In my previous post I indicated that, looked at in one way, the crucifixion of Jesus was one big mistake. The ruling authorities knew that he considered himself the future ruler of Israel, the messiah, and so they condemned him for insurrection. But Jesus wasn’t in favor of insurrection. He was predicting something much bigger, a cosmic intervention by God. He personally posed no threat to Roman rule.
Once I wrote that, it occurred to me – in a rather tangential and possibly irrelevant way – that there actually were early Christians who taught that Jesus crucifixion was One Big Mistake but in a different, unconnected, way. Or rather different ways.
So in this post I move us onto a tangent before returning to my thread in the post that follows. Here are two of the most intriguing attempts to explain that the rulers made a BIG mistake when they crucified Jesus. Or when they thought they did.
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!
Jesus may not have intended to become a political king, so his execution may have resulted partly from a misunderstanding of his intentions. But what about John the Baptist?
John also does not seem to have sought the overthrow of the existing political order. Nevertheless, might Roman authorities or Jewish rulers have feared that charismatic religious figures such as John and Jesus could become catalysts for unrest, regardless of their actual intentions?
Josephus suggests that Herod Antipas feared exactly this in John’s case: John’s influence over the crowds was so great that they might be persuaded to revolt. Perhaps, therefore, the intentions of John and Jesus mattered less politically than the hopes and frustrations that people projected onto them.
In Mark, even Jesus’ disciples fail during his lifetime to understand the true meaning of his messiahship. Could the wider crowds have misunderstood him similarly? Perhaps people burdened by political, economic, and religious frustration elevated John and Jesus as expressions of hopes and grievances that neither man necessarily shared in political terms.
Historically, then, were John and Jesus killed not primarily because of what they intended, but because rulers feared what the crowds might make of them?
If Josephus is right then JB was killed out of fear of a mob (uprising); if the Gospels are right, it is because of his offensive views about Herod’s marriage. Jesus was killed explicitly for insurrection — not so much because anyone thought he’d raise an army, but simply for calling himself the king.
Hi, Dr. Ehrman, thank you for this fascinating post! I have one question. For many Gnostic texts, would it be fair to say that Christ’s primary role is to reveal the elect’s true identity rather than to accomplish salvation through his death? If so, in what sense does Christ still “save” people, rather than simply reveal a salvation that is already theirs?
Yes, that’s right. He saves people who have a spark of the divine by revealing to them the secrets they need to know to escape their material existence and return home.
As you pointed out in recent blogs, Jesus may not have had a trial in front of Pilate. But to what extent did Jesus have a trial before the Sanhedrin or the High priest? Professor Humphreys book [1] explores the nature of Jesus alleged trial by the council and considers issues like whether or not Mishnah-like rules were applied. It could be argued that the gospel authors were simply ignorant of Jewish legal practice and that is why their stories violate Mishnah-like conventions. Or maybe those conventions didn’t apply in first century Jewish legal practice since those conventions were first written down around 210CE, and the Sadducees rejected oral laws. I have disagreements with Humphreys reconstructions and I’m curious what kind of “trial”, if any, Jesus actually had before the council.
REF:
[1] “The Mystery of The Last Supper: Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus”, by Colin J. Humphreys.
I don’t think we can appeal to the Mishnah to know the legal proceedings of 200 years earlier. But I don’t think it’s plausible that Jesus had any kind of trial at all before the Sanhedrin on the day of Passover!
I agree one hundred percent. It seems scholars think that Jesus was arrested, interrogated briefly by Jewish authorities, and them summarily executed by Pilate (probably on the day before Passover). It would be hard to call any of that a trial which is why I put the word trial in quotes. From your past blogs I think that’s your view too but I’m curious if you have any ideas about it beyond the aforementioned quick arrest and quick execution.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that historically Jewish authorities brought Jesus in for questioning and at least talked to him, before telling Pilate he was calling himself the king of the Jews. So it depends on how loosely we use the word “trial.” I certainly don’t think all that could have happened the evening of the Passover meal though.
Dear Dr Ehrman-With regard to the Crucifixion and its later significance, I noticed that in ‘Lost Christianities’ you described the Ebionites as believing that Jesus death was sacrificial in nature and that his resurrection/exaltation was a form of reward for his enduring of these sufferings. If you do not mind my asking, which academic resources and texts led you to this conclusion ? I only ask because I cannot seem to find any sources stating that the ebionites believed the sacrificial nature of Jesus death.
The view is usually thought to be reflected in Saying 7 and possibly 8 (the sequence in my transltaion in The Other Gospels) from Epiphanius, Panarion, 30,16,4-5)
Hey Bart,
I know you’ve mentioned that Jesus doesn’t claim to be God in the synoptic gospels. So I was wondering what your thoughts were on Mark’s intended meaning with Mark 10:18, where Jesus replies to the rich man who calls him good by saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone”.
I’ve heard some Christians interpret the verse as Jesus subtly implying that he’s God by inviting the rich man to reflect deeper on what it means to call Jesus good. Jesus does ask leading questions throughout the gospels and I know the messianic secret is considered a theme in Mark so I partly get why Christians hold this view.
But reading through the passage myself the plain reading to me suggests that Jesus is instead rejecting the label of good and thus, distinguishing himself from God. I don’t see any indication from either Jesus or Mark that the question is meant to be interpreted as a leading question.
So I was curious to hear your take given the verse is used by some people to assert that Jesus does in fact make claims to be God in the synoptics. Thanks!
It’s usually taken to mean just the opposite (as you yourself indicate)? You can’t call ME good! GOD is the only one who is good!
Hello Dr. Ehrman, aside from the historical development of these ideas, do forgiveness and atonement not work together? Is it the case that if something is forgiven, atonement cannot be involved?
I think of the example where you forgive someone that wronged you, but you still require boundaries until it can be atoned for (made right).
Or is it simply the case that if something is forgiven, there is nothing to be atoned for, and the example that I gave isn’t [true] forgiveness.
Thanks!
It depends how you define the terms. In my book Love They Stranger I have a long discussoin of this. You certainly CAN use the terms to overlap. But there are two different concepts that do not overlap, and it is possible to use the *terms* to refer to these two nonoverlapping concepts, and for the sake of clarity that’s what I do. The concept of “atonement” requires some kind of payment, penalty, price to be paid, which is paid, and then that’s that. “Forgiveness” (the concept I’m using) requires NO payment of any kind. It’s a foregoing of a debt (or a sin, or wrong doing etc.) without payment. So they are necessarily distinct. In terms of these concepts.
If the Apostle Paul preached atonement for our sins and Jesus preached forgiveness for our sins how do we explain Mark 10:45: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” And “Matthew 26:28: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Yes, one of the most important tasks in establishing the teachings of Jesus is determining which words recorded on his lips in the Gospels are things he actually said, in history. The Gospels certainly describe Jesus as proclaiming that he was going to be crucified for the sins of others. (Just, e.g., as in John he certainly proclaims he is a divine being sent from heaven.) But there are good reasons for thinking this is ont something he said, but has been put on his lips by later Christian story tellers who, after they came to believe in the resurrection, certainly did not think he was taken by surprise when he was crucified.
It’s not what Jesus expected that got him crucified.It’s what the people expected.Everyone knew it:The Jewish rulers,the Romans,zealots surrounding Jesus,and the recent history of a few insurrections that proves the concrete fear (or hope)of an insurrection was shared by all.The Gospels say so as well.If,of course,what is reported was said.
Secondly,it was not up to Jesus to convince each Israelite that they shouldn’t do anything at all,and the Romans would never have been convinced that Jesus didn’t want an insurrection,thus there wasn’t going to be one.
There is no connection between what we assume was Jesus’ imagined cosmic event and what the reality was.
It’s important for historic acuity to remember the reality all around Jesus and what was surely going to happen if Jesus wasn’t stopped: an insurrection. As it happened later.
It’s also important because diluting the certainty of the “insurrection fear” places blame on the Jewish leaders and exonerates the Romans.
Finally,Jesus could explain this non-insurrection to Pilate till Kingdom come,and Pilate still would have had to execute him for treason,because the Jewish God that would supposedly prevent an insurrection didn’t exist for Rome.The Emperor was the god.
How can we reconcile all this?
It’s a lot to figure out and piece together. I don’t think the Romans would have executed him for refusing to worship the emperor (since they never did that with Jews) or even for saying something like “The end is near!” And I don’t think they were afraid he would literally start a resurrection. The problem was that he was calling himself the king, and Romans didn’t put up with that kind of nonsense. Better just to crucify someone like that to discourage it….
I found that Islam’s Quran says that Jesus wasn’t crucified, it was someone who looked like him (according to Surah 4:157). Not only did I find this Gnostic story in Basilides (the earliest account), but also in two documents from Nag Hammadi; “Apocalypse of Peter”, and “The second treatise of the great Seth” from about 230ad. But the most interesting document that parallels the Islamic story about the crucifixion impostor is the “Gospel of Barnabas” 620ad (not to be confused with the epistle of Barnabas 100ad). This work arrived on the scene and was popular at the time of Muhammad. It has Judas Iscariot as the one who volunteered to take the place of Jesus unlike the Simon the Cyrene story of the others. It states that Jesus stood back undetected, laughing at the people for being idiots. I concluded that Muhammad plagiarized this work because he was influenced by Gnostic ideas.
1st Corinthians 2:7,8 says, “If the powers had understood what they were doing they would not have crucified the Lord.” Yes, demonic powers made a mistake because in crucifying Jesus, the way was made providing the opportunity of salvation for all mankind. Yes, Satan made a big mistake!Agreed?
I’m reading Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. After laying out the methods scholars use to assess historical reliability, chapter 9 turns to the heart of the matter: Jesus’s mission as an apocalyptic prophet. You write that you will now consider “teachings of Jesus that appear to go directly back to him.”
You then discuss Jesus’s teaching about the coming kingdom, arguing that he envisioned it as a concrete future reality rather than symbolic one, citing sayings about eating, drinking, entering in, and coming in power. One text you appeal to is the Q tradition in Luke 13:23–29/Matthew 8:11–12 (p. 143).
I found that choice surprising because the passage seems to reflect a form of reversal where Gentiles from around Jerusalem (East, West, North and South) are welcomed into the kingdom while the “sons of the kingdom” (Matthew’s version) are cast out. I would’ve expected you to regard this as a later development, perhaps reflecting Pauline theology.
Could you clarify your position about Gentile inclusion/Israel exclusion going back to the historical Jesus? Also, can you elaborate how it relates to Paul’s theology?
I think one of Jesus’ major teachings (amply attested) wsa that Jewish leaders and other Jews wuold not be accepted into the kingdom. That is precisely why they needed to repent. On the other hand, gentiles (from around the world) who do what hte God of Israel wants (love others — esp. those in need) would be brought into the kingdom. That is what I see as the entire point of the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, a passage that I think almost certainly goes back to the historical Jesus.
Jesus “engineered” his own crucifixion. Okay, he did not engineer his massive popularity as the successor of JOHN’S BAPTISM. He did not engineer that this enthusiastic crowd re-branded JOHN’S BAPTISM into the coronation of the Jewish Messiah. He did not engineer the reaction of the High Priest to the rumors that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (“If Jesus comes to Jerusalem, we will arrest him (prelude to an official execution).” But, Jesus flaunted this warning when he chose to come to Jerusalem for the Passover when 300,000 visitors arrived in Jerusalem. If some misguided disciples attacked the Office of the High Priest, it would be interpreted as a coup of the city of Jerusalem. Pontius Pilate would shelter-in-place and send messengers on fast horses to the north to unleash the Roman legions. The High Priest acted pro-actively and prevented a possible slaughter of 300,000 Jews in Jerusalem. Have a good day.
My point is a bit difficult to make but here goes. It pertains to the actual efficacy of the holy spirit.
I agree with your characterization of Irenaeus as a ‘heresy hunter’. Now if Irenaeus was a christian who had received the holy spirit, then I have to conclude either that the holy spirit approved of hunting heretics or the holy spirit actually didn’t influence Irenaeus to behave in accordance with Jesus. We can’t prove either way but Irenaeus did hunt those he considered heretics and promoted destroying their writings.
Considering the harm christians during the centuries have inflicted in the name of christianity and god, I think the influence of the holy spirit is both greatly overestimated and a valid atheist discussion point.
I can understand the gnostic view of Jesus’ crucifixion which you explain here saying that it was only the physical shell of a man who died but how in this version did the story progress? Were there scenarios to explain the burial and the empty tomb etc?
In some versions the divine Christ reenters Jesus and brings him back so he can meet with his disciples (either briefly or for years!) to deliver the truly “secret” teachings that he withheld in his public teachings during his lifetime.
As a layperson, I can’t claim any real familiarity with Gnosticism. But if one takes seriously two premises, it seems to me that Gnostic views of a duality between a spirit-being and the flesh that embodies it can be de-mystified. 1. There was no distinction between political and religious beliefs. 2. The Gnostic writers were serious, sane, and engaged in serious thought about religious (therefore political) matters. Then ready to hand is the distinction between flesh/blood human beings and their social stations: the personages they embody. The former are mortal; the latter are (in principle) immortal, by way of embodiment by a succession of fleshly persons. Jesus was a person; the personage he embodied was the Christ – immortal. Jesus could be killed, and was. The Christ could not be, except by eliminating the social role. The implications are near to hand. It’s hard to imagine that an entire school of thought deeply invested in their social realities would have staked their bets on something spooky.
Richard Rohr, the Franciscan Priest and prolific author and teacher, is criticized by many evangelicals for being a Gnostic (and presumably a heretic) because of Rohr’s emphasis on Christ and de-emphasis on Jesus: the Romans couldn’t kill Christ, which eliminates atonement (i.e., Jesus died for our sins). That’s essentially the Gnostics’ “more common” explanation. BTW, to me Rohr is Ehrman if Ehrman had been raised a Catholic and not lost his faith. That’s meant as a compliment.
Understood. So, the apologist would need to clarify separately what is being “forgiven” and what is being “atoned”. To my memory, Paul explains that God forgives, and Christ’s sacrifice atones (something along the lines of PSA), treating them as two seperate things. And that in a mechanical sense, when we are “in Christ” we are made right so that we can be saved on the day of judgement. However, God still forgives throughout all of this.
Paul doesn’t ever talk about God forgiving sins — that’s one of the interesting things about his theology. It’s all about atonement. (The word “forgiveness” occurs only in the deuteroPauline letters of Colossians and Ephesians)