(16 votes, average: 4.44 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I began to discuss the understanding of Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, in the Gospel of Mark (this is a thread within a thread within a thread – but it doesn’t matter. Each of these posts makes sense on their own). I am trying to show that Mark portrayed Jesus as the Son of God (meaning: the one who was in a particularly close relationship with God who was chosen by God to mediate his will on earth) and the messiah. But he was the Son of God/Messiah whom no one understood. Even his disciples.
What though would it mean for first century Jews to think of someone as the messiah?
Some serious background is necessary. As I pointed out in my previous post, the word Messiah is a Hebrew term (the Greek equivalent is “Christ”) which meant “anointed one.” Why would you call someone the anointed one?
In Jewish circles the term goes back to a kind of royal ideology (i.e., understandings of the kingship) from centuries before Jesus. In the Old Testament, it was first and foremost the king of Israel who was thought to be the “anointed one.” That’s because at the king’s coronation ceremony, he had, as part of the ritual, oil poured on his head to show that he was the one who stood under God’s special favor. He was thus the messiah, the anointed one.
In one of our early narratives about kingship, we are told …
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!
But then in the sixth century BCE, disaster struck. The Babylonians invaded Judea, destroyed Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and removed the Davidic king from the throne.
What were thinkers in Judea to think of that? God had promised that there would always be a king, an anointed one from the line of David on the throne. And now there simply wasn’t one. Some thinkers came to believe that this was a merely temporary state of affairs, a blip in the divine plan. God would still fulfill his promise to David and his people, by restoring a king to the throne of Israel. There would be a future anointed one. I.e., there would be yet again a messiah.
The idea of a messiah then developed into the notion of a *future* king from David’s line who would rule Israel. This figure was not to be divine, except insofar as God would make him his “son” just as he had made David, and Solomon, and other kings his son. People expecting a messiah, then, were expecting a future warrior-king who would drive out the enemies and set up the Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem.
By the days of Jesus, some 600 years after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, different Jewish groups and individuals had different understandings of what this future ruler of Israel would be. My guess is that most Jews were not looking forward to a messiah at all, just as most Jews today aren’t. But some were. And their expectations (as attested in our surviving sources) were diverse.
Some, probably the majority of those expecting a messiah, thought he would be the traditional warrior-politician-king, a human elevated by God to rule over his people. Others maintained that the future messiah would be a great and powerful priest who would rule God’s people by giving them the true interpretation of the law. Yet others thought that the messiah would be more of a cosmic figure, a divine being come on the clouds of heaven to destroy everyone and everything that was opposed to God in order to set up a new scheme of things, a new kingdom here on earth.
Even though these were different kinds of expectation, they had some things in common. Most important, they all saw the messiah as a figure of grandeur and power who would overthrow the enemies of the Jews and establish Israel as a sovereign state in the land, ruling over the people as God’s empowered representative on earth.
With that background, it is easy to see why after the death of Jesus, it was so difficult to convince Jews that he was the messiah. He was just the *opposite* of what the messiah was supposed to be, virtually by definition. Rather than a powerful figure who destroyed God’s enemies, Jesus was a lower class peasant who got on the wrong side of the law and was *squashed* by God’s enemies. The Romans unceremoniously arrested, tried, convicted, tortured, humiliated, and crucified him. THAT’S the messiah???
In the past I’ve tried to explain to my students how most first-century Jews would react to the claim that Jesus was the messiah. It would be like my trying to convince you that David Koresh is the Lord of the Universe. David Koresh??? The Branch Davidian? The guy at Waco who was abusing kids and stockpiling arms, the guy the FBI killed in a raid on his compound? You’re telling me that *he’s* the Lord of the Universe?? What are you, CRAZY???
That’s pretty much what most Jews thought about the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah. (I always used to get in trouble when I’d use this analogy. At the end of the year I’d have two or three students write on their course evaluations that they couldn’t believe that Ehrman thought that David Koresh was the Lord of the Universe. Ai yai yai….)
It’s no surprise then that Christians did not have lots and lots of Jewish converts to their belief in Jesus. In my next post I’ll be explaining why Christians did believe that Jesus was the messiah – a belief that I think goes back to the Jesus’ own lifetime. In fact, I think that Jesus himself thought he was the messiah.
My thinking in this area has been strongly influenced by Michael Grant’s “Jesus: An Historian’s View of the Gospels”, and Grant did not think Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah. Grant was not, as you know, a specialist in this particular area of historical study, but a kibbitzer from classicism (also a really good writer).
Grant’s interpretation was that Jesus had an ever-evolving sense of himself–that he knew he’d been called to some great mission by God, but he didn’t necessarily believe any of the existing prophetic roles in Judaism that remained to be cast were quite right for him. He was wary of getting pigeon-holed, and the gospels have a number of episodes where his disciples are trying to get him to accept some mantle or other, and he keeps backing away, while at the same time asking him “And who do you say I am?” I find it rather appealing that he’s genuinely curious what they think.
But as appealing as that is, it may not, of course, be the truth. I’m familiar with your thinking on the matter from “How Jesus Became God”, and I have some quibbles with it, but you could absolutely be right. I would just rather you weren’t. 😉
Well, sometimes I wish I weren’t right too!!!
Poignant, for sure.
Hi Bart, here is a question:
On a scale of certainty from 1 to 5, where 5 represents “As certain as the existence of Julius Caesar” and 1 represents “As certain as calling heads when a coin is tossed”, how certain are you that Jesus thought he was the Messiah?
Hmm.. 3.5
Do your students still know who David Koresh is? Mine are now shaky on the 9-11 attacks – one student said he always just thought it was a day to commemorate the people who respond to 911 class, and he did not know there were once terrorist attacks on that date.
Nah, they don’t. That’s why I can’t use the illustration any more.
About a year ago, I tried to read “How God Became Jesus” which, as you know, was written by five authors criticizing your book “How Jesus Became God.” At that time, I was so offended by the harsh, unkind, sarcastic, unChristian criticism of you by Michael Bird at the beginning of the book that I threw it down and stopped reading it. Recently, however, I gave the book another try and ducking the personal Ehrman criticisms by Bird, I found that the authors presented five major arguments worthy of consideration as follows:
1. First, Bird contends that first century belief in the divinity of Jesus had unique Jewish features that cannot be fully explained as just being an outgrowth of beliefs in an ancient culture about gods becoming humans and humans becoming gods such as occurred with the deification of Roman emperors and Egyptian pharaohs.
2. Bird, and, later, Gathercole and, still later, Hill, all contend that a high incarnation Christology appeared much earlier than you contend and did not evolve from an earlier exaltation Christology.
3. Both Bird and Gathercole contend, in contrast to your view, that the Jesus described in the Synoptic Gospels did consider Himself to be God because he forgave sins which only God can do. I think you responded to this criticism both on this website and in your debate with Gathercole.
4. Evans, in a very complicated chapter, and, later, Hill contend, in contrast to your view, that Jesus was buried in a tomb. Evans, in contrast to Bird, sticks to an analysis of this issue rather than attacking you personally. You have responded to this critique by Evans in a couple of past posts.
5. Tilling, whose writing is extremely hard for me to follow, and Hill contend, in contrast to your view, that Paul did not consider Jesus to have been an “angel” prior to His birth.
Overall, despite the negative diatribe by Bird and despite the fact that sections of their book were just plain hard for me to follow, I found their book to be better than I had expected. I certainly do not have the expertise to fully evaluate their five main arguments, but is there anything in their book that you found persuasive enough to change your mind about anything you wrote about these five aguments in “How Jesus Became God”?
Finally, I still find it more than a little perplexing that if the New Testament is filled with authorship questions, textual variations, contradictions, and historical implausibilities that so much emphasis can be placed on a sentence or two here or there in the Bible. Couldn’t one easily end up emphasizing a sentence or two in the Bible that has no historical basis? I do understand that there is some history in the Bible, but Is it really appropriate to take a sentence and even a word so seriously, as has been done in the discussion of some of these five points, especially when Bible sentences can be used to oppress women and gays?
As always, all of us should be appreciative of your attempts “to make us think” about important matters as well as your gift to explain stuff clearly and concisely. I know I am. You deserve thanks not attacks.
. .
Yes, some of the articles are worth thinking about, absolutely. I think Evans is the best one, but I spent about a dozen posts showing why I think he’s completely wrong. The others are pretty easily dealt with in my view. On the whole I was pretty disappointed with the book — but the authors didn’t have much time to prepare their responses….
There are uniquely Jewish features to the beliefs of early Christianity, and nobody should think that it’s all cribbed from pagan mythology–but Jews lived in the same world with pagans, were not hermetically sealed away from their beliefs.
I mean, the gospels were not written in Hebrew–they were written in Greek, by presumably Hellenized Jews. Who were not only reading Jewish texts.
It’s still nonsense to say that Jesus’ whole story is plagiarized from pagan myths, but of course nobody has debunked that idea more effectively than Bart.
A question for your “Reader’s Mailbag”, Bart:
In *Forged* you take a passing swipe at the Jesus Seminar scholars:
“In my opinion, the members of the Jesus Seminar typically got precisely wrong what Jesus actually said.”
I can easily imagine that you would think this, Bart. I can even imagine what have in mind here. But, why should I imagine? You could, if you thought it worthwhile, explain to us exactly what you meant by this comment. You might even offer us an example or two where you feel that Funk and company were particularly off course with their red letters and explain why you feel they were wrong.
Many thanks! 🙂
That would take more than a short response! Or even this one: so here’s my quick stab. I think they are completely wrong to maintain that Jesus was NOT an apocalypticist. That’s the key issue.
Yes, I agree. I never understood how they washed out he apocalypticism.
Many thanks! 🙂
My understanding is that Jesus absolutely was an apolcalypticist, and very much believed himself to be the Messiah/one anointed for a specific Godly purpose).
To put it in a nutshell, I believe he believed (as his teachings indicate, as far as I understand them) the end of the age had come. God was about to rid the earth of all evil, at which point he, Jesus, would assume his position on the throne of King David and his 12 disciples would be members of his court, overseeing the 12 tribes of Israel. His death rather threw a monkey wrench into all of that, his own expectations as well as the expectations of his followers, who then had to scramble for explanation and reinterpreting Old Testament Scriptures helped them to do that.
You’re certain to clear up whatever my misunderstanding. 🙂
That being said, I can’t wait for your next post! Though I have to say, I’m rather buried in Forgery and Counterforgery, and am quite delighted to find, in the very first chapter, a clearer understanding of the Didache.
Thanks, Bart, for taking the time you do, to do all that you do.
I always thought that it was pretty strange that the Jesus Seminar didn’t think that Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet. I suppose it has something to do with John Crossan; who, from what I have gleaned from reading his books, insists that Jesus was some kind of Finian (Irish Republican?) Revolutionary. Crossan has a lot of good things to say, but the Finian Revolutionary thing doesn’t work very well, in my view.
I can fully understand why Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would be wary of the view that Jesus was and Apocalyptic Prophet: the Apocalypse didn’t happen the way Jesus predicted! They just seem to turn to the Gospel of John and use that as a template for their views.
I think you misinterpret apocalyptic language as pertaining to the end of THE WORLD, when it really refers to the end of THE INDIVIDUAL. You need to appreciate this use of apocalyptic language as meant allegorically to apply to inner experience of the individual. Every single OT story has a mystic allegorical meaning, and most of the NT ones, as well, Bart. For one crazy example, a recent Master in India has stated that the “where the carcass is the vultures will gather” refers crudely to disciples being automatically drawn to their master. The “lightning coming from East to West” is not for all to see, but is an appearance of Light within the disciple when sufficiently concentrating. Cutting off the right ear of Malchus becomes an initiation into the Spirit. (I have a textual proof-test for that one, John 18:9-10.)
I have a book by a recent disciple, an American who lived in India for years, called “Mystic Bible” – Randolph Stone.
Every OT story is interpreted as the allegory it covers. If you promise to return it (I’ll pay), I would send it to you.
If Jews thought that the messiah would be such a grand figure, then how could Jesus believe he was the messiah being the exact opposite of the expectation?
Stay tuned!
I understand your explanation for why most 1st century Palestinian Jews did not embrace Jesus as a Messiah. But how would you explain Christianity and the notion of Jesus as a messianic figure gaining a foothold among in various Gentile communities in the 1st and 2nd centuries considering: 1. the Gentiles did not have a cultural concept of a Messiah (Jewish or otherwise); and 2. Jesus did not engage, live in, or conduct his ministry among the Gentile communities in which Christianity began establish churches and grow during the first century and early second century (e.g., Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, Thessaloniki, Colossae, Corinth, etc.)?
Ah! That’s the subject of the book I’m working on now! (Gentiles were less interested in the idea of a Jewish messiah than Jews were, obvioulsy; but the idea that Jesus could be the Son of God who was raised from the dead had some traction)
I sometimes wonder whether you may, unconsciously, underestimate the importance of the *afterlife promise* because you yourself don’t believe in any sort of “afterlife,” and you’re completely comfortable with that.
Not sure what you’re referring to!
What it was about the Christians’ “message” that would have appealed to Gentiles.
Ah, that’s the subject of my next book! It’s a long story. But I’ll get to it on the blog soon.
Oh, how fortuitous that you will be giving treatment to this question in your next book! I presume that your analysis will involve some discussion of syncretism and cultural diffusion at play among the Gentile and Jewish cultures. Should be an interesting read. I’ll keep an eye out for it in the future.
Do you believe that Jesus viewed himself as as Gnostic Christ? In other words did he believe that he was a human vessel of the platonic logos sent from Marcion’s highest God that would save the Jews from “The God of this World”, AKA Jehovah? Did Judaizers interpolate Jesus into their Messiah?
No, I don’t think Jesus had any knowledge of gnostic, marcionite, or platonic thought.
Do you think Mark 14:3-9 is Mark’s way of symbolically anointing the Messiah? Also, all 4 Gospels have a version of this anointing. Mark and Matthew are very, very similar, but under a microscope Luke and John are quite a bit different in their versions of this story. Do you think this points to the story being historical or not or that it indicates neither?
Interesting idea. The problem is that the Gospels all thought he was anointed by God (i.e., the messiah) before that point.
I have always had difficulty accepting/believing Jesus was actually anointed, and have long since wondered if perhaps the Gospel writers didn’t understand what the process required, especially as it pertains to Messiahship, per Exodus 30:22-33.
Kind of off topic but i was wondering if you ever watch James White’s radio program. He gives you more free press then any apologist probably should.
He was mentioning that in your most recent debate with Justin Bass that you misrepresent the heresy you accused him of. He also mentions he would love to debate you again. I was wondering if you could go into a little more detail on the heresy and what the chances that you would debate him again would be.
Thanks in advance and I love this blog!
Interesting. No, I don’t follow him. I find him abrasive and aggressive. But if he thinks Jesus was YHWH, the Almighty God of the Jews, well, I’m afraid that is a heresy.
hello Bart
james i found him arrogant especially in his debates with Muslims. when you debated him and during cross talk the man was terrified he had used the word sir 17 times so you can go easy on him , but he never use the word sir in his debate with Muslims
Hi Bart
As far as I know, we don’t have any real basis for the common assumption that the reason the Jews (in general) rejected Christian claims of Jesus’ messiahship was that he was merely “a lower class peasant who got on the wrong side of the law and was *squashed* by God’s enemies.” etc. We all know the historic David Koresh because he’s a famous person through CNN, so for the analogy to hold up the Jews would have had to know the ‘historical Jesus’, the “lower class peasant etc.”, before the Christians came along with their claim, which is really unlikely. (For the record, I do believe there was a historical Jesus).
The Jews who rejected the Christians’ claims about Jesus would have heard about him through Christians not CNN, and those Christians’ narrative would not have been a messiah who is “a lower class peasant etc.” Their narrative would likely have been something like the gospels, which is … what exactly? Well, the Jesus of Mark is most certainly the heavenly, cosmic messiah-figure constructed in part from a messianic reading of Dan 7 and whom we know from such texts as the Similtudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. He is the heavenly “Son of God” wielding God’s power on earth. It’s just that in Christianity this particular heavenly messiah has an extra-role in God’s plan for salvation. He may appear as a normal human being, but it’s clear to everyone who witnesses his “signs and wonders” that he is wielding God’s power.
Except the Jewish authorities though. But in the narrative of Mark they do not reject Jesus’ messiahship because he is “a lower class peasant”. They reject him for the same reason pharao rejected Moses’ “signs and wonders”: their hard-heartedness. It’s part of God’s plan in order for the narrative of salvation history to move forward, according to Mark. The Jewish authorities are witnesses to God’s powers, but they are ‘pharao’, they are the blind generation. They are a literary theological construction.
In Judaism the exodus-wonder is God’s greatest deed, the very constituting salvation act for Jewish identity and for God’s identity as ‘father’ of ‘Israel’. According to the Christians God’s resurrection of his son, messiah, is the new greatest deed of God, the new ‘exodus-liberation’, the new constituting salvation act for ‘Israel’, the Christian community. And in so many other ways Jesus supercedes the foundations of Jewish everyday life, including the institution of the synagogue with it’s teaching of the Law and much more.
If a Jew were to accept this form of Christianity it would mean saying goodbye and rejecting the identity of his former selv, his family, his community, etc. For a gentile it would be much easier. So I don’t think the real reason the Jews in general rejected this new form of Judaism, Christianity, was because they couldn’t accept their messiah being “a lower class peasant who got on the wrong side of the law and was *squashed* by God’s enemies. etc.” Because the Christians never proclaimed such a messiah. That’s not the narrative in Mark anyway. Or the other Gospels.
The Jews would probably have rejected Christian claims about the veracity of Jesus going about doing God’s “signs and wonder” and especially the claim about God raising him from the dead and placing him in heaven. But first and foremost a Jew would naturally reject any Christian who came along and said: “Hey, come home with me and join my own little synagogue with our own rituals and you can actually receive God’s spirit. You won’t go to synagogue anymore, because the teachings of your rabbi is inferior to the revalation of the God’s will directly through the spirit. So tell your family, you’re now rejecting their whole way of life and come with me”.
Wouldn’t you agree that it’s way too simple to say, that the Jews rejected Jesus’ messiahship merely because they considered him to be this ‘historical Jesus’ who we think he was? A ‘historical Jesus’ we construct on the basis of the Gospels and Acts that are extremely complicated theological constructions?
Thx for you blog, I really enjoy it, and nice work with the charity.
Hi!
Is there any evidence that, for instance, the leaders of the Maccabean Revolt or the Jewish-Roman Wars were regarded as or claimed to be the messiah?
Thanks as always!
Yes indeed! E.g., “Simon” during the Jewish war. And then Bar Cochba in the second Jewish war.
hello bart
did jews appeal to Deuteronomy 21:23 : the body must not remain hanging from the tree overnight. You must bury the body that same day, for anyone who is hung is cursed in the sight of God. In this way, you will prevent the defilement of the land the LORD your God is giving you as your special possession.
to prove that jesus was false Mesiah
Yup, I’ll be dealing with this in my next post.
Hello Bart.
If I am not mistaken, you do believe John expresses Jesus and God incarnate on earth.
I am convinced by your view but have a question-why don’t you think the author(s) of John were making Jesus out to be like an angel? Just like angels ended up talking the voice of God in the Old Testament why not the same as Jesus?
Once again I am convinced by your view but I just want to ask about this possibility.
I suppose because he never calls Jesus an angel.
Do you believe that the account of the apostles being whipped after Peters preaching in Acts (after Peter heals a lame man) is historical?
As far as the guard story goes, during the polemic, after the Christians told the Jews about Joseph of A and his empty tomb, they responded by claiming the apostles stole the body of Jesus. Did one of the Christians then invent the lie of the guards and come the next day with the story in order to convince the Jews that the apostles couldn’t have stolen the body?
Whether the guards were stationed there or not, why did they come there a day and a half after Jesus had died and not immediately afterwards?
No, I don’t think the account is historical
Did Jews who were hostile towards Jesus believe that he had the power to drive out demons from people? The Bible says they did, but that they said the jesus got that power from the devil.
Probably not.
“Rather than a powerful figure who destroyed God’s enemies, Jesus was a lower class peasant who got on the wrong side of the law and was *squashed* by God’s enemies. The Romans unceremoniously arrested, tried, convicted, tortured, humiliated, and crucified him. THAT’S the messiah???”
Does not sound like the messiah to me, more like a very naughty boy.
Ah, one of the great lines of the movie.
I am somewhat new to your site, debates and ministry. You bring out questions that I have had for several years but have just “put on the shelf”. The apparent “inconsistencies” in the New Testament still drive me nuts and the only reason I just haven’t chucked the whole thing is because of the Old Testament prophesies. The many prophecies written hundreds of years before the fact, especially ones like Isaiah 53 seem to point exactly to the Jesus of the New Testament, describing or hinting at much of Jesus’ life down to his very name. Without pouring over many more posts, blogs and comments, can you point me to a book or article that addresses how you deal with this “seemingly impossible feat” unless it was God?
I’m afraid it is a terrifically complicated issue, one that I have indeed dealt with at length on the post. Isaiah 53 absolutely never mentions Jesus name!! For some comments, you might look at my posts on July 10, 2012 and NOvember 8, 2015. For future, just search for what you’re looking for by clicking the magnifying glass icon on the top right of your screen on the blog page (for this search I myself just now looked for “Isaiah 53”)
Thank you for your response! I’m sorry, I didn’t mean Isaiah 53 specifically mentioned Jesus’ name, I believe it was Zechariah who alluded to it, I just meant all of the prophesies together seem to create a picture of his life. I’ve watched several of your debates on YouTube and I like your down to earth style and honesty. Part of what got me interested in researching the integrity of the NT was a Universalist friend of mine who asked the question, “How can a supposedly loving, kind, compassionate God send billions and billions of people to eternal hell who do not claim or know the name of Jesus”? Makes sense….between you and him I now don’t know what to believe…..
No, Zechariah doesn’t allude to Jesus’ name either. As to what to believe: it’s always up to you yourself, based on what you think is the most sensible thing given everything you know.
Ha ha! I realize the thing in Zechariah chapter 3 was my own imagining, especially verse 8. Well, the NIV Study Bible also helped to lead me down that road and point out the coincidence of Joshua’s name being essentially the same as Jesus. At any rate, I’m no scholar in any sense of the word, I’m just being led around with a leash through the ring in my nose. I’ve sat under various pastors, including some home churches and read stuff like Josh McDowell and others. That’s the extent of my “learning”, besides reading through the Bible a few times. I know I’m on the road to becoming an agnostic, but not atheist. I’ve had too many “coincidences” in my 65 years of life not to believe in a creator. It’s just, who is he, exactly? I’m in the process of reading your book “Forgery and Counterforgery”. I’m glad my Kindle has a dictionary for the vocabulary, but other than that, interesting book. Eye opening…..
Ok, I bought another one of your books, “Jesus, Interrupted” to see if I could get through it a little easier than “Forgery and Counterforgery”. What a difference! I’m not sure I’ll be able to finish the first one now and also realize it was written for more of the “academics”. But that brings me to a question, I think that some ancient writings have their authorship questioned because they are different than their usual fare. How much is that taken into consideration, when, for example Paul is in different moods or he is purposely writing in a different style for different audiences?
Yes, it absolutely has to be taken into account! But, e.g., when it comes to 1 Corinthians and 3 Corinthians, or 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, they would have been the same identical audiences!
And yes, Forgery and Counterforgery is not meant to be easily digested!
As far as the 500 witnesses to the resurrection that Paul mentions, why do you think a group of Christians decided to make up that legend? Was it just to give more evidence to the Christian faith or did the number 500 have some symbolic significance to them?
In the book attributed to James, the author mentions that Michael the Archangel had a debate with Satan concerning what should happen to Moses’s body. Do you think that that author of James heard of a legend that stated that or was it the author’s own invention? If so, why?
Legends are almost never made up intentionally.
Do you think Paul mistakenly thought that the two people escorting him saw the supernatural light that he thought he was seeing, or did he intentionally make that up to give more evidence to what he thought was his encounter with Jesus?
I don’t think the Acts narrative is historically reliable.
Paul mentions that encounter in one of his own letters as well. Do you think he thought they saw the light or did he make that up?
Do you believe that the apostles and James had hallucinations of Jesus and thought he rose from the dead? If not how did they come to believe Jesus rose from the dead?
Could you give me a quick explanation concerning how the legend of the 500 apostles arose?
I just finished reading “Jesus, Interrupted”…..Now I feel like Neo in the Matrix after taking the red pill…..
Yeah, definitely, the blue is far more comforting….
I think that the historical Jesus thought God would intervene into the world, save him from death on the cross, and bring him victory over the Romans. Jesus never thought that he would die on the cross and be resurrected after three days. Jesus never would have cried out the cry of dereliction if he thought God would resurrect him.
A crucified messiah was clearly a “stumbling block” for most Jews (1 Cor 1:23), but at least some Jews, like Paul, believed Jesus’ atoning death, burial, and resurrection fulfilled Jewish scripture (1 Cor 15: 3-4). Paul is probably referring here to Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and following Matthew 12:40, the account of Jonas and the big fish.
I’ve never read your books and would like to know if you, Bart, are a believer. I find bible scholars obsessed with early Christian texts interpretation to the exclusion of linking older Jewish traditions, e.g. so far I’m not seeing any recognition of the ancient Hebrew worship of Yahweh as a “Great Angel” according to Prof. Margaret Barker that seems an obvious proto-Cosmic Christ type of Jewish worship. Also I’m seeing OT texts not questioned, e.g. accepting David as a historical figure when Israeli archaeologists say Hebrews didn’t even exist anywhere in Canaan/Palestine until 700 B.C. which of course makes all the earlier “Hebrews” fictitious personages matched with fictitious events.
I discuss my religious views in a number of my books, especially Jesus INterrupted and God’s Problem. I’m Christian by background, upbringing, and training, but am now an agnostic. For the OT, there is of course a lot written about this. I’d suggest the books by William Dever or the book by Silverman and Finkelstein, Unearthing the Bible.
Hello Everyone
This is a great blog for sharing thoughts and ideas. I commend it. Nice one Bart
I believe we are all searching for the truth. The problem is we are directed by our parents who have a great influence on our thinking at those early years. Before we know it we are either Moslem, Christian, Roman Catholic……..
I am a parent and have not insisted on imposing my own thoughts and baggage on them but allowed them to organically evolve their ideas.
Let me come to my point. I am relatively new to Bible reading and I find the inconsistencies and contradictions a wall that cannot be overcome. I had an open mind and the more I read the more frustrated I became. There are so many valid interpretations there are so many versions of the Bible. My point, yes, briefly the narrative of the Bible is an attempt to control the lower classes in society. To provide fulfilment and hope for many that some day justice will prevail. That the sacrifice made here in this world will be rewarded in the after life. The Bible addresses the social order of our society making the less fortunate content and law abiding and accepting of their economic fate. Their has never been a time in our world where so much wealth is controlled by so few people. The establishment preserves the status quo politically and economically. Everyone else is left to carve out their opportunity by some measure of luck and hard work. The symbolic event of the exodus is statement that the lower classes were not going to accept the status quo and the promise of a new land with opportunity for all was a powerful message…………………….I await your responses
Thank you