guess what? It is not blue, but white with a clear plastic cover over that. It is spiral bound, not stapled, and is about 3/4 inch thick. I was wrong on all counts. I had the gist right: the book existed, I knew the name of the author and the approximate title. But I was all wrong on what it looked like. I had the gist but not the details!
Ha. Now *that’s* one that happens to me a lot!! (But not the accident; that one sounds awful)
Your questions make great research, too. When he was arrested in the garden, did his followers draw swords and try to defend him?”
What’s interesting is that when the Temple besiegement happened around 65 years prior, it was *John Hyrcanus* the High Priest who had his ear mutilated.. (Josephus, Jewish Wars, 1.13.9).
I also didn’t know until researching right now (cough reading Wikipedia) that Herod won kingship by besieging Galilee and Judaea 39-38 BCE. I thought he was just appointed.
He is first named king by Rome in 40 AD, Rex socius et amicus populi. Sieges Jerusalem 39 BCE. Battles and wins Galilee 38 BC.
When he wins, Cassius Dio says his opponent, King Antigonus is crucified:
“Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans”
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/49*.html
This reminds me a little of Jesus. Being named King of Jews maybe 33 CE, then the war against Galilee begins because it’s won by 36 CE. Same three years.
Antigonus escaped prison in Rome, then becomes king. Galilee’s Agrippa I escapes Roman prison in Syria, then becomes king Do Romans just forget prisoners?
Maybe that’s what Revelation Jesus did,
But how likely is it that Jesus could create a disturbance in the Temple during Passover and escape from Temple authorities on the lookout for just such incidents? The accounts in the gospels of the trials make great drama but how likely are they really? Wouldn’t it make more sense from a historical perspective to suppose that Jesus was probably arrested outright in the Temple and that was why he was condemned?
I don’t think it’s likely he could have made much of a disturbance that was widely noticed. A small-time incident that got exaggerated could be plausible.
Prof. Ehrman, How strong is the evidence that Jesus was crucified on account of his message, as opposed to his actions? Would ransacking the Temple have been enough to get him crucified regardless of what his teachings were?
It’s usually thought that the things he did were reflecting what he thought and said. (He would hvae cleansed the temple because it was operating contrary to his views of how it should)
Prof. Ehrman, Maybe my question was not clear. If somebody created the kind of disturbance in the temple that Jesus did, would tbat have been enough by itself to get them the death penalty? Suppose somebody else had done that for reasons other than making a religious statement (e.g., suppose they thought the prices were too high and so they overturned the moneychangers tables for that reason).
So the question is: would turning over the tables and the other actions that Jesus did in the temple have been considered a relatively minor offense in itself? Was the offense elevated to a death-penalty crime on account of of the underlying message that Jesus was trying to express through his actions? Or would those actions have been a capital offense regardless of the underlying message?
We don’t actually know. The death sentence did not come from Jewish leaders in charge of the temple but from Pilate, and it was not on the grounds of disrpution of the temple but for claiming to be the King of the Jews. If mark’s account is correct, of ocutse, Jeus didn’t make a relatively minor intervention; he shut down the entire operatoin of the temple. That would have been taken very seriously and he certainly would have been arrested on the spot.
Could Jesus have been arrested by the Jewish Temple guards to protect him from the Romans and to control him if indeed he was a dangerous rabble rouser?
John the Baptist warned the multitudes about the End and the soon to come Kingdom of Heavens.He was *not* arrested or impeded for that reason.He was executed because of Herod’s soap opera worthy villainous family.True,Jesus made a point of offending the Priests and their beliefs.At Passover,they preferred to deal with Jesus themselves.
If a trial was deemed necessary *on Passover*(!),the Priests weren’t prejudiced against Jesus.
They gave him a hearing.Fair enough.Jesus could have defended himself without compromising his ideals.
Judas may have been the disciple who loved Jesus the most.I don’t believe that he went to betray Jesus so that he would die.Neither was this about money( Mark).
It was Schweitzer’s original idea,presented as fact,that Judas gave extra political ammunition to the Priests.This is an unsupported accusation.There’s already enough opprobrium piled on Judas without adding such aggravating fictions.
Finally,Judas’ suicide is proof of his love for Jesus,whose shocking tragic end made Judas’ life unbearable.
Blaming Judas,the Jews or the Priests for Jesus’ death is perverse. Jesus had to die.
Hyam Maccobi proposed that the Jews played an ancient role,”The Sacred Executioner”,his book’s actual title.
I guess if the Jewish authorities arrested Jesus to protect him from the Romans it would be difficult to explain why he got handed over to the Romans.
The chronology may have been:
The Priests had heard enough concerning reports about Jesus. Containment of Jesus would have been uppermost at Passover, a containment by his own people.
They could have thrown him in jail ( at their own risk) , but they gave him a fair hearing, rejecting testimony that seemed tainted, a hearing where Jesus could have assuaged their fears about Jesus’ claims to be the king of the Jews and/or their Messiah ( which would not have alarmed the Priests too much. They were used to such claims).
But what they heard was beyond those concerns. In Mark 14: 53-72 Jesus claims to be divine. The dramatic gesture of the Priest tearing his clothes, a sign of mourning and extreme distress, would not have happened or been reported for less than a lethal offence in the minds of Israelites living 2000 years ago.
At that point, a death sentence would have been carried, as per Jewish law – for which I personally don’t have the contempt so many have- if they could have, by stoning.
And they would have stoned him themselves. But they couldn’t. Thus Jesus ended up in front of Pilate, where, again,he could have defended himself.
I don’t think Jesus claims to be divine in Mark 14:53-72 — if looked at from a *historical* point of view. MARK wants to claim he was making a blasphemous claim, but the blasphemy works *only* if by “son of man” Jesus means “divine judge of the earth” AND if Caiaphas thought he was referring to himself. But if Jesus, at this trial, had actually said what Mark says he said (which I very much doubt — there weren’t any followers of Jesus there and Mark is writing this 40 years later, not knowing any of the characters involved, living in a different part of the world), based on stories he had heard), there’s no blasphemy. It’s not blasphemous to say “I am the messiah”; and it’s not blasphemous to say that “you will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven” (that’s simply saying: You’ll see the predictions of Daniel 7 come true in your own day).
The Sanhedrin or a group of its members would have met at any time in an emergency where life was at stake.This is ” pikuakh nephesh”,to this very day,a principle dictating that the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other Jewish religious rule.A rebellion of Jesus’ followers at Passover in Jerusalem under the Romans with actions by the sicarii would have been deadly.Didn’t such massacres indeed happen in 70AD and 134AD?Was Jesus dangerous or not?I wouldn’t have wanted to be in the Priests’ shoes.It was their responsibility to protect the people from the Romans.Jesus was bad news,but the Gospels are clear that the Priests ,no matter how much they desired it,did not find him to be blasphemous.Even the High Priest’s renting his robe-we don’t even know if this emergency meeting was officially of the Sanhedrin or it was informally in Caiaphas’ home, or if the Priest was wearing his Sanhedrin robes or regular ones-
is not necessarily related to a God related blasphemy. It could be a reaction of anticipation to the horror that could be visited on the people,an anticipatory mourning of sorts.As far as they knew,there was no warrantee that Pilate would act in any whichever way.
The Sanhedrin had been instructed to judge giving the accused the benefit of the doubt by Rabbi Joshua ben Perahia,who lived in the second half of the 2nd Century BC.
The term,to this day,is
“Dan le kaf zkhut”, “judge every person favorably”.He also enjoined not to judge anyone until one has been in his place.
Here we see the seeds of our present system,where the defence speaks the last word, and juries “of one’s peers” would be able to be in the accused’s shoes.
I personally believe that when Jesus said “don’t judge”,this is what he meant.Not just to preempt judgment of oneself,which would paralyse the application of justice and become self-serving.The ethic was to judge justly and with understanding,a non contingent value.
This first Mishna(chapter 6)drew its content from Leviticus 19:15, “do not do injustice in judging…”
The conclusion is that the Sanhedrin group that examined Jesus had no preconceived,wicked designs on him.They wanted the truth,directly. They were bound to do their utmost to judge him favourably,if they could. But they couldn’t.
That is,if this trial happened at all.I am afraid it did, and ironically,the Sanhedrin was never given the benefit of the doubt,judged ruthlessly by what would tragically become a hostile faith.
Using rabbinic materials to date actual practices in the time of Jesus is seen as highly problematic these days. That entire field of study has changed in revolutionary ways since the 1960s or so, especially with the work of Jacob Neusner (and (many) others), who showed that earlier attributions in later traditions simply could not be trusted as providing historically accurate accounts. (Do you know his work? It’s worth looking at)
Will return to Neusner!
Not clear how historical records,either instructions created and/or first applied can be disregarded across the board. Hillel’s ” don’t do unto others….”,was acknowledged by Jesus as the “golden rule”.Or the entire Mishna and Talmud.Why claim that by Jesus’ time the concern for judging justly didn’t exist?.In Mark,the witnesses’ disqualification-wicked Priests could have found concurring false witnesses-and the request to hear Jesus’ defense,far from the accusation that these occurrences show the Priests’ perversion,show their effort and duty following what by then was incorporated into Jewish law.Jesus’ concern for how one judges others seems to echo the Judaic concern for justice he knew existed,whether it was always followed or not.Like when he reminded “love your neighbor”.
The Sanhedrin would not condemn to death on the spot.It required a whole day wait;rabbi Perahia was a documented Nasi of the Sanhedrin;if Jesus quoted Daniel 7 with Mark adding “at the right of Power”,”Power”could have been a blasphemous forbidden substitution for the
Tetragram;there were many in the room with at least two friendly to Jesus(Arimathea, Nicodemus)who could have passed the facts on;eventually,it’s a far cry from a vision that doesn’t claim to be prophetic( Daniel)to claim divine,angelic world power status for oneself(Jesus).
The golden rule, of course, is found in much older sources as well, and cross culturally. Confucius has a version of it! (Jesus, though, expresses it positively; most of the ealrier forms are negative — don’t do unto others instead of do unto other…)
I definitely will look at Jacob Neusner too. Ty.
I’ve always taken the Sanhedrin meeting at night as to be ‘not binding’ and ‘not fair’ instead of being a fabrication.
Maybe Gerousia could better describe elders meeting at night to gossip and barter deals until the Great Sanhedrin convenes? So that’s all three sanhedrins combined, if there was three – legal -Pharisee, priestly – Sadduccee, and aristocratic – Tribal Elders.
“Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.1 confirms the illegality of a capital trial at night, assuming that the law stated in the Mishnah existed in 30 C.E.” – famous trials dot com.
That they had to make a law about it to me implies that people were still being creative around a limitation.
Plus I wouldn’t expect John Mark or Peter — if either of them had anything to do with the authorship of Mark — to cobble together the details of an elite institution right, and the author of Luke said that, not me.