(17 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...For this week’s readers’ mailbag I give a very interesting and important question.
QUESTION:
Where did the idea of a Jewish messiah dying for the sins of mankind originate from? OT? Did Jews prior to Jesus’ existence believe this notion of the messiah dying for other’s sins?
RESPONSE:
I deal with this issue in a couple of my books. Christians often point to messianic prophecy about Jesus in the Old Testament and suppose the suffering messiah was “right in front of the Jews’ faces” all along. In fact, it wasn’t.
Here is one of my fuller discussion from Did Jesus Exist?, where I talk about the issue in connection with the question of why Paul originally opposed Christians before converting to the faith.
*****************************************************************
Why, as a highly religious Jew, did Paul originally persecute the Christians before he himself joined their ranks? It appears to have been for one reason only: the Christians were saying that Jesus was God’s special chosen one, his beloved son, the messiah. But for the pre-Christian Paul it was quite clear. Jesus was not anything like God’s chosen one, the one selected to do his will on earth. He did not enjoy God’s blessing. Just the opposite. He was under God’s curse. Evidence? He was hung on a tree.
But why would that be a problem? Wasn’t the messiah supposed to suffer horribly for the sins of others and be raised from the dead? Not according to ancient Jews. On the contrary, the messiah was not supposed to be killed at all. It is at this point that we need to consider what ancient Jews, including the pre-Christian Paul, thought about the messiah.
Ancient Views of the Messiah
The word “messiah” is Hebrew, and literally means “anointed one.” The Greek translation of the term is “christos,” so that “Jesus Christ” literally means “Jesus the Messiah.” The origin of the term goes back into the ancient history of Israel, to the time when the nation was ruled by kings, who were said to have been specially favored, “anointed,” by God. In fact, the king was literally anointed during his inauguration ceremonies, when oil was poured on his head as a way of showing that he was specially favored by God, as seen in such passages as 1 Samuel 10:1 and 2 Samuel 23:1.
Other persons thought …
This is a meaty post, and you can read all of it if you join the blog. It costs very little money and every thin dime goes to charity. So why not join???
Am I right in thinking the concept of a “Messiah” predates the concept of apocalypticism, with its powerful “Son of Man” coming from the clouds? (I sometimes find myself imagining Judas had believed *only* in the “Son of Man,” and was irked by the “Messiah” claims about Jesus – whether it was Jesus himself or some of his disciples who’d begun calling him that.)
Yes, that’s one of the points I was trying to make. the idea that a future anointed one would come is probably rooted in expectations that a future king like David would appear.
The original Jewish notion of the Son of Man probably orginated with Ezekiel’s use of the term, where the prophet is refered to as Ben-Adam (“son of Adam”), which is simply a Hebrew expression for a human being. However, at the start of Ezekiel’s vision, he sees an angelic being that he distinguishes by its human features (hands like “Adam”, face like “Adam”, a likeness of “Adam”, etc.) all in contrast to those angelic beings that look like “animals” (Chayyoth). This human looking angelic being (who Christians would later associate with Jesus) was the precursor to what would become the Son of Man angelic being we find in Daniel. Then at some point after Daniel — i.e. during the Hasmonean period — the Son of Man angelic being became synonymous with the Messiah, and that’s how we get the idea of Jesus being both the Messiah and the Son of Man.
Does that make sense?
It is not unlike any other written documents, such as predictions by Nostradamus that seemed to predict the future. If a person has written enough, there will always be writings that seem to correlate or are similar to events that have occurred at a latter date.
What changed Paul’s mind? Or is this one of those question for which there is no probable answer?
His vision of Jesus changed everything for him. I try to explain it in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene.
Dr. Ehrman, I still cannot comprehend why you believe Paul actually persecuted Christians. What evidence do you have? Just because he said so? Also, how are you so sure he was a highly religious Jew? Again, just because he said so? Paul’s thinking is completely Greek in nature. He may have been born a Jew, but that’s about it. Anyone (and many people have) claimed they have had some kind of supernatural revelation. In fact, you yourself did, Dr. Ehrman. But emotions are powerful, and can effect the way we think. This is called a “born again experience.” Every religion has adherents who make these born again claims, for a variety of reasons. Paul’s born again experience was his own invention, as he saw an opportunity to gain power and influence over people. He was an egomaniac, which is very apparent in his writings. It’s hard to believe a scholar of your caliber would believe Paul just because he said so. You can do better than that, Dr. Ehrman.
It’s one of the rare points of agreement between Paul himself and the book of Acts; and it is a tradition found in other later sources, such as the Pseudo-Clementines. What grounds to you have for questioning it?
Dr. Ehrman,
I apologize for the long reply. The book of Acts is about Paul. So it’s no surprise that Paul’s writing and Acts share similar themes. However, allow me to show you internally using Acts to demonstrate how there is no way Paul could have been persecuting Christians. First, in Acts 5 we hear about Rabbi Gamaliel:
“But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.””
Acts 5:34-39 NIV
http://bible.us/111/act.5.34-39.niv
Gamaliel was a Pharisee, and according to Acts 22 Paul was his student. Acts 22 records this:
““I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.”
Acts 22:3-5 NIV
http://bible.us/111/act.22.3-5.niv
But we also know from Acts 5 that the High Priest and Sanhedrin were at this point in history Sadducees:
“Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy.
But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.” At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people. When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles.”
Acts 5:17, 19-21 NIV
http://bible.us/111/act.5.17,19-21.niv
Ok, so the question that must be answered is, “If Paul was a Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel, who explicitly in Acts 5/22 is a Pharisee himself and tells the Sadducees not to persecute Christians, why would Paul be persecuting Christians?” History tells us that the Pharisees and Sadducees were diametrically at odds with each other for several reasons, most prominently the acceptance of the Oral Torah as part of the Mosaic tradition. The Sadducees rejected the Oral Torah, while the Pharisees accepted it, creating a huge rift between the two groups. Why would Paul, a self proclaimed Pharisee, listen to the Sadducees (who made up the Sanhedrin and priesthood at the time) rather than his own teachers (Gamaliel) when the two groups were at odds with one another? Being a Sadducee was just as heretical as being a Jewish Christian, if not more.
Secondly, it’s almost laughable that Paul would have the chutzpa to go by himself to persecute Christians, and drag them all over Israel. Plus, the last thing on the Jews minds was persecuting Christians during that time period. The Jews were worried about the Romans destroying Jerusalem. Everything about this story of Paul is unthinkable. It’s simply a ploy to make Paul look credible. Secondly, Paul’s blatant misuse of the Hebrew Bible is readily clear time and again in his own writings. There is zero evidence he ever wrote anything in Hebrew. His thinking is entirely Greek. He wasn’t even from Israel. This man was a pathological liar so engrossed in his own egotistical pursuits he would go to any length to gain control over unsuspecting people who by and large were not Jewish. Learned Jews then and now can see right through Paul’s many lies. As far as extra-biblical sources, it really doesn’t matter. They are Christian sources, which cannot be trusted and were not contemporaneous.
There’s no good evidence that hte author of Acts had read any of Paul’s letters. And Paul never says he went “by himself”
Not sure of Flyboy’s reasons, but I have seen in mythicist circles where Paul is doubted to have existed, lied about persecuting Christians, lied about meeting Jesus’ brother James, lied about meeting Peter, etc…
Dr. Ehrman hopefully you consider my comments more closely…and they are not “my” comments. This has been part of the Jewish response to Christianity for years…
I will never understand why you (and Christians) trust Paul…he was a liar. Period.
I don’t think history can be done by simply disbelieving everything one or another source says, on principle. I certainly don’t think everything Paul says is “right” — but I do think we need to evaluate sources critically, not simply write them off without applying our critical judgment to them.
What changed Paul’s mind? I think, the revelation. (Gal 1:16)
Dr. Ehrman, couldn’t some Jews have been reading Daniel 9 as predicting a dying messiah presaging the end of the world? (Daniel 9:24-27) After all, don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls show Daniel 9 was being read as referring to some future events and no longer as a past event? (11Q13) And doesn’t Isaiah 53 say the ‘chosen’ one, which you have in the past admitted was a recognized way of referring to the messiah, will die and then be exalted? And didn’t Talmudic Jews indeed read that verse as predicting the death of the messiah, son of Joseph, who would then be resurrected by the messiah, son of David, and begin the end of the world? You’ve said before that we can’t claim to know what all Jews thought in antiquity, so don’t these things give examples of some Jews actually imagining and expecting a dying messiah? Thanks!
They certainly could have. My point is that none of them ever seems to have done.
These are interesting points. It is, of course, pretty difficult to date Talmudic traditions. If you haven’t already done so, I recommend reading Jesus in the Talmud and by Peter Schäfer. I think there are both negative and positive references to the Jesus tradition preserved in the Talmud. The negative ones especially are sometimes coded for self-preservation. The Son of Joseph traditions may be fairly transparent on the part of rabbis that were not all that opposed to a positive appropriation of Jesus. Bottom line, they likely do not predate the Jesus tradition.
Forgot to mention another book by Peter Schäfer, ie, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other. This book discusses, among other things, the Messiah Son of Joseph/Ephraim traditions in the Talmud.
An alternate hypothesis explaining the suffering Messiah is that Christianity had its beginnings as a Jewish-Hellenistic Mystery Religion. This appears to be the earliest documented type of Christianity as per Paul.
http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/mystrel.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries
This Jewish mystery cult was based on Hebrew scripture interpretation, as well as direct revelations from a sacrificed celestial son of God called Jesus. That would have been anathema to Paul the Pharisee. However, at some point Paul claimed that he too received visions from Jesus and joined the cult he had previously persecuted.
Tony,
There are many reasons to think that theory makes zero sense. If Paul believed Jesus was a purely celestial being then why does he say Jesus was born of a woman? Or why does Paul go out of his way to say he met Jesus’ brother? Or that Jesus was crucified and buried? Saying someone was crucified back then would be like saying someone “died in a car accident”. If it were a celestial event you’d think Paul would differentiate Jesus’ celestial crucifixion from the many hundreds, even thousands of other regular crucifixions under the Roman Empire. But he doesn’t. Why? because everyone knew what it meant to be crucified.
Not to mention if it was a mystery religion and Jesus was a celestial being, why then did later Christians write a narrative wherein the messiah is crucified on earth? (Which Paul says was the greatest stumbling block for the Jews) It’s because the religion that would become Christianity is best explained as Jesus’ early followers trying to reconcile what they believed about him (he was the messiah) and what they knew happened to him (he was crucified by the Roman Empire.)
I think that is a much simpler and far more elegant explanation than your alternate hypothesis.
I never got your response by email and only accidentally noticed it on the blog. Yes, there are a few verses that, superficially, seem to indicate an earthly Jesus. But that’s not so. Here’s why:
“why does he say Jesus was born of a woman?”
The word translated to born in Gal 4.4 is not about a biological birth, it means “made” or “to become”. For example, Paul uses that to describe the origin of Adam. Paul explains the “woman” to be allegory for a covenant and not a biological woman, Gal 4:24.
“Or why does Paul go out of his way to say he met Jesus’ brother?”
Paul’s comment does not say Jesus, he uses the title Lord, and it is in a casual referral to James in Jerusalem, Gal 1:19. James is mentioned four times in Paul’s letters, and only once as the Lord’s brother. Weird, because being the biological brother to the Son of God would have been an important title, why use it only once? The explanation is that rank and file cult members were all considered brothers of the Lord, Romans 8:29. Paul shortens the term to brothers most of the time. The truly strange part is that Paul, while describing his visit to Jerusalem, not once mentions anything about Jesus, who presumably was executed there a couple of decades ago.
“Or that Jesus was crucified and buried?” Paul writes that he got that information from the scriptures, not from any recent historical event, 1 Cor 15:3-4. Paul never specifies where or when this happened. Paul’s “crucified” does not mean the Roman method. Paul writes about hanged from a tree in Gal 3:13. Hanged from a tree, and the Roman execution method, use the identical Greek word.
Paul’s religion did not survive. Mark uses Paul’s letters and other inputs to write a story about an earthly Jesus, sometime after the destruction of he Jerusalem temple in 70 AD.
Where do you see Paul in Mark? I always thought they were pretty much mutually exclusive.
If I was a Christian I’d say this was a divine moment! I just got done watching a Hebrew language video on YouTube where they interview Jewish people in Israel and have them read Isaiah 53. Apparently this chapter is “banned” in synagogues. Something like that. The Messianic Jews say it’s because the Rabbis know the truth but are suppressing it in unrighteousness. Most likely, if it is true, they just wanted to avoid confusion and trouble, not because they actually believed it referred to Jesus.
My comment in the video, based partly on what I’ve learned from you, is that the orginal Gospel writers could very easily have written their life of Jesus (or the first oral legends introduced) with Isaiah 53 in mind. Even Mike Licona in his recent debates with you admits the possibility of this sort of thing as a “literary device” when done in John’s Gospel.
Anyway I came here to specifically search for a post you might have done on Isaiah 53, addressing this topic and lo and behold you have a brand new post addressing this very topic! I mean I was even here this morning reading and this post wasn’t here. Serendipity!
Dr. Ehrman,
Are we to assume that Paul’s theology concerning the suffering messiah was guided and sculpted under the influence of the disciples (i.e Peter, James)?
Do historians think the disciples played a major part in Paul’s views?
thanks, Jay
It’s hard to say. Certainly Paul knew what Christians believed to some extent when he was persecuting them. But he appears not to have met any of the apostles until years later.
how would paul have interpreted isaiah 53 pre-conversion ? in isaiah 53, there is not a word about believing in the death of the servant and it does not say in that passage that the servant died as a sin sacrifice.
Don’t really know. It was often seen as a reference to the suffering of God’s servant, Israel.
So did the disciples get their idea that the suffering dying Jesus was the messiah, from the scriptures? And Paul came to the same conclusion, later and separately? And yet, it’s not in there, and nobody else ever saw it. That’s odd.
I’d say they got the idea from their experience. They came to think Jesus was raised, and that made them try to understand how he could have died, and since God raised him, God must have wanted him killed and … and eventually they come to think that the death according to God’s plan must have been anticipated by God’s prophets, etc.
ok. Do we know what theological slant the disciples put on the suffering, death and resurrection? That is, to Paul it was what you had to believe in (like most Christians today), he linked it with the sin stuff. Is
I’m afraid we don’t have any writings from them. All we have is Paul’s claim that he inherited from others the statement found in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.
Bart,
Where does Paul get the idea of Christ being raised on the 3rd day as he states in 1 Corinthians 15:4?
Nowhere in Isaiah 53 does it say the servant will rise on the 3rd day and quite frankly nowhere else in the old tetsmanent. There’s not even a mention of someone rising from the dead on the 3rd day let alone the messiah.
Where do you think Paul is getting this idea from? Jonah and the whale? Other religions? You can’t fufill a prophecy as Paul is claiming Jesus did when there’s absolutely no original prophecy to be found in the Old Testament. Such as Micah 5:2 for example.
Most scholars think it’s a fulfilment of the prophecy of Hosea 6:2; I’m also inclined to think the story of Jonah (three days and nights in the fish) is part of it.
Interesting about Hosea 6:2 considering that it’s in the plural and these people were revived on the second day (which means restored to life) and yet we know Jesus obviously was restored to life on the 3rd day. I guess you can infer the Zombie story from Matthew 27:53 is a fulfillment of Hosea 6:2?, but those people obviously had been dead for more than 2-3 days.
As for Jonah and the whale, Jonah never dies for those 3 days and I’m sorry, nobody lives in a belly of a whale for 3 days. Close but no cigar Paul.
No one dies and then comes to life three days later either!
Bart,
Not sure if you have but I think it would be great if you did a debate about the supposed prophecies that Jesus “fulfilled.”
For example Hosea 11:1 “I called my son out of Egypt” and show how Mathew completely took this out of context and if you stack it up against the birth story in Luke, Jesus never did fulfill this “prophecy” That would be A lot of fun to watch.
You’re right! In Hosea 6:1- nobody dies at all, they’re just wounded. I need to be more thorough in my reading of scripture, or I still suffer from Jesus indoctrination.
Bart,
Paul states in his own writings Galatians 1:11-12 “ I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I received my message from NO HUMAN source, and no one TAUGHT me. Instead, I received it by DIRECT revelation from Jesus Christ.”
How in the world could have Paul persecuted Christians prior to seeing the risen Jesus? You can’t persecute a group of people you have no prior knowledge about as Paul has clearly stated.
I persecuted the Mormons (not literally) because I hated their gospel, what they stood for because they or someone told me what they stood for, I heard their gospel and was taught. You can’t persecute a group you’ve never heard of or have no knowledge about. It’s impossible and makes no sense!
Yeah, that can be confusing. Paul in Galatians is not saying he didn’t know what Christians believed about, say, Jesus as the messiah. He is saying that *HIS* gospel message — that gentiles can be among the people of God and saved by Jesus without first becoming Jews — was given him directly by God.
So Paul is claiming that God told him gentiles can be saved. And Jesus nowhere in his ministry said this to anyone? It just slipped his mind or his followers disobeyed him and said you have to be a Jew first to be Christian?
Jesus comes down from heaven, “Hey Paul gentiles can be saved too, I forgot to tell my 12 disciples this so can you pass it along for me, thanks!”
I see your point but still doesn’t add up for me.
That’s why it was a revelation. Of course gentiles could be saved according to other Jews. But only if they started following the Jewish law. Paul realized that wasn’t true, and thought it was because God had revealed it to him.
Bart,
I wanna make a point here that is pretty good I feel, and see if you agree.
How do evangelicals not understand that by Paul claiming that god told him that gentiles can be saved without becoming Jewish first, and that this idea was completely foreign to Jesus’ earliest disciples and therefore was never mentioned by Jesus in the first place. If it was, why the need for Paul to convert and preach this same message years later?!?!
If it was mentioned by Jesus that gentiles could be saved without first becoming Jewish, then there’s no reason to get Paul to convert to *THIS* message when Jesus simply could have told his closet disciples the message he allegedly told Paul.
Why come to earth and not give a clear message, or give a message that’s not true (you have to be Jewish first to become Christian) as Jesus earliest disciples believed clearly by Paul’s own writings, and then Jesus realized, oh wait my bad, actually I’m gonna change my mind and have Paul preach something completely different and contradictory as what I originally told my earliest disciples. It makes no sense, your thoughts? Thanks
I’m not sure that evangelicals do claim that this was not a revelation given to Paul. Do they? In the book of Acts it is given to Peter first. But it is still a revelation given to Paul.
As you say, In the book of Acts it is given to Peter FIRST. But it is still a revelation given to Paul.
If Peter is given this same revelation/gospel ( a carbon copy of what Paul was given to him by god as he claims) then why are Jesus earliest disciples still holding to the belief that you have to be Jewish first to become Christian. Is Acts trying to re-write history?
The Acts story about Peter is not historical; it’s meant precisely to show that Peter, and all the others that matter, agreed completely with Paul. But it’s clear from Paul’s own writings (Galatians 1-2) that they did not!
“The Acts story about Peter is not historical; it’s meant precisely to show that Peter, and all the others that matter, agreed completely with Paul. But it’s clear from Paul’s own writings (Galatians 1-2) that they did not!”
Well, perhaps I should remind you or at least your other readers here, that you do indeed think that the historical Jesus actually did think and teach that Gentiles would be saved in the coming Kingdom of God. And you also believe that Paul is telling the truth in Galatians 1-2 about Simon initially eating with Gentiles and living like a Gentile in Antioch before the men from James came.
There was clearly a disconnect between Paul’s teaching and practice and the practice of the men from James, with whom Simon came to agree at some point, but I don’t rhink we can decisively say that the practice of James’ group mirrored precisely the teaching of Jesus. It seems to me possible that Jesus’ belief in the apocalyptic salvation of the gentiles by God would not necessarily require a program of his followers to go out and convert and circumcise the gentiles to Judaism. James and Paul came up with a differing approaches, but who knows if Jesus had given this specific issue much thought?
I didn’t think the question was about what Jesus himself thought, but about how Paul understood his revelation.
“I didn’t think the question was about what Jesus himself thought, but about how Paul understood his revelation.”
Both:
RG959: “So Paul is claiming that God told him gentiles can be saved. And Jesus nowhere in his ministry said this to anyone? …
Sorry — I’m not following the thread. Are you quoting me in the italicized part? My view is that Jesus did think gentiels would enter into the kingdom; but nothing suggests that he thought they would do so without becoming adherents of God’s law.
“Sorry — I’m not following the thread. Are you quoting me in the italicized part? My view is that Jesus did think gentiels would enter into the kingdom; but nothing suggests that he thought they would do so without becoming adherents of God’s law.”
No, I was quoting RG959’s original question to show that it also pertained to Jesus’ teaching.
What is interesting to me here is Cephas’ initial willingness to eat with gentiles (μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν) and live like a gentile (ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς) in Antioch before the people of James arrived. Apparently there were some aspects of the law that he was relatively lax about when residing in a community with gentile followers of the movement. There are a variety of speculative scenarios that have been constructed (eg, by Paula Fredriksen) to suggest that Cephas might still have been keeping kosher with the gentile followers, but those hypotheses border on special pleading. Even if we cannot say for sure in exactly what way Cephas was being lax relative to James, he was being lax in some way regarding the law when residing among gentiles. So should we assume that Jesus, Cephas’ former teacher, had necessarily thought that gentiles would become strict adherents to all aspects of the law? I suspect he presumed they would, if he gave it any thought, but he also left Cephas, one if his disciples, with the impression that maybe it was not such a big deal later on. Until the men from James came–no one expects the Inquisition!
Yeah, I pretty much agree. The only other factor to figure in, though, is whether his view that Jesus was raised from the dead may have affected his understanding of gentiles, or at least that his familiarity with the gentile mission later may have. I.e., I’m not sure he necessarily subscribed to Jesus’ views. But I completely agree with everything else, especially the point about special pleading.
Bart: “Yeah, I pretty much agree. The only other factor to figure in, though, is whether his view that Jesus was raised from the dead may have affected his understanding of gentiles, or at least that his familiarity with the gentile mission later may have. I.e., I’m not sure he necessarily subscribed to Jesus’ views. But I completely agree with everything else, especially the point about special pleading.”
Robert: Actually, we are probably more in agreement than you realize. I don’t think we can reliably reconstruct Jesus’ view on this question, but I did say that I suspect that if Jesus gave this question any thought, he probably thought the gentiles would become strict adherents to all aspects of the law in the coming Kingdom of God. Likewise, I would only suspect Peter’s and Paul’s initial laxity regarding associating, living like, and eating with gentile followers was more a practical matter related to the importance and urgency of the apocalyptic mission. Where Peter and Paul would have agreed with Jesus, again I suspect, would be more a matter of being willing to bend some relatively minor laws in the attempt to save the lives of those in need. As Jesus himself said, he didn’t come to call the righteous but sinners, the healthy do not need a physician. Going out among the sinful and idolatrous gentiles was not so different from Jesus’ eating and drinking with sinners and tax collectors.
Yes, I was thinking we agreed on this one, apart from one hesitancy. The issue for Jesus does seem to be the priority of human need over strict observance of details of the law; I would say, though, that kashrut almost never falls into that category, and does seem to be the bigger issue for the later followers.
Would you say historically that Paul clearly met Jesus disciples prior to converting and they slowly convinced him overtime to convert?
Seems highly plausible considering after Paul converted he waits 3 years to go find James and tell him he saw the risen Jesus. He shouldn’t of even known who james was at that point. And why wait 3 years to tell James? Was he too busy herding goats?
No, I don’t think so. Paul himself describes how it happened, and he clearly did not know Peter, James, or the others before his conversion.
You say,
“I’m afraid we don’t have any writings from them. All we have is Paul’s claim that he INHERITED from others the statement found in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.”
I thought he got this revelation directly from Jesus and nobody else? Whose the others? Couldn’t be Jesus closest disciples, Peter etc.. as he only knew of them after his conversion.
Or is this revelation strictly that gentiles don’t need to be Jewish first before coming Christian.
Wouldn’t you agree Bart that the mere fact Paul persecuted Christians just proves that not a Jew on the planet expected a dying/resurrected messiah. If these prophecies are so clear in the OT (as evangelicals assert), then clearly Paul of all people, the most educated Jew ever as he claims practically, just never saw this nuclear bomb prophecy about the messiah, his rabbi, family, friends, co-workers, nobody told him?!?!?
I’m pretty sure on the written exam to become a Pharisee you had to answer this question and get it right, right? Is Paul just sitting there at Hebrew school telling himself, “I’m gonna be so mad when the messiah shows up and fulfills this prophecy, and then I’ll persecute people for the exact thing I believe right now?”
Paul persecuting Christians doesn’t add to the validity of Christianity, it only takes away from it. Nobody expected a dying messiah, nobody!
No, I wouldn’t say that the view of one Jew reveals what every Jew thought. It’s one piece of evidence though.
It’s the ONLY piece of evidence you need to prove that the core belief amongst all Christians as Paul states in 1Cor 15:3-4 is not true. And why is not true? Because as stated earlier in this thread, absolutely nowhere does the OT reference even a single person dying and then resurrecting 3 days later; let alone the messiah. You can’t even try and make the dual prophecy argument here.
If it was so CLEARLY prophesied, as Jesus told Paul apparently (which it’s clearly not) then Paul never would have been persecuting Christians in the first place. He would have been celebrating with these people when he heard the news. “Hallelujah Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53!” Not becoming so enraged that he wanted to violently hurt these people.
He obviously wasn’t attacking this group because of the clothes they wore or that they said to follow the Ten Commandments (which Paul never did, thou shall not kill, hypocrite). It’s clear that the crucified messiah enraged Paul and why? Because there’s not a single notion at all in the OT, and it was considered blasphemous to him and pretty much all Jews.
Isn’t it ironic that the main promoter of Christianity actually undercuts his whole ministry by not only his past actions but in 1st Cor 15:3-4 as well.
I’ll admit Paul’s conversion story is truly remarkable, for the reasons he gives makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever, period! Your thoughts, thx
If the Psalms of Solomon were considered canonical by Evangelicals I imagine that they would simply (and emphatically) say that the propecy in question is referring to the future Millennial reign of Christ. That he came the first time as a suffering servant, but the second time he will come as a conquering king. In fact that _is_ how they already deal with these two very different images of the Messiah that we get in the OT books.
Also, they might say, as the NT says, that the reason the Jews never interpreted the passages that way or accepted Jesus is because they were spiritually blind, and that if those passages do not refer to Jesus then why do they bear such a striking resemblance to the way Jesus suffered and died in the Gospels. How would you answer those objections?
The Messiah is, in a sense, the ultimate prophet. Jesus is connected, in the gospels, with Moses and Elijah, perhaps the most revered Jewish Prophets. But there had been many others, and the one thing they all had in common–at least as far as the books of the Old Testament are concerned–is that none of them were martyred.
They had setbacks. They had trials. They had human failings (Elisha was sensitive about his baldness). And you have to believe that their real-life equivalents, the preachers whose words and deeds led to the legends that were eventually written down, did in some cases meet bad ends. But the Jewish prophetic tradition is a triumphant one. God will not allow his chosen messengers to be killed by evil men.
Jesus, however, knew this was not true.
His teacher, John, who he believed to be as good as a mortal man could be, at least as good a man as himself (“No man born of woman is greater than John the Baptist”), had been killed by Herod.
So whatever he believed himself to be, whether he thought himself the Messiah or not, he knew he could also suffer and die. He knew that God will allow his messengers to be tormented and killed. But that must mean there is some reason for the suffering. Some purpose to it.
And how much is faith worth, really, if you know you won’t pay a price for it?
Does Paul some place refer to Scriptural depictions of suffering figures as proof of Jesus’ messiahship?
No, not in his surviving writings.
Bart,
In your answer to my question about the importance of Paul’s letters you said “They (the gospels) were written decades after that happened (faith in Jesus as an option for gentiles) by gentiles [not Jews].” Since we do not know precisely who wrote the gospels, how do we know that they were gentiles and not converted Jews like Paul?
Because of some of the things they say. Mark, for example, completely misrepresents Jewish practices in Mark 7:3.
To be fair, the only problem with Mark 7:3 is the phrase καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. That’s the part that betrays Mark’s ignorance. However, if the original version of that verse didn’t have it, the verse would not only still make sense, but it would be accurate.
οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων.
Is it possible that the phrase “and all the Jews” was, therefore, a later interpolation?
Yup, that’s the problem. But no, I don’t see any reason to think it’s not Mark’s wording.
I know Paul speaks about his visions but he certainly must have been convinced of Jesus being the messiah due to others talking to him about it, righ?
What he indicates is that what he learned from others led him to persecute them; the vision, though, reversed all that.
I understand from an evidence standpoint that what we have from Paul is that his vision reversed his belief. But from a reasonable standpoint, do you think it is most likely that a friend or group of friends had some influence on Paul changing his thinking? My thought is that if he did indeed have a vision as he states, the vision happened due to those trying to convince him.
I’m afraid there’s no way to know. But he discusses the vision as a revolutionary moment, and so he at least seems to have seen it that way.
Like speculations about Constantine’s vision of a cross in the sky, could the blinding light Luke reports Paul having seen been a solar halo, or some other rare but natural phenomenon that he took to be an apparition?
Sure, it’s possible. So are lots of options!
Maybe he was just trying to,one-up the disciples. He knew they had all had visions so he thought he had better get in on the act. Validation.
Soon after I moved far away from my parents, I thought I saw my father at a shopping mall. Upon closer examination, it was someone else. Sometimes the wish is father (no pun intended) to the thought. So it’s not hard for me to see how after Jesus died, some of his close followers could have mistakenly believed they saw him.
With regard to your recent purgatory articles, Rabbi Gellman in today’s “God Squad” article in the Sunday News and Observer states that “Purgatory is not a belief found in the Hebrew Bible or even in the New Testament. It dates from … the 12th century.”
Hmm? Maybe Rabbi Gellman has been reading your recent blogs????
I do like the way Rabbi Gellman addresses questions from adolescents. I wonder how many adolescents read your blog and it would be interesting to see what questions they ask and what you answer.
Sees unlikely!
Dr. Ehrman, when I put myself into the mindset of Jesus’ disciples right after his crucifixion, I try to imagine the cognitive dissonance required to square that circle. If what you have written is correct (and I think that, for the most part, it is correct — see below), then I have to imagine that up to the point of Jesus’ ignominious death, the idea that the Messiah must suffer, die, resurrect and return would have been just as absurd to his disciples as it was to any other Jew.
Now let’s say that after the crucifixion the disciples immediately dove into scripture to try to explain and rationalize away the unexpected death of the man who they thought was the Messiah. And they came across Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, etc. So I guess my question to you is this. Let us say that you are correct that the disciples were all “illiterate peasants from rural Galilee.” And let us say that they were wise enough to consult scripture for an explanation. Do they then seek out someone who can read, and assign that reader the task of reading the scripture to look for passages such as Isaiah 53? And then does that person come back to them with a report, listing those passages? And then do they have those passages read to them until they memorize them? And then those illiterate peasants proceed to recite those passages in defense of their knew belief that Jesus as Messiah was supposed to die ignominiously? And at what point does this whole process start to sound absurd?
I mean, there is an alternate process, and that’s to have Jesus’ illiterate disciples not think to search scripture for answers, but, rather, for them to merely come to their belief via their “visions”. And so only later, after literate men like Paul came to accept the disciples’ theory about Jesus, did they have the ability to search scripture. But then we are forced to consider how long of a gap there was between the disciples’ new belief and the arrival of literate converts who could and would search scripture for them. One month? Two months? Six months? A year? Two years?
Acts of the Apostles claims that the disciples started preaching the necessity of the death and resurrection of the messianic Jesus within 50 days of the end of Passover (literally at Pentecost/Shavuot). The problem with this idea is that, whichever timeframe we proprose — that the disciples started preaching within two months or within two years — the logical conclusions are equally absurd. Fifty days is too short a time for illiterate men to search scripture. Two years is plenty of time, but up to that point, the disciples look like fools as they try to defend their new belief without having exhausted scripture yet. (Hence why their scriptural knowledge has to be attributed to a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit.)
So we are left with two seemingly absurd scenarios. In the first scenario, the illiterate disciples started preaching a gospel of the death and resurrection of the Messiah before they have even had the chance to consult scripture. In the second scenario, the illiterate disciples wait until they acquire someone who can consult scripture before they begin preaching the death and resurrection of the Messiah. At what point does this all start to sound a little ridiculous?
However, what would you say to the possibility that the disciples didn’t need to exhaustively search scripture for an explanation after Jesus’ death, because they already knew their scripture quite well beforehand. And the reason they already knew their scripture quite well was that they had already spent quite a bit of time studying scripture before that. And they were able to adequately study scripture before Jesus’ death because most, if not all of them were actually literate.
Now, I already know one thing you’re going to point out: Acts describes Peter and John as “agrammatos”. There are two problems with this passage. For starters, the author of Acts (“Luke”) is getting this information at best second-hand. It’s possible that Peter and John’s illiteracy is greatly exaggerated if not outright fabricated. Second, Luke could simply mean that Peter and John were not formally educated. The context around of Acts 4:13 suggests that, in their appearance, Peter and John did not come across as typical experts in scripture (“scribes”). That’s why the men they are talking to are so thrown for a loop. And, in fact, both explanations are possible. One merely needs to consider why Luke (or any other evangelist) would want to exaggerate Peter and John’s illiteracy. Namely, if Peter and John started out as illiterate nobodies before they met Jesus, it only makes it look all the more miraculous when they started quoting scripture to people after Jesus’ death. In other words, if Peter and John were already literate and fully steeped in scripture before they met Jesus, then one wouldn’t be all that surprised to see them publicly cite scripture in defense of their new beliefs. But if they were illiterate up to that point, well, clearly their new scriptural knowledge is some kind of demonstration of divine power.
All of this looks awfully suspicious to me. What it looks like to me is that Jesus’ disciples were already literate and well-studied in scripture before they even joined Jesus’ movement. And after Jesus died, they were able to tap into that scriptural knowledge right away, and they used scripture to defend their new beliefs about Jesus. This idea that they were just backwoods bumpkins who wouldn’t know an aleph from taph is, to my mind, bordering on ludicrious.
Which hypothesis seems more reasonable to you?
I’m afraid you’ll need to make the options for succinct for me!
Fair enough. I did put a lot on the table there.
~ Option #1: The Disciples were illiterate, so they didn’t think to search scripture for an explanation of Jesus’ unexpected demise, leaving later literate converts like Paul to make the effort. (I find this option to be borderline absurd.)
~ Option #2: The Disciples were illiterate, but they knew scripture had the answers they needed to explain Jesus’ unexpected demise, so they sought out literate persons to search scripture for them. (I find this option to be plausible but unrealistic.)
~ Option #3: Some or all of the Disciples were not only literate, but well-versed in scripture, allowing them to quickly locate passages (e.g. Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, etc.) that rationalized the unexpected demise of Jesus. And, moreover, it was this use of scripture to justify their new-fangled beliefs that irked critics like Paul and the other Pharisees. (I find this option to be the most plausible and realistic.)
~ Other: add your own option here.
Which option would you choose?
I go with the “other” option. The disciples were indeed almost illiterate. But that would not at all mean they were unfamiliar with the Scriptures. I think they certainly knew the Scriptures, possibly rather well, as devout Jews. They knew them from constant reading and talking about them from childhood in their synagogues and homes.
I assume by “reading” you mean that scripture was read to them, seeing as how you’re pretty firm that they were illiterate. And seeing as how in the Semitic languages, the verb for “to read” is the same as the word for “to read aloud” and “to call” it might be possible that the disciples were well-versed in scripture simply from having it read to them their whole lives. However, the addition of the middle man not only seems unnecessary, but — using Occam’s Razor — it seems superfluous. If the disciples were going to spend that much time devoted to learning scripture, why bother having it read to them when they could simply learn how to read it for themselves?
The scenario is analogous — in my mind — to a catholic boy who wants to learn the Vulgate Bible, so he learns it by having a priest who can read Latin read it to him. If the boy is going to go to that much trouble to learn how to understand Latin, why not simply learn how to read it as well? In the case of the disciples, as they’re listening to the Hebrew scriptures — a language that is similar to, but not mutually intelligible with their native Galilean Aramaic — they’re essentially forced to learn Hebrew at the same time. So if they’re going to make the effort to learn the Hebrew, why not simply learn to read it as well?
See, this is the problem I have with your option. It sounds unrealistic. Anyone who would go to the trouble to learn to understand Latin that is read to them is probably going to go to the trouble to learn how to read it for themselves. Anyone who would go to the trouble to learn to understand Hebrew read to them is probably going to go to the trouble to learn how to read it for themselves. You, yourself, Dr. Ehrman, know first-hand the dogged determination of the zealous. Your obsession with scripture led you to want to literally memorized entire chunks of the Bible. Is it really so unimaginable that the obsession of the disciples wouldn’t motivate them to learn to read the Bible just like you were motivated to memorize it?
Just something to think about.
In the synagogues the scriptures were not only read (possibly with Aramaic translations) but also discussed, in the native tongue.
Again, Dr. Ehrman, respectfully, I’m not buying it.
I’m trying to imagine a group of young, zealous Galilean men, who are desperately seeking a Messianic figure, who will lead them toward the imminent eschaton. Are these guys really just a bunch of ignorant, uneducated bumpkins? I don’t know about that.
The closest example I can think of to a group of loyal followers following an endtimes prophet is Muhammad’s Ansareen — that is, his first “companions.” For the most part, they were educated men and women from powerful families. Muhammad’s first and most loyal companion, Abu Bakr — who can reasonably be called Muhammad’s Peter — came from a well-to-do family connected with the same ruling Quraysh tribe as Muhammad. Bakr was almost certainly literate, as was Muhammad (though, Muslims like to pretend that Muhammad was illiterate, so as to greater highlight the miracle of his prophecies, not unlike how Christians pretend that Jesus and his disciples were illiterate so as to make their revelations all the more miraculous; noticing a pattern?)
Anyway, we know a LOT more about Muhammad’s companions (analogous to Jesus’ disciples) than we know about Jesus’ disciples, and what we know about them suggests they weren’t a bunch of ignorant, backwoods rubes. They were highly intelligent men, from well-to-do, well-connected families. Indeed, one of Muhammad’s most loyal companions, Abu Sufyan, was not only the literal leader of Muhammad’s tribe, he was Muhammad’s fiercest enemy all throughout Muhammad’s early career. Sufyan only converted from dogged enemy of Muhammad to devoted Muslims once Muhammad conquered Mecca.
My point is, when you read ancient documents, like the Gospels, downplaying and minimizing the educational level of the founding members of a movement, you should automatically be suspicious. This is a common tactic for exaggerating the miraculous features of the movement. It is a way of making the movement appear all the more powerful and significant, because it has brought its leader from the bottom up to the top, not unlike how any self-improvement seminar starts off with a testimonial by its founder about how he used to live in his car, but since he started his new revolutionary “program,” he now lives in a $2 million mansion and owns five cars, one of which is a lamborghini.
Be very wary of anyone selling you a story that seems too good to be true. Because it probably is.
“We do not have a single Jewish text that interprets the text messianically before Jesus.”
What about that row between Thom Stark and Richard Carrier about the Targum of Jonathan? Having read Stark’s detailed posts, I can see Stark’s point that the targum doesn’t prove what Carrier says it does. But doesn’t it have a messianic reworking of Isaiah 53? (Albeit that Stark points out that it entirely removes the idea of the suffering servant from the passage, so it doesn’t undermine the point that no one expected a suffering Messiah.)
(I haven’t read all of Carrier’s posts on the subject: his rudeness, arrogance, and wrongness about many things can be grating. But I digress.)
The Targum of Jonathan comes from long after the time of JEsus and his apostles. If you want to know about it, look to scholarship by experts, not by someone like Carrier who is not a scholar of ancient Judaism.
Indeed – I had a feeling Carrier was wrong, as he often is. But it’s not my area of expertise.
I believe Carrier’s PhD is in ancient science if I’m not mistaken.
No, ancient history.
Yes, Bart is right. Carrier’s PhD is in ancient history. His latest book is about ancient science. Brain hiccup.
Carrier seems to think he’s an expert in everything, even things in which he has no qualifications. I remember when he got into a big fight about physics and probability theory with a physicist.
Ha! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
As to his PhD, I believe it’s about the history of science in the Roman world (“Attitudes Toward the Natural Philosopher in the Early Roman Empire (100 B.C. to 313 A.D.)”), so you’re both right.
You can safely assume that Richard Carrier is wrong most of the time. As a Jew and as an Israeli, when I read Carrier’s work, the only thing I can think is “has this man EVER studied ancient Judaism, or ancient Semitic cultures or anything of the sort?” Because he writes some of the most obtuse, confused nonsense I have ever read from a supposed “historian”.
I’m glad you addressed this issue – i emailed you about it recently, Bart. Carrier also uses Dead Sea Scroll 11Q13 and the Talmud (b.Sanhedrin 98b, b.Sanhedrin 93b and b.Sukkah 52a-b) to construct his theory about other Jewish sects before Jesus expecting a suffering, dying Messiah.
I assume then, that he has equally mis-used these texts too?
If so, it kind of puts a huge hole in his evidence for a mythical Jesus. After reading a couple of his books, I seem to remember he depends quite heavily on this theory to support mythical J.
(Apparently a scholar named David C. Mitchell has written on these texts too using them for a mythical J.)
Yup. Using the Talmud is a rookie mistake.
Because of its post-dating the beginning of Christianity? Well that seems worse than a rookie mistake…
How do you, prof. Bart, explain passages such as this one found in Daniel 9?
//25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.//
Isn’t this about the Messiah being put to death? A prophecy.
It was apparently never taken that way. Modern critical scholars are fairly unified that it is referring to the high priest Onias III, as referred to in 2 Maccabees 4:23-28. One of the best commentaries on Daniel is the one by John Collins in teh Hermeneia Commentary Series, if you want to read a good critical analysis.
Dr. Ehrman, don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls show Daniel 9 was being read as referring to some future events and no longer as a past event? (11Q13) How can you assume you know what all other Jews and Jewish sects believed in the first century? Haven’t you said we can’t claim to know what all Jews thought in antiquity, because most of them didn’t leave writings for us to tell by?
Yes, of course the Qumran community read *all* the Scriptures as referring to their own time. That is what Pesher interpretation is all about. But where do you see a future suffering messiah there?
All things considered with the dying messiah in Daniel, the suffering servant called the “chosen” one in Isaiah 53, the Pre-Pauline use of “according to the scriptures,” and the gospels containing allegory alluding to the Old Testament, it seems probable to me that a Jewish sect could have come up with a suffering and dying messiah.
If the Talmudic Jews came up with it, why are we assuming no Jews before did, when we don’t know what most Jews and Jewish sects thought?
It’s certainly possible. But we have no evidence of it happening.
If it’s a ‘prophecy’ and the ‘Anointed One’ is Jesus, then the whole statement is either true or untrue. When did Jesus have ‘nothing’? If he’s god, then he’s always had everything.
Fascinating insights, Bart – thank you!
In the NT we read many instances where early Christians have linked certain OT passages to Jesus. Is there a book that you could recommend that has examined these NT references to the OT and what they meant for the 1st-century church?
Nothing comes to mind set up to deal with just that problem/issue.. But it would be a good book to have!
I don’t know if this book would deal with your question or not. It is on my to read list and I thought of it reading your comment.
“When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible” by Timothy Michael Law
Dr. Ehrman, are you familiar with this book?
Yes, but I haven’t read through it.
An off-post question, please.
Re your book ‘Jesus before the Gospels.’ Did you have any feedback, either before or after publication, from such ‘Distorted Memory’ experts as Elizabeth Loftus on whose work you draw? Have such experts been happy to see their studies (focused on legal areas [e.g. Loftus] ) applied to your thesis?
Before sending it to the publisher, I had the book read by Daniel Schacter, the former chair of Psychology at Harvard and the world’ leading expert in “false memory”. He liked it very much and agreed with my synthesis of the scholarship on memory.
Apparently Robert Price has a book coming out soon titled “Bart Ehrman, Interrupted”. Given that you two appear to be on friendly terms, I’m curious if he’s had you read it in advance of publication, and if so, what are your thoughts?
No, he didn’t give it to me to read, but he’s now sent me a copy (prior to its being made public). Nice of him!
I was stunned this past Sunday when an evangelical pastor admitted that most historians believe that Paul only authored seven of the letters ascribed to him in the NT. He listed the seven letters and used only passages from them; stating that information from the seven authenticated letters was undeniably credible. It was his Easter sermon and he was trying to prove that Jesus rose from the dead by using mostly Paul’s Corinthian letters. The pastor’s point was that these letters were written only about twenty years or so after Jesus’ death, which made their content even more credible. What I found most interesting was that he simply glossed over the most shocking part of his sermon – the fact that a big part of the NT was obviously forged.
This pastor is probably one of the most impressive and detailed preachers I have heard. This is why I was so shocked.
Here is the sermon.
http://fbcnola.org/media/listen-to-sermons/media-item/1074/dead-people-dont-always-stay-dead
Wow. Go figure!
Re “A crucified criminal? That’s worse than being crazy. It’s an offense against God, blasphemous. Or so thought Paul. And so he persecuted this tiny sect of Jews and tried to destroy them.”
Bart, what means did Paul have at his disposal to set about destroying this “tiny sect” – given that Rome was in charge?
Oh boy I wish I knew. I’ve started thinking over the past year or so that he was beating people up. Or maybe having the synagogues punish them with flogging?
I doubt he attacked anyone personally.
There’s a story about Jean Calvin, in Geneva–he saw a former colleague, with whom he had some serious theological disputes. He pointed the man out to the community, which of course viewed him with great reverence. That’s all he did, was point, basically. They did the rest. Paul probably did something along those lines. Just raise awareness of dissenters. “Oh we got trouble–right here in River City!”
Early Christians were mainly Jews. Part of that community, however unconventional in their beliefs. Therefore, they were subject to many penalties a gentile convert to Christianity wouldn’t have been.
As was Paul, once he converted, and I imagine that might have been his version of penance.
But since he survived so long, we can at least wonder if in fact anybody he persecuted was killed. Certainly placed in a difficult situation. I’d assume some Jewish communities were more tolerant than others.
1. If Paul was beating up people, I assume they would fight back?
2. And two or more people should be able to take on Paul?
3. If the synagogue leaders were flogging, it would be their decision, not Paul’s, correct?
4. If the synagogue decided to flog someone, could that person try to run away from them?
1. I assume so 2. Sure (depending on how many were on his own side) 3. Yup, but he may have instigated it 4) If it were me I would.
In Galatians 3:1 is Paul saying that the Galatians were eye witnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion? Or does he mean this in a spiritual sense?
He means “vividly portrayed as crucified” — i.e. in his own preaching.
Professor,
I think your line in the above post “…It came from historical realities. ”
Is a great line that (at times) covers many of the starting points for much of the mythical and non-historical stories about both Jesus and followers.
It is a line that should be applied to counter many of the Mysticism’s theories.
I guess however, then the debate becomes what are the “historical realities” ? As even Price was not agreeing that Paul wrote his letters.
You stated above that none of Paul’s surviving writings use OT scripture to justify a suffering Messiah. But in other ways, was he an originator (or earlier practitioner) of reading out-of-context prophecy into OT text?
I doubt it. I imagine Christians before him were doing it too.
“Their King shall be the Lord (Adonai?) Messiah.” Is there any evidence that any 2nd temple apocalyptic Jews expected the Messiah to be God himself or a divine being?
When Jesus is quoted as saying, “My yoke is easy and my burden is light,” do you think that is a deliberate reference to the Psalms of Solomon reference above to serving under the Davidic king’s yoke?
Nope.
There are scholars who read parts of Daniel and also the Qumran scrolls as making reference to the Suffering Servant, as a way of saying that God rescued his servant(s) before, and therefore will do so again. But I agree that no one prior to the Jesus Movement saw Isa. 53 as describing a/the messiah.
However, I question your use of blasphemy. In those days (and after), blasphemy had a specific meaning: cursing God by name. Claiming that someone, crucified or otherwise, is or was the messiah may upset people, but it was never denounced as blasphemy. (Except in the reports of the evangelists, which only shows that they did not understand – or deliberately misrepresented – the term.)
POSSIBLE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUFFERING SERVANT?
KING UZZIAH REPRESENTING ISRAEL?
The nation of Israel represented by King Uzziah, its king in Isaiahʼs time, died of leprosy.
Was Jesus “despised [and] shunned by men?” According to Luke 4:15, he taught in the synagogue and everyone praised him. And huge crowds supposedly followed him, and he was described as making a ‘Triumphal Entry’ into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:8-11; John 12:12-13,17-19).
Was Jesus ‘familiar with disease’ and ‘stricken by God’ (where the Hebrew word for ‘stricken’ is one that is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to stand only for leprosy as at Leviticus 13:3,9,20 and 2 Kings 15:5).
Was Jesus crushed by disease? “the Lord chose to crush him by disease, that if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life…” Did Jesus see any offspring, or have a long life?
According to Shmuel Golding, Isaiahʼs message may have been: “Here is your leprous king, who is in type suffering under Godʼs hand for you the backslidden servant nation of Israel” (which explains verse 6). Uzziah was taken away from the royal palace because of his affliction as a leper and spent his remaining years in isolation, which fits verse 8. Golding says the following:
Israel is portrayed as a suffering servant on account of its anointed leader being stricken with leprosy. Israel, like the leper, is a suffering servant of God. Both have suffered humiliation at the hand of their fellowmen: the leper because of his unsightly appearance; Israel through its defeat at the hands of the Babylonians. The gist of the message is that Israel like the leper has suffered, but nevertheless will retain its identity in the form of the exiled Jewish people and that they will prosper in this form. [Shmuel Golding, The Light of Reason, volume II (Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, 1989), p. 36.]
Also, per Ehrman, many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages in Isa 53. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered — although he “will be” vindicated.
May I ask you guys what do you mean by “false memory” or “distorted memory”? Basing on what case or referring to which issue namely?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. These are terms psychologists use for memories that a person has which do not correspond to what actually happened.
The topic about the Servant of Jahwe is an interesting one indeed. For the last two centuries, biblical scholars attempted to explain who is he… still with no satisfying result. I would personally say: scholars will “wander” in their researches/considerations as long as they negate a certain historically well documented figure. For some unknown reason, they scratched out his name from the list of potential candidates who could fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy related to God’s Servant. I think most readers know of whom I’am talking about.
Dr. Ehrman, if Isaiah 53 is referring to Israel, then how would verse 9 (“His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet he was with a rich man in his death, because he had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in his mouth”) apply to it? How would the burial (and, based on verse 11, the apparent revival) of Israel have been understood by Jews? Additionally, how does the statement “he had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in his mouth” apply to Israel given its sinfulness described elsewhere in Isaiah?
This is a metaphorical passage using figures of speech — it can’t be interpreted with strict literalness (any more than we can ask “how can you possibly think that the sun “rose” this morning?) The nation Israel is likened to a person, who suffers for the sins of others and then is vindicated. One common line of thought is that many of the elite who were taken into Babylonian captivity didn’t do anything (themselves) to deserve this, and so the “suffering servant” could be portrayed as (some people) suffering for the sins of others.
I agree with you there, but I guess what I was asking is what the Jews might have thought the burial and rising/vindication was a metaphor/prediction of. You raise an interesting point on the elites, though, and it would explain a lot in the chapter.
They would have thoght that the Babylonian exile was the “death” of the servant and the return from exile that he was hoping for would be his resurrection. Thta’s the message of this entire section of Isaiah (chs. 40-55).
“Some Jewish thinkers, however, recalled the original promise to David that an anointed one, a messiah, would always be on the throne, and came to think that the promise would come to fulfillment in days to come. In some future time, possibly soon, God would remember his promise and bring a future king like David to rule his people.”
According to the Jews who attempted to stone Jesus, they did so because a man was forbidden to claim to be God.
It is interesting to note that if Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and not the Messiah, many Jews at that time and in that area mistook His message.
Led by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. And when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for Him what was customary under the Law, 28 Simeon took Him in his arms and praised God, saying: 29 “Sovereign Lord, as You have promised, You now dismiss Your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation,……” “There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, [37] and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. [38] Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.”
A few Jews did recognize Him before He was baptized to begin his public ministry.
“Ask him [Richard Carrier] when the Targum dates from. … Yes, you’ll notice that he doesn’t talk about the date of the Targum *itself* (when it was written). Maybe he doesn’t know.”
“Yup. Using the Talmud is a rookie mistake [of Carrier’s].”
I have no sympathy for Carrier’s position, methodology, or contemptible attitude, but this is unfair. Of course Carrier is very much aware of the dating of rabbinic literature and he presents arguments (which I don’t accept) for why he thinks some specific elements of later rabbinic literature represent earlier traditions. This is no different than very experienced mainstream NT scholars who judiciously make use of some rabbinic materials. For example, the majority look to rabbinic usage of ‘shaliach’ as background for understanding the NT term ‘apostle’ given the lack of earlier parallel usage. You would not accuse CK Barrett, WD Davies, and DC Allison of making a rookie mistake in using the Talmud or questioning whether or not they even know the dating of the Targumim. Your own historical reconstruction of Jesus’ understanding and use of the ‘Son of Man’ expression finds it’s closest parallel in Medieval Ethiopic texts of the Similitudes of Enoch.
Dr. Ehrman,
That’s interesting, so is this correct: For the earliest Christians, after having the resurrection experiences of Jesus, his followers then looked through the scriptures such as Isaiah 53 to try to make sense of things and find a new interpretation even though they knew it would be a very tough sell?
Most of that is correct. I don’t know, though, whether or not they knew it would be a hard sell. They may well have thought it was a slam-dunk case.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you agree?:
“When Jesus and his immediate followers went up to Jerusalem that final Passover, they were expecting an eschatological miracle: the coming of God’s Kingdom and, as part of that, the revelation of his messiah – perhaps, indeed the revelation of Jesus as his messiah. Instead, their hopes were brutally crushed…the men following Jesus fled and hid…His death – unexpected, traumatic, bewildering…[but later] this demoralized group did receive [something] they had not been expecting. They saw Jesus again, risen from the dead…[His Second Coming] would be public, [physical], indeed cosmic, its results unquestionable.”
– Paula Fredriksen
Yes.
Dr. Ehrman:
In Galatians 3:13 Paul quotes: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” Is this the key verse that was once Paul’s basis for his Anti-Jesus stand?
There’s no way to know for sure, but I’ve long suspected it was part of the problem. (Not the whole problem: the more basic problem was of a messiah being killed at *all*. See today’s post).
Bart,
Isaiah 53:10- he shall see his SEED. The Hebrew word here is Zera, which comes from the root Hebrew word Zara, which strictly and literally means physical, carnal, biological offspring between two humans that have conceived child. I guess it refers to animals and plants but you see my point.
Is there any SINGLE reference in the Old Testament where the word Zera means anything other than biological offspring?
Christians claim (as you very well know lol), he shall see his seed can mean Jesus’ disciples, followers, those who believed him in etc… and not his/Jesus physical offspring; which clearly no Christian would claim had happened obviously.
I don’t know!
Bart,
I should clarify my question, does the Hebrew word Zera literally mean physical biological offspring between humans, animals, or a seed in the ground being fertilized producing a plant.
Just like the Hebrew word BETHULAH, literally means virgin. Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that.
I”m still not sure. What other kinds of offspring are not physical biological? The word comes from the verb “to sow” and simply means “seed.” Or are you asking if it can be used metaphorically? Sure: God “sows” the nation of Israel in the promised land, for example.
Christians would claim that in verse 10 of Isaiah 53 “he shall see his seed.” Is a metaphor for jesus’ seeing his disciples, followers, believers. Jesus seeing his seed.
This seems implausible since the word Zera literally means physical biological offspring, which obviously Jesus has none of. Therefore the metaphor is in error and not really applicable to this verse. Hope that clarifies my point.
If it’s a metaphor it doesn’t need to mean literal offspring.
Ha! Good point
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree?
“[Jesus’] designation as Lord also indicated his capacity to return to judge the living and the dead…Here was a [tremendously] provocative claim. Calling Jesus “Lord” after his death could only mean that divine status was being claimed for a human being. In Jewish eyes, this amounted to…committing the unforgivable sin of polytheism. It meant that Christians were breaking decisively with the Shema Israel.” ‘The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters’ By Luke Timothy Johnson p. 17
Not at all. There were plenty of Jews who understood that humans were sometimes made divine. I have a long discussion of this in my book How Jesus Became God, with the proof.
It has long been noted that Jesus believed he needed to suffer to fulfill God’s plan, such as demonstrated with the Gethsemane prayer, or Jesus rebuking his followers for not thinking he had to suffer. This has sometimes been thought to be due to an exegetical coloring of the gospels with Isaiah 53, although there is disagreement on this issue.
Here is another avenue that might prove more fruitful as an explanation. In Book 2 of Plato’s Republic, Plato gives the example of the lowly impaled just man as a condition to determine whether one was just and whether this is preferable to being a happy unjust ruler. Sachs comments that:
“If Socrates were to succeed in proving that justice by itself cannot but be good for the soul of its possessor, and injustice evil, he still would not be meeting Glaucon’s and Adeimantus’ challenge; for they ask him to show that justice is the greatest good of the soul, injustice its greatest evil. Further, showing this will not be sufficient unless Socrates thereby shows that the life of the man whose soul possesses justice is happier than the life of anyone whose soul is unjust. The latter is required of Socrates when Glaucon asks him to compare certain lives in terms of happiness. Glaucon envisages a just man’s life ‘bare of everything but justice. . . . Though doing no injustice he must have the repute of the greatest injustice . . . let him on to his course unchangeable even unto death . . . the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be [impaled].’ ”
So Plato proposes a sort of test for how to measure whether one is truly just, and whether such an individual would be “happier” in the technical Platonic sense.
Plato’s Republic was the most famous book in the ancient world, so it is not unreasonable to suppose some of its themes may have influenced Jesus and his followers, even if none of them ever read The Republic. Perhaps Jesus thought it was God’s plan for him to nobly suffer as a criminal in society’s eyes like Plato’s impaled just man, because this would demonstrate him to be truly just and thus worthy of being the Son of Man/judge of people in the new age following the apocalypse.
Bart
I’m fascinated by the process by which the early church came to see Jesus as fulfilling the Suffering Servant prophecies etc. I too see no Jewish source that believed the Messiah would die for mankind’s sin. His job was to restore Israel. And I don’t think he needed to be a literal descendant of David btw. After all, several other messiahs tried it without Davidic credentials both before and after Jesus. If we accept Luke 24.21, even after the crucifixion, the disciples still expressed belief in Jesus’ role to realize Israel’s political redemption. Even if Jesus himself wasn’t trying to become this Messiah and was only an apocalyptic preacher, the question remains as who came up with the idea: Paul, or earlier Christians who searched the scriptures to make sense of it all. Paul was in many ways an innovator, but I’m not sure about this particular point. Just got your “How Jesus Became God.” I’m expecting good food for thought from it. For now, I’m still picturing disillusioned disciples talking around the campfire and someone saying: “Hey didn’t Isaiah say something about the Servant bearing our griefs?”
Dr. Ehrman,
I was reading a new book on Jesus. Do you agree with this quote?
“…the notion that Israel’s King would alone be raised from the dead after being executed by another power was utterly and completely unexpected – ridiculous, in fact. Yet, this is what Jesus followers believed God did.” – Peter Enns
Yup.
Hi BE – I just joined!
Regarding why Paul persecuted the Church (cf Gal; Phil), which I think we can presuppose were Christian. You say it had to do with this Church proffering that Jesus was the Messiah. I can buy that, but I wonder if there was more. I wonder if this Church, which was likely made up of Jews who may have derived from the more Hellenized version of Jewy, were teaching that the Mosaic law was at an end: namely, that it was no long needed for Christian Jew or Orthodox Jew. After all this is what Paul eventually taught (Cf. Rom 10:4). It seems that this teaching would have been seen as a direct affront on the Jewish sense of both Religion and Nationalism. It seems that this idea creates a better basis for Paul’s persecution than whether some Jews believed that Jesus–as opposed to so many of the other potential candidates–was the Messiah.
These thoughts began to brew after I read a bit of Schmithals.
Your thoughts?
That’s often said, but I don’t see the evidence of that as being the grounds for persecution. WE don’t really know of followers of Jesus before Paul saying that Jews were not to keep the law.
What is the connection between the passages describing the Messianic Age believed to have been written around the time of the Babylonian exile and the Second Temple apocalypticism movement started in the Second Century BCE? It seems these were fused within the Jesus movement, but is there evidence they came together before that?
I”m not sure which passages you’re referring to.
For passages describing the Messianic Age, examples would be Isa. 2:2,4,11:6, 11-13, 27:12-13, 43:5-6, 56:7; Jer. 16:15, 23:3, 32:37; Ezek. 11:17, 36:24, 37:12-13, 24; Zech. 14:1-21. For passages describing the Messiah, examples would be Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5, 33:17; Ezek. 34:23-24, 37:24-25.