(22 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...In yesterday’s post I mentioned that fact that John’s Gospel has a very different portrayal of Jesus’ trial before Pilate than any of the other Gospels. It is longer, more involved, and highly intriguing.
Unlike the other Gospels, it is not a short trial where Jesus says only two words (in Mark, Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews and Jesus replies: “You say so” – in Greek SU LEGEIS). There are numerous back and forths, including, at one point, Pilate’s famous question “What is truth?”
To make sense of the scene it is important to realize that John is going to have Jesus die on a different day from the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In those earlier Gospels, the day before Jesus’ death his disciples ask him where he wants them to “prepare the Passover meal” (Mark 14:12). He gives them instructions how and where to prepare the meal and they do so. That evening (which, in Jewish reckoning, is the beginning of the next day) they eat the meal, after which Jesus is arrested. He spends the night in jail and the next morning he is put on trial (on the day of Passover after the meal was eaten) and then crucified at 9:00 am
In John, however, Jesus …
To Read the rest of this post you’ll need to belong to the blog. It doesn’t cost much to join and all proceeds go to charities dealing with hunger and homelessness. So why not join??
Hello Bart, In John’s gospel, Pilate is said to hand Jesus “over to them” for crucifixtion. Is that to other Romans or the Jews? Thanks.
The antecedent is the (Jewish) chief priests!
I sometimes wonder who was there to take notes as to the detailed goings-on and conversations between Jesus and Pilot. I rather think that this was only a fictional story based on the vague memories of those who were there, yet, it seems no one was there from the Jesus group other than Jesus.
So, what was the source of these detailed stories? … Serious question.
Some Christian story teller must have made it up.
Oh come on! That IS a serious question. Was the reply intended to be a serious answer? My guestion has to do with how these events and conversations were transmitted. Some of the dialog is very detailed and I doubt that there was anyone there to take notes or even listen to what was being said. I just bought your book “Jesus Before The Gospels.” Perhaps you have something to say regarding the means of transmission of the content of these events reported in the gospels. You’re the expert. I expected more. I am disappointed with your flippant reply.
Yes, that’s my serious answer. I wasn’t being at all flippant. There was no actual information available but as Christians told stories about the events leading up to Jesus’ death they invented narrative details; these are not transcriptions of what actually happened, they are based on rumors and views of what “must” have happened. I’m not sure why you don’t think that’s a serious answer. If you want a fuller exposition, you’ll see it in the book you just bought (Jesus Before the Gospels).
At best the Gospels are historical fiction. John’s gospel could be right about the timing, but I think he invented the whole thing for his own purposes. I doubt Jesus gave any of the elaborate set-piece sermons John has attributed to him. Even worse, Jesus talks to the Jews as if he weren’t one himself. I had a relative who was Jewish by birth, but converted to Unitarianism. When disputing with members of his unconverted family, he would often begin with saying “You Jews….” and then go on to make his point. John has Jesus speak in a similar fashion. But Jesus wasn’t a convert and he certainly wasn’t a Jew hater. John holds a a seldom-exceeded role in that infamous category
Dr. Ehrman,
if Jesus was captured and executed, could it have happened just before (and on) the Sabbath or a holy day?
I’ve heard they would have held him over in jail to specifically avoid that inconvenience if it really happened at such a time?
Romans oculd have taken him at any time. I suppose most Jewish authorities would not have arrested him on the Sabbath. In the tradition, of course, they don’t do so.
Of course, if only Pilate and Jesus are in the room, how in the world does the author of John know what they said to each other?
Exactly!
Catholics read a lot of theology in John 19:27 regarding Mariology (in part that it proves she had no other children, etc). But how do you think John meant it? Was it significant; part of the beginnings of the doctrines about Mary? Or more a passing comment with little theological importance?
I think he was telling the Beloved Disciple to take over the care of his mother.
It looks to me (from what you say) that John’s gospel has Paul’s letters and teachings center-most in mind. Do historians have an idea as which synoptic gospels (if any) had Paul’s letters and/or message for reference?
There’s no evidence that any of the Gospel writers had seen any of Paul’s letters that we have today. Mark’s Gospel agrees with Paul’s theology of Christ’s death; the author of Luke obviously revered Paul (since that author also wrote Acts, where Paul is the hero — but he never quotes Paul’s letters), but he does *not* share Paul’s theology of Christ’s death. Very odd.
Bart,
It s generally believed that the twelve went out and about the world teaching the message of Jesus, after the Crucifixion. Yet the New Testament focuses on Paul’s missionary travels, saying little about the twelve,mentioning even Peter only briefly initially, and later not at all (as I understand).
Do we have significant credible evidence of the original disciples building and maintaining churches outside the domain of Paul’s many travels (with exception of Jerusalem and Rome)?
No, we don’t know what they were doing. In the book of Acts they pretty much stay put in Jerusalem.
Bart,
You said Mark agrees with Paul’s theology on Christ’s death, and mention that Luke (oddly, because Luke revered Paul) does not share Paul’s same theology.
I tried to find what you say in the two mentioned gospels. You must be referring to the end times and return of the Son of man mentioned in Mark, which I didn’t find explicitly in Luke. Is that right?
Paul’s theology goes further, however, doesn’t it? It is Paul who devises the idea of the blood shed on the Cross cleaning us of sin, and his resurrection showing he has overcome death and gives eternal life to all who believe. I believe this theology, developed by Paul, is not in any of the four gospels. Is that right?
No, I was referring to the doctrine of atonement itself. Mark appears to think Jesus’ death was a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of others (as does Paul). Luke does not. For him the death makes people realize how guilty they are before God so that they then turn to God and ask for his forgiveness. Very different mechanism for how the death brings salvation.
Hi Bart,
I looked through Mark again and still cannot find what you call a “doctrine of atonement”.
I found the usual: Cut off your hand or foot if it causes you to sin. More significant, the importance to forgive others, so that God may forgive your wrongs.
I don’t see anything about forgiveness and salvation by the Crucifixion sacrifice of Jesus. What I see points to us needing to modify our own behaviors and thoughts.
Can you please help me with this, identify the parable or the event or point me to a reference?
Thanks.
Mark 10:45 is one place. And the events surrounding Jesus death (curtain ripping at the moment of death) is another.
Okay, just a short passage but yes, it is there, as you say.
You would agree, I think, that Mark is contradictory to the message of Jesus in this gospel. I take it you are saying there is nothing to be found in Luke about salvation through this atonement. Would you say this puts Luke in agreement with Jesus that salvation is through our own thoughts and behaviors?
Hadn’t thought of it that way, but yes, I suppose so!
Could the Gospel of John been influenced by Paul, who refers to Jesus as “our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7), or do you think the concept was already in vogue? Also, in Acts 12 when Peter is arrested it says, “intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people,” suggesting they didn’t want a trial during Passover, which seems to go against the scenario in Jesus’ case. Any relevance to the accuracy of the Passion story in the Gospels?
I think they’re both passing on a widespread tradition, based on the idea that Jesus was executed at the time of the Passover. It’s not clear which verse of Acts 12 you’re quoting. 12:3 simply says Herod was planning to arrest Peter “and it was the time of the feast of unleavened bread”
“When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people. So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God. ” Acts 12:4,5 in the NASB.
Yes, that is interesting. It’s not clear why he wanted to wait until after the Passover. Maybe too much was going on otherwise and things were just too busy during the feast itself?
Professor, John’s version seems to exhibit a much greater awareness of Jewish theology and tradition that do the Synoptics. Do you subscribe to the theory that “John” may have been a member or leader of a group of Jewish Christians driven out of the synagogues and thus more inclined toward the emotional polemics that are so common in “family feuds”? Thank you.
I think the community was excluded from their synagogue, but I don’t know if the author was a Jewish leader of the group. I suppose he was a leader, but I’m not sure he was himself Jewish. (Notice that he has Jesus address “the Jews” about “your” law, for example)
John also explains terms such as “rabbi” that strongly suggest that whether or not he was Jewish, he was writing for at least a partially non-Jewish audience.
I’ve never been able to find any evidence outside the bible that Pilate was even required to give Jesus a trial before killing him, so the idea that Pilate would be running around like an errand boy seems even more absurd. Plus if the stoning of stephen actually occured, then Jews were actually allowed to administer the death penalty (unless maybe stephen’s stoning was illegal).
Since John differs from the Synoptics on what day Jesus died, how do people who believe the Bible is inerrant try to reconcile the different dates of Jesus’ death?
They have to make some rather bizarre claims, such as the Passover being celebrated on two different days by Jews at the time (in Jerusalem!)
Historically, there is a tradition about Jews celebrating holidays on 2 days because of the difference in times and dates in different parts of the globe. The idea was (is) that all Jews would be celebrating (say, the Passover) on one of the days. As you know, even now, more devout Jews celebrate Passover on 2 successive nights.
Am I right in thinking that in some times and places, Pilate was venerated as a saint?
Yup, I’m gettin’ there!
Reading your new book…what do you think would have happened if Paul had died, perhaps in a shipwreck, early in his ministry? Were the conversions he made so important that without *him*, Christianity never would have become more than a minor Jewish sect? (You may have answered this in the book – I’m reading so much that I can’t remember it all!)
Interesting question. I have no idea!
Prof Ehrman
Could you parse SU LEGEIS for me? I read the translation “You say so” but that could mean more than one thing depending on the way it was said. In English it could be both an affirmation (You said it!) or a negation (That’s what you say!) What is your sense of the response in Greek?
thanks
Yup, that’s what it means: “You say so.” It’s not clear if it means, yes, no, or maybe! You have to make the decision based on the context.
What does John want us to conclude about God here? The Jews appear, ironically, to have been trapped by their covenant, set up to take a terrible fall by God himself. Do Christians and Jews pray to the same God? Is God some sort of lunatic? Could such a God possibly create anything of beauty?
“… some sort of lunatic, sadistically entertained by the imperfections in his creation?”
John definitely is not blaming God for what hte Jews do here — he’s blaming the Jews themselves!
I’ve heard claims that, despite the likelihood that John was the last gospel written, some of his traditions may be more historically accurate. Specifically, I’ve heard the claim that Jesus dying the day before Passover is historically more likely than him dying on Passover. Do any serious scholars think this? How likely do you think it is? If that were true, it wouldn’t detract from your analysis regarding John’s theological emphasis. But it would raise some interesting questions. Perhaps Mark is the one who “changed the date.” Why might he do that? What would that say about his theology, or of Matthew and Luke. And how far back do some of the ideas in John go?
Yes, that is sometimes thought. The idea of the Sanhedrin holding a trial on the Passover seems implausible. Hard to figure out how to make sense of the dating on those terms. BUT, another option is that there WAS no “trial” before the Sanhedrin.
Would a trial by the Sanhedrin on Passover seem more plausible if it was only a “quorum” – the Priests, who presumably lived in the Temple complex, but not “lay” members who would have had to come from scattered homes?
The problem is not that it would be hard to gather everyone together on the Passover, but that no official Jewish action is conceivable on the high holy day.
Passover is not a high holy day. It is a very important Jewish event, but strictly speaking it’s not a high holy day.
One of the most fascinating things about you is that after abandoning the evangelical depiction of Jesus, you searched for the historical Jesus and somehow uncovered a man you appreciate and admire. I wonder if you would mind telling us what it is about the historical Jesus that you admire and appreciate so much?
What I don’t get about you, is how you appreciate someone who you think was so mistaken in his beliefs and ultimately proven to be a fake. You claim Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who genuinely believed a cosmic Son of Man would arrive soon and coronate him (Jesus) as the Jewish King – but it never happened.
In your view, the historical Jesus was proven to be a false prophet – so why do you admire him? Wasn’t he just another in a fairly long list of false prophets who got himself killed by the Romans?
I mainly admire his insistence on love of others at the core of his ethical teaching.
We can only admire people with supernatural powers?
So just David Copperfield?
The magician, not the Dickens character.
Socrates was so minor a figure in his day, that Thucydides doesn’t even mention him. He was reportedly the teacher of the despots who tried to overthrow Athenian Democracy, one of the reasons he was put to death. I think ‘failed philosopher’ would be a fair description of how he was perceived by many in his time, and he was forgotten by most for a long time afterwards. He left us no writings of his own, and some have even suggested he didn’t exist, or (much more plausibly) that Plato’s depiction of him is heavily fictionalized (certainly embellished).
He hated Democracy, despised women, and may have engaged in sexual relations with boys he was teaching.
So should we just forget about him?
What do you think is a good criteria for admiring somebody who lived a long time ago? You think ANY famous person of the ancient past wouldn’t find you and me and everything we believe in bizarre? And in fact, aren’t the beliefs (religious OR secular) of basically every modern figure of any importance constantly proven wrong in practice?
What I don’t get is why you’re paying to post here, if you think Jesus was so unimportant.
“We can only admire people with supernatural powers?”
That wasn’t my suggestion. I was curious about why Bart admires Jesus whilst also believing he was a false prophet. Bart’s answer is fair and coherent – despite Jesus’ predictions about the future being wrong, it was his call for a radical expression of love that he finds so admirable.
“What I don’t get is why you’re paying to post here, if you think Jesus was so unimportant.”
On the contrary, I think Jesus was an incredibly important historical figure (I’m a Christian and he is my King). I pay to post here because I value interacting with Bart (and other blog readers) and I also greatly admire Bart’s effort to raise funds for the hungry and the homeless by operating this blog. Even though Bart is no longer a Christian, it seems he still follows the teaching of Jesus to love others, especially those less fortunate than ourselves.
Sorry I misunderstood.
But isn’t basically every prominent thinker in all of history a false prophet, to some extent?
Name one famous person of the past who was never wrong about anything.
Jesus was wrong about something that is, I would say, not central to whether his teachings are true or false. He saw a very real problem–human evil. The people in this world who make things better, who tell the truth, who help others, who build instead of destroy, who share what they have with others, who put themselves at risk for their fellow humans (or for animals), are constantly at a competitive disadvantage when faced with those who have no such scruples. E.M. Forster once referred to them as the Natural Aristocrats–but also said that most of them die in obscurity, and that there are never very many of them.
Jesus can’t see any conventional way past this problem. The good will always be hampered (and often murdered) by the wicked. The goats will devour the sheep. How then can the world of men ever become what it should be?
By becoming the Kingdom of God. Where the sheep will be separated from the goats. The goats will be left to their own devices, only able to harm each other. Those who live in the Kingdom will be there purely on the basis of personal merit. Not by race, not by religion, not by anything but the content of their character (to paraphrase a much more recent follower of Jesus).
Now–is this practical? Only if God exists, and is willing to intervene directly in this manner. Jesus desperately needs to believe this. Because he wants the suffering of the sheep to end. He wants the Kingdom to come.
Just like Plato (and possibly Socrates) wanted some Philosopher King to come along and make everything perfect by installing a permanent dictatorship that would eliminate all human folly by the forcible reeducation of the masses.
Big difference–many humans have read Plato and actually tried to create that dictatorship–and it never goes well.
I like Jesus better. Sue me. Thing is, even if the Son of Man is never showing up, even if God never does intervene, we all have the potential to make the Kingdom inside ourselves. To live as Jesus wanted us to. If enough of us did that for a long enough time, maybe we could make something at least approaching what Jesus dreamed of.
Dr. King’s dream is still a long way off. I don’t consider him a failed prophet either.
One doesn’t have to “admire” Jesus to consider him important!
Frankly, I can’t *respect* him, because he seemingly wanted to be revered as “King of the Jews” in God’s new super-Kingdom. Wanted God to *compensate* him for having “spread the word.” (Shouldn’t the promise of *eternal life* in the Kingdom have been enough to satisfy *anyone*?)
But Christianity has had an enormous impact on our history. It still is influential. So its origin is well worth studying, whatever one’s opinion of the man.
I don’t agree that’s what Jesus wanted, or cared about.
What we see, under all the myth-making, is a unique story–of a cult leader who chose to die in the place of his followers–I believe that was intentional. I don’t know exactly what he thought would happen, but it seems pretty clear to me that he did not expect to be in the Kingdom himself. Like Moses (who he is compared with in the gospels), he won’t live to see the promised land.
Now obviously, if you do believe he thought he’d be this great king, living in splendor, worshipped by everyone, his character was not of a high order (though you know, a lot of people admire Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon).
If you look at his teachings–which say those who exalt themselves shall be humbled–if you look at the extreme ascetisicm he practiced in life–that doesn’t really track.
So much as I agree with your reasoning, I think your data set is faulty. You’re assuming too much.
Xenophon writes of Socrates, as his teacher/advisor. So pretty sure he actually existed.
Me too, but why believe Xenophon? Why believe Plato? Why couldn’t Socrates just be a metaphor they dreamed up to get their points across? Honestly, that’s how both of them use him. And there are strong reasons to doubt both of their accounts of Socrates. It’s quite certain they both make claims that are untrue.
Why believe them and not Paul?
Paul may not have known Jesus, but he met people who did. He talks about meeting Peter, he talks about meeting Jesus’ brother, it’s abundantly clear he believes Jesus walked around in a human body and talked to other people. He also has his own idea of Jesus, as being more than human, which is enabled to some extent by his never having met the man, but honestly–Plato’s Socrates hardly seems human himself. He’s dying a slow painful death by poison, and there he is, calmly discussing the mysteries of the universe.
And Plato, of course, was nowhere on the scene when that happened, because he had no intention of sharing that fate.
In point of fact, there have been people who have claimed Socrates is a fabrication–maybe there was some guy, or a bunch of guys, who were used as a model, but the man, as he’s come down to us, is a fictional character–as are many such figures in philosophical dialogues of this era.
The first record we have of him is in a satiric play by Aristophanes. He’s definitely a fictional character in that! So if you wanted, you could say there were earlier more serious stories about Socrates that Aristophanes was making fun of, and those were lost. Plato and Xenophon knew those stories, and used them. Xenophon was just trying to make it seem more real by claiming a personal connection to this mythical figure.
Hey, The Princess Bride, according to William Goldman, is a book his father read him as a kid, and he just wrote some interpolative material to put around it. He tells you in that novel that you can write in for an extra scene he himself wrote, but then you get a letter saying the Morganstern Estate objects to this. There’s no such thing as the Morganstern Estate. People keep writing the publisher, decades later, and keep getting this letter. The phrase “Stranger things have happened” is always true, in any context.
So obviously I believe Socrates existed, but did he say all or most of the things attributed to him? Definitely not all. Possibly not most. I know for a fact that Thucydides mentions people Socrates is supposed to have taught, but mentions Socrates not even once. Only two of his supposed followers and one irreverent playwright are evidence that he ever lived.
There’s actually a lot more evidence for Jesus.
My story I just made up about how Socrates is pure myth makes more sense than anything Carrier and his ilk ever dreamed up. But I still don’t believe it. Neither should you.
“To Read the rest of this post…”: this is the best ever, I think. In three sentences everything necessary is said and it’s compelling.
Here’s a really nit-picky question.
In any of the stories we have–should we even be calling this a trial?
Nobody to speak for the accused, who only rarely speaks for himself–who in fact does not seem interested in putting up any kind of defense, or even explaining his actions–in fact, his actions are never mentioned. (The implication we can draw is that he’s in trouble for turning over a few tables at the Temple courtyard, but in spite of the implied rejection of authority, that doesn’t quite sound like a crucifying matter, does it? Even in those days.)
What’s he accused of? Mainly just calling himself a king, but there’s no evidence presented that he ever did. If he did so in private, no witnesses are presented to say so, not even Judas.
His guilt is presumed from the start, and I understand the presumption of innocence is a modern innovation, but even so–the earlier trial of Socrates was conducted quite differently, and at least according to Plato and Xenophon, their teacher was given ample opportunity to defend himself, and could have easily gotten off, if he hadn’t been such a stubborn old cuss.
Roman Judea is no Athenian Democracy, but even so–what were the norms, if any, for this type of ‘trial’? Do we know? Wasn’t it really just an interrogation? A hearing, perhaps–just to make sure they’d brought in the right suspect. Pilate’s concern may not have been that an innocent man was going to be killed in a horrible way–been there, done that–but rather he couldn’t believe this was the dangerous insurrectionary he’d been told about.
More dangerous than anyone realized at the time.
One more thing–like most Jews of his time, Jesus was not a Roman citizen.
He can’t be said to have any rights at all under Roman law. No rights, no trial.
Maybe the only point of the ‘trial’ was to find out if his followers posed any danger. There doesn’t seem to have been any attempt to find them afterwards, though it would have been dangerous for the disciples to hang around Jerusalem in subsequent days.
We could interpret Jesus’ oddly passive behavior when questioned (as reported long afterwards, and there were no followers of his present that we know of) as his way of protecting them, so they could carry on after him.
He remembered what had happened to John, his teacher.
He was following a path already blazed.
He didn’t expect to avoid the penalties.
He wasn’t out to make converts there, to persuade anyone–he knew that was pointless.
What was going through his mind?
Not nit-picky at all. It’s a real question whether Pilate conducted anything like a trial, as opposed simply to ordering a trouble maker crucified.
> It’s a real question whether Pilate conducted anything like a trial, as opposed simply to ordering a trouble maker crucified.
That’s interesting.
Do we have any information about other cases in which Roman praetors and the like just did a quick “crucify that trouble maker” ruling vs holding a trial? I’d guess that non-citizens were more likely to get fast handling than citizens (cf Paul). And what would be the distinguishing signs between a trial and a quick administrative hearing?
Great question! I don’t know.
Well, they never found Spartacus, but I don’t believe any of the slaves who rebelled and were then crucified along hundreds of miles of road got any trial at all. Imagine how long all those trials would have taken!
Vercingetorix, the conquered leader of the rebelling Gauls, surrendered to Caesar. There was no trial. He was held prisoner for six years, then put to death quietly, probably by strangulation. I’d assume they waited so long to kill him in case they needed him (maybe as a hostage if there were further uprisings).
I get the impression that under Roman law, trials were more relevant to civil suits and such–disputes pertaining to property, for example. If somebody had transgressed against the state, he was presumed to have no rights worth respecting. I doubt even Mark Antony would have gotten a trial, if he hadn’t killed himself. Probably one of the major reasons he did.
“Ecce homo!”
“Crucifegerent.”
(I googled the Latin for ‘crucify him.’ And I actually studied Latin in college for one semester. It did not take.)
I could believe Pilate was curious. He probably didn’t have very good sources of information in Jerusalem, let alone the hinterlands. His job depends on putting out fires before they spread.
But since, as you mention, they would have been communicating through an interpreter, if they communicated at all, it couldn’t have been a very involved conversation.
If Pilate were curious about Judaism, it would be news to everyone who has written about him. Also, the Temple priests reported to the prefect; they even had to ask him for access to their sacred vestments. If Pilate had been at all curious, these were the people to ask.
But on a busy morning when he was trying to keep the peace (if you read lestes as insurrectionist, then Pilate had just put down one insurrection led by Barabbas), Pilate would have no time for curiosity.
He was an educated man, well-versed in philosophy. Nobody who knew him has ever written about him.
If you read Bart’s new book, you see similar figures–like Pliny the Younger–asking Christians all kinds of questions, prior to executing them.
Barabbas for all we know is somebody a Christian writer invented to make a point. “Son of the Father.” Did anyone actually have that name? Maybe a name he gave himself, as a revolutionary, like ‘Che’ Guevera. (Real name Ernesto.)
It’s possible Jesus just got caught up in something larger, but we have no outside documentary evidence of that. There certainly was no major Jewish uprising at this time documented anywhere. Jesus is crucified between two thieves in one account. If you actually believe they let an insurrectionist go, and crucified an itinerant nonviolent preacher with a tiny handful of serious followers, I have this bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.
If Pilate thought Jesus was part of some larger movement, he’d have all the time in the world for questions. He’d want to know how many more he had to capture and crucify. He’d want details.
So much as I concur with Bart that it might have been a very perfunctory affair, there are scenarios that could explain Pilate taking a personal interest. He’s very isolated from these people he’s governing, doesn’t understand them well, or at all. His career depends on keeping the peace. If he wasn’t curious, then he was stupid.
And that is certainly possible, but hardly proven.
To Godspell –
I am reading Bart’s new book. Lots of good material.
Pilate was no Pliny, based on the descriptions in Philo and Josephus. Villetius, governor of Syria (Pilate’s superior) eventually ordered him back to Rome to stand tiral for murdering some Samaritans. Pliny, OTOH, was following the emperor’s orders to make sure the people before him really were Christians who refused to sacrifice to the civic gods, before ordering them executed. Pliny was dealing with an established movement that Rome considered subversive; Pilate was dealing with a single disruptive individual.
With all gratitude to Josephus and Philo, for giving us at least some kind of attempt at objective history for Palestine in this period, some kind of outside documentation, you can’t assume their opinions of Pilate are without bias. Neither was an eyewitness to his administration, for one thing. Josephus was born in 37 AD. You can assume his sources for Pilate were mainly Jewish, and therefore hostile (understandably so). Philo was just a child when Pilate was in power, and living in Egypt.
Do you think, if the only information we had about Pliny the Younger came from Christians living a few decades after him, that he’d come off so well? He was torturing and killing decent law-abiding people for no reason other than their religion. And this was normal. Probably most of not all Roman administrators would have done about the same.
According to what we have from Josephus and Philo, Pilate was ordered to report to Tiberius for being overzealous in putting down a Samaritan rebellion. Nobody was accusing him of murder, because they wouldn’t consider that murder. The issue was, had he created more problems than he’d fixed by reacting as he did. Tiberius died before he got to Rome, and probably nothing was ever done about it.
Let’s say Pilate was more hostile to Jews than the average person doing that job.
Who’s telling him Jesus is a problem? The very people you say he had bad relations with, right? The temple authorities, who Jesus had openly defied.
Maybe he was throwing his weight around, rather than just doing what they wanted.
We don’t have to see him as merciful, or just. You ask me, the washing his hands thing sounds like just the kind of snotty gesture a man like that would make, as if to say “you people are your own worst enemies.”
To him, Jesus was just another Jew, but if he disliked the local Jewish authorities, and they disliked Jesus, could not that, in itself, have made him offhandedly sympathetic? Still, simply the fact that Jesus had an idea of some kind of authority above that of Rome could have been enough to warrant what happened in his mind. Just as in Pliny’s mind, law-abiding people refusing to sacrifice to any pagan god was enough to warrant torture and execution.
We can’t keep projecting our ideas of right and wrong back on ANY of them. Including Jesus. Even though his ideas of right and wrong proved more influential on the present day than any of the others.
Great post. Thank you!
Bart – As an historian and agnostic, how do you reconcile verbatim written accounts of a dialog between Jesus and Pilot that happened in private? In John 18:28 Jesus is taken to the palace and in 8:33 Pilot goes into the palace and in 18:25 Pilot goes back outside. And the text in John clearly indicates that Jesus was never outside the palace.
Q #1: How could the author of John know what conversation went on inside the palace between Pilot and Jesus unless he just made up the story?
Q #2: How can there be an honest scholarly discussion about these trial accounts?
1) Yes, for me they clearly come from an early Christian story teller 2) I often wonder about that myself!
Dr Ehrman
If someone says that post ressurected Jesus told them when he was with them for 40 days, how would you reply?
I guess I would say I don’t believe them. I can imagine someone many years later saying that it happened to someone else (that’s what we have: one verse in the book of Acts written by someone else 50 years later), but that’s not the same thing!
Dr ehrman, matthew did not believe that the man in the tomb would inform the ddisciples about the location of jesus . He NEEDS the women to be the informants. So if an apologist says that in mark the man in the tomb could have informed the disciples,then this is contradicted by matthew since he needs the women to inform them. So when mark says , “they said nothing to anyone…” then one cannot assume the man in the tomb told instead of the women. Do you agree?
I think in the context of Mark’s narrative we’re supposed to think that the disciples never *did* figure it out.
Dr ehrman, i just recalled that none of the disciples in acts ever recall about what jesus told them for 40 days in the book of acts.
if jesus was pro gentile salvation and fine with eating with non-jews at the same table, why did peter never recall what jesus told him for the forty days ? maybe for forty days jesus did not discuss about gentile salvation, so what makes the apologist think pilates questioning of jesus was discussed in that 40 day period by post jesus?
the thing is that apologist will have to admit that either they had bad memory or jesus thought that discussing gentile salvation (important thing) was not important enough and instead thought talking about pilate was more important.
All Acts indicates is that he spent the 40 days proving to them “with many proofs” that he had been raised from the dead. It seems like a very odd thing to say — how many proofs were needed, exactly, if he was there with them?
But remember, the stories were based on oral traditions. The people who first told them undoubtedly made them up. But the majority of early Christians, and the Gospel author, almost certainly believed *Jesus* had told his disciples all these things, while he was with them after the “resurrection.”
Just read up today on last several blogs regarding differences in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. What is the estimated time difference between the “most complete” copies of these gospels…and were the ‘most complete’ copies found together or in spearate geographic locations?
The first complete copy we have of the Gospels is from the mid fourth century, and the four are bound together with the other books of the NT in that ms.
Bart: I attended your debate tonight (February 21) at Kennesaw State University. Great job!
Thanks!
One (unintentionally) comic scene in Mel Gibson’s Passion has Jesus and Pilate discussing religion and philosophy in Latin! (Jesus is quite fluent) Did any of the ancient commentators speculate on how these two men could have conversed at length?
Not that I know of. Presumably there was a translator — Pilate would regularly need one.
So Pontius Pilate (characterized by Philo as vindictive, inflexible, relentless and inhumane – notable for continual murders of people untried and uncondemned ) begins his term of Prefect by erecting statues of Tiberius all over Jerusalem (irritating the Jews no end), tries it again and beats up protestors then ends his tenure with a massacre of Samaritans…. this Pilate actually holds a trial of an accused usurper and seditionist in which he defends the accused and practices shuttle diplomacy with the Jews he probably despises?
Historically, why would we think there was any more of a trial than Pilate telling the Pilus Prior of his accompanying cohort to crucify the guy the Jews claimed to be the king of the Jews?
Yes, that may have been the extent of it.
As you explain it, the authors of John, writing after Mark, Matthew, and Luke, are revising history, or the story, as stated by Mark, Matthew, and Luke, and corrupting Passover and Judaism with human sacrifice.
Professor Ehrman, who would want to do that? Seems like it would be someone or a group of people who were enemies of the Jews.
You’ve told us about the problems between the early Christian communities and Jewish communities. History books also tell us about problems between Jews and Christians–I’m thinking of Alexandria.
Is there anywhere Jesus teaching after I die, do not go to the Temple of Jerusalem for Passover, for the 37 or so years before the Temple is destroyed?
Actually, it appears that hte earliest Christians did continue to worship in the Temple. It was only later that there was some kind of widspread “split” between those who believed in Jesus and those who did not.
But you would agree they had no need for Passover (with Jesus as sacrifice for salvation) or Yom Kippur (with Jesus as atonement for sin), according to John’s gospel?
According to Acts of the Apostles, they met at the Temple but we do not know if they excused themselves for Passover and Yom Kippur.
In order to agree with you that despite the fictional elements of the gospels, Jesus did exist, I find the historical Jesus only in Jesus of Galilee and his mariners as described by Josephus. Did people travel from Galilee to Jerusalem for Passover? I’m sure they did. So, with the Temple of Jerusalem held by rebels in the late 60s and then destroyed in 70, Jesus as sacrifice is some compensation for the end of animals sacrifices.
Question: the idea of building altars or sacrificing animals in synagogues wasn’t a temporary solution for Judaism? That must have been some destruction, to obliterate a religion that way. I’m just thinking about the fear of the danger that comes from not offering sacrifice to one’s god, given the ancient mindset. Yes, the devastation caused hopelessness; and, yes, at least there was the Passover meal that could continue, but QUESTION #2: what books or articles could you recommend on how the Romans and the Jews abandoned animal sacrifice?
Google Result answers: animal sacrifice was common in Europe and the Ancient Near East until Late Antiquity (3rd to the 8th centuries).
If animal sacrifice went out, one would think the notion of Jesus as human sacrifice should have declined. It appears Christians are taught, once you sacrifice God’s son, there was no need to sacrifice any animal or human again. But we know it continued from 34 C.E. to 70 C.E. in Jerusalem which had no bearing on whether or not Romans were sacrificing animals to Jupiter, Mars, or Bacchus.
The earliest Christians who were maintaining their Jewish identity were doing so long before John’s Gospel.
John’s symbol is the eagle which also is the symbol of Rome (especially, Augustus, son of God, Divus Julius).
John 8: 36 So, if the Son sets you free you will be free indeed.
Vergil’s four references to libertas are programmatic not because of any ideological stance but because they are typically rich in contemporary resonances. Libertas at the time included a variety of aspects. It was a central concept under Augustus: his reign saw an unprecedented expansion of opportunities and participation for far wider segments of the populace of the imperium Romanum (cf. the recent work by A. Wallace-Hadrill, N. Purcell, and G. Woolf) than the senatorial oligarchy.
Tityrus is a freedman. His libertas will be to no avail if he can’t exercise it. He needs the securitas of being able to go about his business, and that is what Octavian grants him. It is that kind of libertas that secured Augustus wide-spread support. Freedmen became increasingly visible in his reign…
https://camws.org/meeting/2006/abstracts/galinsky.html
So much Roman propaganda and emperor posterity is connected to Jesus in the gospels.
When we look at the relationship between Roman sponsors and their clients be it a king or someone like Saul-Paul seeking favor from Roman sponsors, clients participated in religious practices and furthered Roman culture in their native culture.
I’m sure you’re making an interesting point here, but I have no idea what it is.
The author of John was not rewriting history, since there was no history to rewrite. The Johannine community of Asia Minor was a unique Christian community with their own ideas and a very strong Gnostic heritage. In John, they are telling their own story, not changing someone else’s story.
It is amazing to me that anyone would find these accounts credible at all. So few were educated in that day and the accounts differ so much and yet most Christians believe the accounts are credible and some even believe God dictated them.
That continually amazes me. I also admire Jesus strictly for his message. I do not accept salvation theology. However, It must have been lucrative for the church since they sold indulgences.
The more I study, the harder it is for me to preach. I generally just talk about his message of love and acceptance of all. Luckily my church has a policy of liberality.
How do you know what most Christians believe or don’t believe?
For a long time, Pilate’s very historical existence was in doubt–there was almost no information about him, except in the gospels. Obviously there was some kind of proceeding, but it’s hardly surprising that people who didn’t witness it got it wrong.
MOST accounts of ancient history are factually suspect, and yet were taken as gospel by highly educated people for centuries, before modern historians began to vet them. Why single out the Christian gospels? Why not take a closer look at your own?
Plato’s account of the death of Socrates has him drinking hemlock–possibly a more excrutiating death than crucifixion in some cases, the gastric pain would be horrible–and he just goes on talking about philosophy, and says “Oh yes, I can feel the drug taking effect, bit of a numbing effect in my feet, let’s get back to discussing death.” That ain’t how hemlock works. That’s how Plato wanted it to work. He was obviously not present for any of it, because he didn’t want to be drinking any hemlock himself.
You believe that story, which is, in effect, a gospel for secular rationalism? I get a bad case of food poisoning, believe me, I’m not talking about philosophy! The only thing coming out of my mouth is “Just wait until I post that Yelp review!”
I get so tired of the double standards. Of selective skepticism, which is less than worthless. Start always by questioning YOUR beliefs. Most of which, if you’re honest, have no rational basis in fact. That’s what makes them beliefs.
“I get so tired of the double standards. Of selective skepticism, which is less than worthless. Start always by questioning YOUR beliefs. Most of which, if you’re honest, have no rational basis in fact. That’s what makes them beliefs.”
It’s fascinating how you cite the historical unreliability of ancient texts to rationalize your own selective beliefs in the gospels, while bemoaning the ‘double-standards’ of others.
You are certainly correct about ancient sources, though: it’s silly to pretend that we can be absolutely confident about the details contained in any of them.
But see, if you were paying attention, you’d notice that I’m very skeptical about the gospels. if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be here. Before I ever read any of Bart’s work, I’d given up any notion of Jesus being God, or God’s begotten son, or having magical powers, and I think even many of the non-supernatural aspects of the gospels must be questioned, though some of the story clearly did happen, in some form, and it’s the height of irrationality to say “It was all made up.”
However, I understand there is a difference between truth and fact. As Susan Sontag (hardly a theist) once said, “The opposite of fact is fiction. The opposite of one great truth may be another great truth.”
There is very great truth in the gospel story, and in the teachings of Jesus. A truth so large that most of humanity, even that part that claims to revere Jesus, still fails to grasp it.
To me, Jesus is greater than Socrates, but one thing I do agree with Socrates about is that we know nothing.
But we can still try.
I have been paying attention, and I knew that you aren’t a Christian in any supernatural sense.
I’m not being critical of your beliefs, I’m critical of your hypocrisy. You pick-and-choose what you believe, just like everybody else.
I am sincerely curious, though, about that quote. Can you, or does she, cite any examples of ‘one great truth’ being the opposite of another?
Well sure, I pick and choose what I find credible. That’s what an informed person does, or ought to do.
But when what I previously believed about history doesn’t match up with the facts, I change what I believe to fit the facts. I’ve done that many times in the past, and expect to do so many times in the future.
Deeper beliefs–values, let’s say–not necessarily fact-based (“love is better than hate” is impossible to prove, yet I believe it) so I don’t change those so easily.
Yes, most people back then were uneducated, particularly poor people, and poor people founded Christianity.
What exactly is your problem with this?
You think only the rich should get to write history?
Probably not. But that’s how it comes across, because you’re not really angry at them. You’re angry at some of today’s Christians, who are not poor. And you’re projecting that anger back at people who couldn’t really comprehend any of us, regardless of religion.
And I don’t think that’s a good way to study history. Okay? You end up learning nothing.
Credulity is not confined to Christians, or the lower classes.
As we’ve learned here many times, some of the most credulous people around now are atheists, who will believe any crack-brained ahistorical theory that tells them what they want to hear. They cherrypick their history to suit their beliefs.
And they can all read and write, they all got a level of schooling even wealthy Romans couldn’t dream of then.
But they go on believing whatever nonsense they choose, and ignore people like Bart who try to correct their delusions.
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
That’s not from the gospels. That’s Schiller.
Dr. Ehrman, it would be nice if you could, in some future publication, review the myths and traditions surrounding Krishna in Hinduism. I know I have mentioned this before and you stated you are not an expert on Hinduism, but it is shocking how almost everything about Jesus is written about Krishna several centuries before Jesus time! Krishna was believed to be the Savior of the world from sin, he was God incarnate, he was crucified, the was born in a cave, he was resurrected, he appeared to his disciples after resurrection, he was born of a virgin woman, etc. There are about 40 similarities between Krishna and Jesus! One good source on this is ‘The evolution of Hinduism’ by Phillips, Maurice, d. 1910. Do you know if any scholar of the NT has looked into these similarities before?
I wish I had the expertise! But no, the connections to Jesus made by Philips are simply made up. I discuss similar “modern inventions” in my book Did Jesus Exist.
I am not sure what you mean by “the connections to Jesus made by Philips are simply made up.” These are not connections to Jesus; rather, in Hindu manuscripts such as Vishnu Purana which were written in Sansikrit several centuries BC there is a myth about Krishna, with no connection or reference to Jesus. What is written about Krishna is almost exactly what the bible says about Jesus, which naturally makes me think the writers of the NT just copied the story of Krishna and made it up as Jesus story. I am just surprised no bible scholar is aware of this older tradition about Krishna and the similarity of Jesus story to the former. Knowing the myths and traditions before Jesus time could explain why and how and where from the writers of the NT came up with their stories.
What is your evidence that such things were said about Krishna, that his mother was a virgin and he was crucified for the sins of the world, for example? What ancient sources actually say this about him?
Muhammed Al-baeruti (1992) reviewed the below and more sources that trace the traditions of Krishna in Hinduism and compiled an extensive comparison between what was written, circulated and believed about Krishan for centuries B.C. In his book (in Arabic) “The Pagan Beliefs in Christian Religion” he compared about 40 beliefs and traditions between Jesus and Krishna. The beliefs about Krishna were written and in circulation before Jesus time. These include myths and beliefs that Krishna was born of a virgin, that he was God incarnate, that he was crucified for sin of the world, that he resurrected, etc.
Whether or not these beliefs and traditions are historically accurate is another issue. The issue here is that these beliefs existed before Jesus time and as such one naturally concludes that the writers of the NT are likely to have taken their beliefs about Jesus from such older traditions as Hinduism.
Here are some sources that describe the beliefs about Krishna in Hinduism:
– Doane, T.W. (2013). Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions
– Child, M. (2016) The Progress of Religious Ideas: Through Successive Ages
– Publisher: London. (1799) Asiatic Researches; or, Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiry into the History and Antiquities; the Arts, Sciences, and Literature, of Asia.
– See Vishnu Purana books: 1-6
– See also the Bhagavata Purana Research Project at http://www.ochs.org.uk/research/bhagavata-purana-research-project
– Wilson, H. H. (2012). Rig-Veda-Sanhita
Have you read the ancient Hindu sources? Where is one that says, for example, that Krishna was crucified for sins and raised from the dead?
Dr, Ehrman,
in the Hindu Vedic script Atharva Veda in the verse 13-3-4 is write:
Koumaro loko ajanishta’ putrah nwarvhethan wai uttaravoth
Translation given: A son will be born to a virgin in this world, take ye hold that (son) is what is superior (than everyone)
and in Rig Veda (355-1)
[no transcription given] . . . ‘ born in a cattle shed’
I don’t know if it’s a later addition (or if that I’ve found is correct translation – even if is the same everywhere), but the text It seems to have been written in the B.C.E.
I tried to find more information about its authenticity, but unfortunately I have not been able to. What do you think, could it be an influence on the Christian virginal birth, the opposite or neither (just conjecture)?
Thank you so much,
Michele Fornelli
I’m not sure what hte originals say for these verses, but the big question is when they date from.
The sources you listed show recent publication dates, but they were originally published in the late 1800s-early 1900s, with one as far back as 1799. Since then, several scholars have said the previous claims of parallels between Jesus and Krishna were wrong and that some of the manuscripts were directly influenced by Christianity, not the other way around. I went to the website, and I didn’t see any lectures, essays, or monographs that suggest Jesus was a myth taken from the Hindus. The only direct comparison I could find was for Krishna and Allah—
“Radical Monotheism of the Qur’an and Equitheism of the Bhagavata Purana: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Allah and Krishna”
Dr. Ehrman, I have been reading the English translation of Hindu sources, mainly translation by Horace Hayman Wilson (1840). I am not an expert in Hinduism or Sanskrit language in which the sources were originally written. I just read Chapter III of Vishnu Purana, one of several ancient Hindu sources arguably to have been written in a duration of several centuries BC. This chapter tells the tale of Krishna’s birth. The beginning of the chapter goes like this “THUS eulogized by the gods, Devaki bore in her womb the lotus-eyed deity, the protector of the world.” The chapter goes on relating how the child born is the “sovereign god of gods” and how his mother and another man take the child across a river to save him from the ruler Kansa who wants to kill the child but fails by the super powers of the child-god. Here is the link to the chapter online in English: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp120.htm#page_502
Pattycake1974, yes, the date of the publication is the newest edition on Amazon. But I have been reading the original publication. I just read the chapter on Jesus birth and its similarities with other ancient figures such as Horus of Egypt, Yu of China, Krishna of India, etc. Doane’s publication is quite extensive and detailed. You can access it for free here at Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31885/31885-h/31885-h.htm#Page_111
Doane’s analysis (towards the end of the chapter) of the influence of the Roman and Greek traditions on Christianity is similar in many ways to that Dr. Ehrman himself elaborates on in his book “How Jesus Became God”.
The sources I provided above are just some examples of the ones consulted in the book I read in Arabic. There are many more out there. They might not all specifically discuss Krishna and Jesus, but each discusses some aspects. Reviewing them all reveal shocking similarities.
I’m afraid you need to read ancient Hindu sources, not what sensaationalizing scholars of the 19th century *claimed* about ancient Hindu sources.
“Muhammed Al-baeruti (1992) reviewed the below and more sources that trace the traditions of Krishna…”
Your sources:
Doane, T.W. (2013). Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions—Who was this person? Can’t find a thing about this author. Why should anyone trust this person as an expert?
Child, M. (2016) The Progress of Religious Ideas: Through Successive Ages—She is famous for the poem, “Over the River and Through the Woods.” Are you really going to rely on her? She’s not a scholar for the Hindu religion!
– Publisher: London. (1799) Asiatic Researches; or, Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiry into the History and Antiquities; the Arts, Sciences, and Literature, of Asia.—Have you looked this up? Part of this source is about medicine.
Al-beaurti has no clue…no clue whatsoever.
I think it is stretching a point to suggest that the recitation of the psalms (I assume you mean PS 113-118?) at the Passover meal was used by John ironically. We don’t actually know how the Passover seder was conducted at that time, but given the centrality of the Temple service, it is likely it was nowhere near as elaborate as it is today.. Since the Hallel was the responsibility of the Levites while the Temple stood, I think it unlikely that families eating the Passover meal in Jerusalem would have taken it on themselves to sing it. But the truth is we really do not know.
The seder meal as we have it now was designed by the rabbis sometime after the destruction, and the rabbis have this habit of claiming that what they had just invented was the way Jews had been doing things all along.
The gospels were written by Christians, but weren’t primarily about theology or doctrine. They are ancient bios narratives, each showing what kind of person each author believed his protagonist to be. There’s no reason to expect consistency in the stories. The synoptics have some consistency only because Luke and Matthew used (and copied) Mark and Q. The details of a trial, or that there even was a trial, are merely literary tools. Their only purpose (beyond entertaining satisfaction of curiosity) was to explain why a good man would have been executed by Rome. The author of John doesn’t even try to be consistent.
All of Christianity was influenced by Paul, including those branches who rejected his ideas. Ideas of Christianity appear only as hints, as precursors. Why would the God of Israel even care about Gentiles?
I agree, Dr. Ehrman, that reading the ancient sources is the best way to verify. But is that the only way? Does reading recent translations exclude the validity of the historical truth of these sources per se? I take what you say in your books to be historically valid and true even though I haven’t read the ancient sources of the New Testament. But I take what you say in English to be an accurate depiction of those sources because you are a scholar in the field. Can we categorically claim that those 19th century scholars to be sensational just because their views and scholarly work don’t align with our own views? Thomas Doane, for example, supported his claims with evidence, scriptural and archeological, based on other scholarly work. When you call them sensational, shouldn’t you back your claim with evidence? The same with Muhammed Al-baeruti. His book is written in Arabic and his views are backed by evidence from various sources written in Arabic and English. Can you claim he is sensational before even reading his work? Or maybe you have already read those works and critiqued them as sensational with evidence elsewhere where I haven’t seen? Maybe in one of your other publications?
Khalid, in all charity, do you expect Bart, who is a mortal man, with a finite lifespan, to exhaustively refute every single scholar who ever wrote anything about the Old or New Testaments?
Scholarship is a cooperative venture, you must understand. Nobody can read and review everything, even in a specific field of study. There is a scholarly collective, a scholarly consensus, which can and does change over time. What seemed like good scholarship in the 19th century can seem very out of date in the 21st. Some claims hold up much better over time than others, and even the most influential works will need revision, as new information and understandings become available.
When more and more professional scholars look more and more closely at past claims, and find them largely spurious, one should surely take note of that fact.
Just saw your comment after I had already posted mine. I agree with you on this one! One thing that bothers me though is scholars who have too narrow of a focus. For instance, Bart mentioned someone who is an expert on Romans, chapters 8 & 9 but doesn’t know much about the Gospels. That’s a problem in my book. Physicians are required to have a comprehensive background of medical knowledge before entering a specialty field and that’s for obvious reasons. I expect the same from a NT scholar. A specialty is great, but there’s an expectation to have an extensive background in NT as a whole. Studying the microorganism without knowing much about its host seems futile to me.
I read some of the text from the links you provided. Krishna is just one of several avatars. In the first link, the deity is born blue with four arms. At one point, he has eight arms. In another story, he was sought to be killed as a baby, but he’s not born from a virgin. He has parents with seven siblings. He dies by being shot with an arrow, not crucifixion. He forgives the person who kills him then ascends after his death.
All I see are some commonalities that reflect the imagination of the ancient world. One thing I’ve noticed with stories like Krishna, Horus, etc…, is that their original forms have next to zero similarities with Jesus. The similarities don’t show up until after the Common Era which means they’re copying from the Gospels or Christianity has influenced their thinking. Unfortunately, there are some modern scholars who only show the texts that correlate Jesus with some other god but fail to mention that it was well after Christianity was established. They leave out the part that the story circulating beforehand was completely different.
You should have been a detective.
Pattycake1974, you are correct that the chapter by the link I provided give several descriptions of Krishna, one being an avatar, a god descending to earth. Actually, in that chapter alone, there are several similarities with the account of Jesus in the NT. How when Krishna was born there was joy and light on earth, there was singing in the heaven, that the king Kansa wanted to kill the child, just like Herod’s story, and that his mother and husband fled across the river, just like Mary and Joseph escaping with Jesus. There are at least 40 other similarities in the scriptures of Hinduism with that of Jesus in the NT.
You say these similarities do not show up until after the Common Era, what are your sources for this claim? Also, you say the “original forms have next to zero similarities with Jesus.” Have you read the original sources?
I find it funny that Dr. Ehrman praised you for making claims without backing them with evidence and sources, when in fact I provided sources and he still kept requiring that I need to read the original Hindu sources. I sense a scholarly bias here. Could it be the truth (if it is proven and demonstrated to be the truth) that the accounts of the NT came from other traditions too much of a new and shocking realization to accept? Specially after one spends their entire career thinking otherwise and publishing many books on the subject? A scholar should be open to accept new evidence humbly wherever it might come from and whatever it might be and be willing to investigate without bias.
The first source you listed, sacred texts.com, is a birth narrative for Krishna taken from the Vishnu Purana. Horace Wilson translated that text and acknowledged its tradition being dated from 1BCE, but after his analysis, he placed it in the 11th century CE. There is wide disagreement among scholars for the dating of the Vishnu Purana.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Purana
Another source you listed is a study conducted by Oxford for the Bhagavata Purana. I could not find any mention of Krishna linked to Jesus. It’s a massive website with essays, books, lectures, etc… There’s no way I could go through all of that information, but if you found something on it that shows a correlation between the two, I’ll look at it. But again, modern scholarship for this particular text is 500-1000CE.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana
The earliest dating I could find for a story with Krishna in it is from the Adi Parva which is contained within the Harivamsa. From what I understand, the Harivamsa is dated to 1BCE, but the stories for Krishna are in the two Puranas I mentioned previously which are dated later. I think Krishna is mentioned elsewhere in the Adi Parva, but I couldn’t find an English translation.
I used Wikipedia as a source because the scholars who give dates for the Krishna stories are numerous. There’s citations for them if you want to track them down. That’s not to mention the number of scholars who say there’s scads of interpolations, redacations, and forgeries. I can see why Oxford’s focus is just with the Bhagavata Purana because its texts contained within texts within more texts with all of them splintering off into a hundred different directions.
Please remember, it was a central belief in Judaism, for centuries before Jesus, that the God of Israel was the only God, the creator of the world, and all living creatures in it. That all men and women were descended from Adam and Eve.
In the Book of Jonah (which Jesus is said to have referred to with great approval), God tells the vengeful prophet that he will spare the sinful city of Ninevah, not only for the people there, but for the sake of the animals living there as well.
And God tells the more compassionate Lot in Genesis that if even ten righteous people–of any religion–live in Sodom, he will spare that city as well.
Before Jesus, the idea that God cares for everyone did exist, even if not every Jew (or later, Christian) necessarily agreed with that view.
If He cares what happens to an Ox or an Ass, he cares what happens to gentiles as well. 😉
I think you’re reading ideas into Tanakh that aren’t there. This was all about Israel. The Mosaic Covenant was only about Israel. God cared about others only as they affected Israel. In Exodus 23, “When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out …” God’s primary instruction was to slaughter them all. Doesn’t sound like God cared for them.
You miss the point of Jonah. Israel considered Babylon (aka Babel) an enemy, bad guys, especially right after the Babylonian captivity. But when Cyrus let them return to their homeland and helped finance the rebuilding of their temple, Israel had to find a way to rationalize calling Babylonians good guys, and Cyrus a messiah of Israel. Jonah was the answer. God sent them a prophet and they repented.
Dr. Ehrman,
I have a question concerning how the gospel of Mark presents Jesus’ cry of dereliction on the cross. Why was it presented in Aramaic when all of his other sayings are translated? Thank you for all your great work here and in your books.
Not all of them: e.g., talitha cumi. It may be that in places Mark wanted to stress the authenticity of the words.
“So too, near the end of the trial, in John 19:14, we are told that the event took place on the ‘Day of Preparation for the Passover.’ That was the day when, starting after noon, the Jewish priests sacrificed the Passover lambs that would be eaten that evening at the Passover meal. Jesus is condemned on that day, and John tells us that he was crucified not at 9:00 in the morning but after noon – in other words, on the same day and at the same hour as the Passover lambs.”
How do you respond to the argument that John must have been using a way of reckoning time that was different from Mark’s? In support of this view is that if Jesus were crucified at noon, and if the crucifixion lasted six hours (Mark 5:25, 34), then the Sabbath would have commenced before Jesus’ burial. Appeal is also made to John 1:39, which says that Peter and Andrew “spent that day” with Jesus (NIV, Berean Study Bible, Weymouth New Testament) which, the argument goes, was too late in the day (10th hour = 4 PM) to begin spending the day with Jesus. Your thoughts?
That would mean that Jesus was put on trial before 6:00 am? Does that seem likely to you?
“I’m not sure what hte originals say for these verses, but the big question is when they date from”
As I said, the date seems to correspond to a few centuries before Christ, but I have no idea if there have been interpolations over time. From what I know the Vedic religion is in constant change even today.
As far as I can understand, you do not give much credibility to the thing, right?
No, I don’t think that’s the date. Look around a bit and see what we actually know about that.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman, one last question, this also also applies to these steps?
* The Purush Prajapati is the one and only way to
eternal life. “Nanyah pantha vidyate-ayanaya”. (Yajur Veda
31:18)
* He is the only sinless human being, and only in
knowing him does one obtain immortality. (Chandogya
Upanishad 1.6:6,7)
* The Supreme Creator took a perfect human body
and offered it up as a self sacrifice. “Nishkalanka Purusha”
(Brihad Aranyak Upanishad 1.2.8)
* After giving Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, He
resurrects. (Brihad Aranyak Upanishad 3.9.28.4_5;
Kathopanishad 3:15)
* By his resurrection, the Purush Prajapati conquered
death and released sin’s stranglehold on mankind.
We are delivered from ‘karma’ and the ‘Mouth of
Death’.(Rigveda 9:713.7-11; 4.5.5; 7.104.3)
* Acknowledging the sacrifice of the Purush Prajapati
imparts eternal life (Kathopanishad 1,3.8,11)
Again: dig deeper into when these things were written.
Unfortunately, as I am not a scholar, I have only read BCE wherever I have looked. That’s why I asked the question to you 🙂
“So too, near the end of the trial, in John 19:14, we are told that the event took place on the ‘Day of Preparation for the Passover.’ That was the day when, starting after noon, the Jewish priests sacrificed the Passover lambs that would be eaten that evening at the Passover meal.”
I’ve seen this claim before–that John has Jesus crucified at the time when the Passover lambs were killed–but this is not what the Torah stipulates. Exodus 12:6 says, “You shall keep [the Passover animal] until the fourteenth day of this month; then the whole assembled congregation of Israel shall slaughter it at twilight [literally ‘between the evenings’].” Twilight is not close to noon. Even if appeal is made to Josephus in Wars VI.9.3, which says that lambs were killed between the ninth and eleventh hours, it still seems to be a stretch to make a noon crucifixion a fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice, but that’s still straying from the twilight sacrifice mandated by Exodus. Your thoughts?
I haven’t checked for a very long time, and maybe someone else knows, but I think the “after noon” idea comes from the rabbinic sources.
Dr. Ehrman,
in the Atharva Veda, Bock 13 hymn 4, (translated by Ralph T.H. Griffith), is wrote:
Title: “A glorification of the Sun as the only Deity”
39 He is the son of sacrifice: and sacrifice was born from him.
40 Sacrifice, sacrifice’s Lord, he was made head of sacrifice.
41 He thundereth, he lighteneth, he casteth down the thunder-stone
42 For misery or happiness, for mortal man or Asura.
This hymn is from BCE, do you think this may have inspired the Christian understanding of Jesus (perhaps by the evangelists themselves) or are they just sensationalist speculations?
Thank you
The followers of Jesus who came to think that he was a sacrifice for sins were not only illiterate, they had no connection with anything from India (as rural peasants in a remote part of the empire). Their sacrificial theology came almost certainly from Jewish roots.
Hi, i know it’s an old article, but i’m doing small research about this topic and i would be gratefull for precising one thing.
If i’m understanding it correctly in the synoptic gospels Jesus dies in friday and in John’s gospel he dies in thursday. Am i correct?
Great post by the way!
regards,
Maciej
Not quite. He dies on Friday in both Gospels. But in John that Friday is the day before the Passover (which was on Saturday) and in Mark he dies on the day of the Passover (which was on a Friday).
Aaaand next question,
In Mk 15, 42; Lk 23, 54; and in Mt 27, 62; the authors mention “preparation day” as the day of Jesus death.
Is this “preparation day” (before the sabbath?) is different from “Preparation for the Passover” ?
What day of the week was the passover back then?
I’m confused 😉
Have a nice day!
Yes, if you look at the texts carefully, in Mark and Matthew Jesus dies on the day of Preparation for Sabbath (i.e., on Friday) but NOT the day of Preparation for the Passover (which for them happened on Thursday). In John Jesus does on a day that is the day of Preparation for BOTH Sabbath and Passover (i.e., for him the Passover took place on Saturday — that’s why it is called, only in John, a “Great Sabbath” since it is a sabbath that also has another festival day landing on it), i.e., the Friday before the passover day.
Thank You for responding,
So, when You write “In John, however, Jesus dies a day earlier” you mean “a day earlier in the liturgic calendar but at the same day of the week as in the synoptics”?
So there is no difference between time Jesus was dead (in terms of days) in all four gospels? In all of them Jesus dies on friday and rises on sunday, right? So it’s as in that joke in which he only sacrificed weekend 😉
Sorry for digging so much but somehow i was convinced that in one of th stories the so called prophecy of Jonas (Mt 12, 40) was fulfilled, but i gues it was not.
Yes, in the Synoptics Jesus dies on the day of hte Passover; in John he dies a day earlier — the day *before* the Passover. In both cases the day is a Friday. And in both cases he rises on Sunday — which appears to be counted as “three days later” though technically it’s something more like 36 hours. Jesus does indicate in the Gospels though that this is a fulfilmment of Jonah (Matthew 12:38-42)
Dr. Ehrman,
I have a question about the day Jesus died as it pertains to John. I’ve heard some counter arguments claiming that John teaches Jesus did die on Friday and I was wanting your thoughts. Here are their arguments in summary:
“In regards to John 19:14, the phrase “Preparation Day of the Passover” is referring to the Sabbath Preparation Day that occurs during the Passover week—i.e., Friday. We can know this because:
– Matthew, Mark, and Luke, show Jesus being arrested and crucified after the Passover meal, all state that the “Day of Preparation” was Friday, the day of Jesus’ crucifixion (Mt. 27:62; Lk. 23:54; Mk. 15:42).
– John used “Preparation Day” as being Friday, coupled as the day before the Sabbath (Jn. 19:31; 42).
– Jesus was crucified as the lamb of God on Friday (15th of Nisan). Lambs killed on Thursday the 14th of Nisan were for private meals. Lambs to be offered on the altar of the Lord on behalf of the whole nation of Israel were killed on Friday; the day Jesus died, signifying he died for the whole world (Exodus 12:16-17; Leviticus 23:4-8; 2 Chronicles 30:15-19; 35:11-16).
What are your thoughts?
I’m afraid that reconciliation doesn’t work because it is assuming what it is questioning — whether it was the same day or not. If you say the account in John must be the same day as the Synoptics because the Synoptics say it is the day of Preparation for the Sabbath so John is talking about the Preparation for the Sabbath then that’s assuming the conclusion. In all Gospels the death comes on a Friday. In each case it is the day of “Preparation for the Sabbath” since it is the day before Saturday. In the Synoptics that Friday happened after the Passover was eaten on Thursday night. In John that Friday happened on the day before the Passover was to be eaten that very night. So for John it was a day of *two* Preparations (Sabbath and Passover. John explicitly calls it Preparatoin for the Passover; for the synoptics it cannot be that because Passover was eaten the evening before.