Loading...This thread is about whether Jesus considered himself to be the Jewish messiah. My view is that Yes, he did. But he meant something very specific by that, and it is not what most people (Christians and non-Christians) today mean by it.
Recall what I have tried to show thus far. There were various expectations of what the messiah would be like among Jews of Jesus’ day – a political ruler over Israel, a great priest who ruled God’s people through God’s law, a cosmic judge of the earth who would destroy God’s enemies in a cataclysmic act of judgment. All these views had one thing in common: the future messiah would be a figure of grandeur and might who would come with the authority and power of God.
And who was Jesus? For most people of his day, Jesus
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
But at least Jesus was in some sense ethical?
I’m not sure what you’re asking? I think his ethical teachings revolutionized thinking about how to live in the western world.
The evidence in the Hebrew Bible that the messiah was supposed to be an earthly king is pretty clear. Is there a case to be made that the Hebrew Bible also created an alternative messianic prophecy wherein the messiah could be a spiritual savior for a heavenly kingdom? I have encountered Christians who claim that the kingly messiah figure was supposed to ride into Jerusalem on a horse while a more redemptive-spiritual messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, but I do not recall this horse/donkey distinction in scripture.
Well, that’s quite a claim by your conversation partners. I assume they’re just makin’ something up? But yes, Jews over time have appealed ot the Hebrew Bible for various understandings of what the future deliverer would be like: a king, a warrior, a priest, a cosmic judge of the earth, and so on.
” Jesus understood the coming kingdom in completely apocalyptic terms.”
1. Where did Jesus get this understanding? From John the Baptist? From a synagogue? From other traveling preachers?
2. Since Jesus was from the backwaters of rural Galilee, how did he know about John the Baptist?
Do you think he went to see him by himself?
Do you think Jesus stayed with John’s group for a while or returned immediately to Nazareth?
1. It was widely held at the time, apparently among Pharisees, Essenes, John the Baptist, Jesus, his followers, other anonymous authors.
2. Word spread, apparenlty
3. Don’t know
4. I think he was a disciple of John for a time, and don’t know if he went back to Nazareth at all before starting his own ministry.
Is your thought that Jesus likely stayed with John after his baptism and started his own ministry after John’s arrest?
I’m not sure when Jesus started out on his own in relation to John’s arrest.
“And they, the disciples, would still be rulers in that future kingdom.”
It doesn’t seem like the entire 12 was in on this, plus now James, Jesus brother, was added to the group, correct?
I’m not sure what you’re saying? James was never considered one of the twelve, and my sense is that hte disciples pretty much were on board wiht beig future leaders.
After Jesus’ death and resurrection, we no longer seem to have involvement by all of the 12 disciples. James the brother of Jesus is now in with Peter and John. The rest seem to be out of the picture. That’s what I was meaning when I said not all of the twelve seemed to be on board. Is this correct?
Ah, right! They may have been on board but they are definitely out of the picture!
Sir: A modest proposal: Suppose that while Jesus was executed by the Romans but at the behest of the Sudducees, his body was treated as IF he was executed by the Jews, who, also, practiced crucifixion but took the corpse down to be buried before sunset on the day of demise??? This would be more consistent with the narratives in the gospels. It would, likewise, leave open the possibility that Jesus survived. Remember that sponge? Could it have been a soporific to feign death allowing his body to be claimed by his family and prepared for burial? Since so much of the gospels is NOT history and records of such a plot would probably never have existed, it is a tantalizing idea that could explain much. Jesus plants a seed then hoes the row a little then splits. Nothing stirs the mind like a good conspiracy theory!!!
Of course, I realize that there is not a scintilla of evidence and my academic credentials are limited to Honor Graduate of my Army Training Class but I find this more feasible than the Trinity.
I envy you, Sir. Thank you for doing what you do…
The New Testament doesn’t teach the doctine of the trinity, so I think we’re OK there whatever we come up with as a historical reconstuction. And I tend to think reconstructions of the past should have some evidence. One major problem with the hypothesis is that Romans did not allow locals to carry out capital punishment, so the Jewish leaders were not crucifying people in this period.
Dr. Ehrman,
How could anyone know what Jesus told his followers in private?
Divine inspiration?
I’d never thought about the fact that Jesus reportedly told all twelve disciples, including Judas, that they would rule over the twelve tribes of Israel. Fascinating!
What non-xtn sources do we have that the alleged resurrection took place?
None. Those who believed the resurrectoin took place were necessariy Christian.
I have serious doubts about the betrayal of Judas. If it was true that Jesus had moved a big crowd when entering Jerusalem than everybody in the town who wanted to know where he was could have figured it out in half an hour. There was absolutely no need for the betrayal of Judas.
And there are some other points to make regarding the Judas story : if Jesus knew Judas gonna betray him than why he didn’t prevent him to do it ? And why he didn’t ordered the other apostles to forgive Judas because they have to love their enemies to
I have a long discussoin of htis in my book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot; I don’t think the betrayal involved telling the authorities where to find him. And I don’t think Jesus expected to be betrayed. If you look up Judas in a word search on the blog you’ll see some posts on it.
But than the betrayal as described in the gospels is fake
I”v read your alternative interpretation of Judas’ betrayal. It seems to me more realistic than the description of Judas betrayal in the Gospels. But than the question is why the Gospel writers have covered up the real betrayal by their rather unbelievable description ,, why they didn’t want to reveal what Jesus has said in the inner circle.
It’s a good question. I don’t think I know the answer!
Vote for Jesus for Messiah! He will make the World great again.
Why in the world would Jesus consider Himself to be the Messiah since He had no special background or training, etc.? Schweitzer also concluded that Jesus was not mentally ill because His apocalyptic beliefs were common during His time. But how did Jesus reach the conclusion that He was the “One” if He were not mentally ill? Considering His background that seems like quite a conclusion. Hmm? I am not trying to be disrespectful to Jesus or you, but I honestly just do not get it.
I don’t think someone who imagines he will be the next king is necessarily mentally ill. And if the problem is that he thought God was soon to bring a day of judgment in and transform the world — if that’s what makes him mentally ill — then many millions of people today are mentally ill (over a billion of them!). So I guess I”m not willing to go that far….
But Matt 19:28 doesn’t say “you twelve” will sit on twelve thrones. Matthew seems keenly aware of the problem of Judas and the number twelve. Mark 6:7-13 describes “the twelve” (including Judas) proclaiming repentance, exorcising demons, and healing people (which would raise lots of readers’ questions). Matthew noticeably skips that part of Mark. And interestingly, Matthew also adds words (Matt 7:21-23) that such a proclaimer/exorcist/healer isn’t necessarily an authentic disciple–probably to downplay what Mark 6:7-13 states about Judas. Since Matthew also goes beyond Mark to include Judas’ death, he well knows Judas is an outcast and not among the ultimate twelve, and even mentions only “eleven” at the end (Matt 28:16).
Knowing this, Matt 19:28 doesn’t specifically say “you twelve” will sit on twelve thrones; instead, it sidesteps the numeric problem by qualifying the throne-sitters as “you who have followed me.” Sure, Matthew mentions twelve thrones, but without explicitly clarifying which twelve “followers” will be on those thrones. In the context, “you” is “the disciples,” which is vague/amorphous without a clear reference to only the Twelve Apostles (which would include Judas). Matthew seems aware of the problem of Judas and the number 12 and avoids that issue in Matt 19:28. Thoughts?
Well, he’s talking to the disciples (v. 23) and indicates elsewhere there were twlve of them, and he says “you” will be seated on “twelve thrones,” so I think he must be saying “you twelve,” no? Is there someone else who could be included?
I don’t think Matthew has any specific replacement in mind for Judas because he’s comfortable referring to them as “the eleven” in Matt 28:16.
But four times, Matthew excludes Judas: (1) skipping Mark 6:7-13, when Matthew includes the passages from Mark immediately before and after that; (2) including Matt 7:21-23 as a statement against someone like Judas in Mark 6:7-13; (3) including Judas’ death, which removes any possibility of Judas being restored into the twelve; (4) referring to the disciples as “the eleven.”
If Matt 19:28 is including Judas, then it seems like a mental lapse or editorial fatigue since he goes out of his way to exclude Judas in so many other places. I think it’s simpler to think Matthew isn’t trying to include Judas here. He mentions “twelve thrones” only as an allusion to all Israel being ruled and judged by Jesus and his followers without specifically trying to include Judas.
(Btw, I appreciate the time you take to interact in comments.)
Interesting.
A comment on Jesus rebuking Peter for saying he was the Messiah in Mark?
It’s part of Mark’s theme of the “messianic secret.” Jesus doesn’t deny that Peter is right (that he is the messiah), he tells him not to tell anyone. And then when he starts talking about going to Jerusalem to die, Peter, upbraids him, and that’s when the rebuke comes (Get behind me Satan). For Mark, Jesus is the messiah, but the disciples (headed by Peter) don’t understand what that actually means.
My question should read “in Matthew”, I believe. If the author thought Jesus was the Messiah, why have him deny so vehemently that he is? If Jesus himself taught his disciples he was, what was this author’s intent in telling it this way? Trying to make it a secret again when it was actually out?
I don’t believe Jesus ever does deny venhemently that he was the Messiah in Matthew. Which passages are you thinking of? (Does he say “I am NOT the messiah”) (That reminds me of that scene in the LIfe of Brian, where by saying he is not the messiah Brian proves he must be the messiah!)
So it is in Mark after all. I’m just trying to make sense of the idea that Jesus would be secretly teaching to his inner circle he would be king and appoint the 12 as rulers and then when Peter comes out with it, gets upset. Maybe because there were others around at the time? I don’t get it that it would be because he believed to be some other kind of King…
Something seems to be missing here.
I think there is a more fundamental problem to this approach: it is to assume the Gospels are a naturalistic narrative describing a real person. In my opinion the Gospels are ‘Death of Socrates’ tableau’s and Jesus is automata of a dramatic structure designed to induce pathos (the Passion): the mistake is to assume the dramatic intention of the drama is actually the character of Jesus.
Think of the detective Poirot in an Agatha Christie novel, he is nothing more than a collection of mannerisms: ‘ze little grey cells’, ‘ah the psychology’, and the mannered moustached. In fact all the characters are paper thin as they only exists to establish the puzzle and the peculiar characteristics of Poirot is so that you can identify the character that will present the solution
Effectively you are defining the Messiah in terms of pathos and deferred expectation: the sacrifice is required for a future fulfilment.
What you should be asking is what Jesus felt and this can only happen if we have reliable first hand (or near first hand) experience of Jesus. What you are presenting is a series of axioms from which some alternate Messianic conclusion can be deduced
Ehrman:
First, in this post, a saying of Jesus found in the Gospels that almost certainly is something he really said: Jesus is recorded as telling his twelve disciples that they – the twelve – in the future kingdom of God, would themselves be seated on twelve thrones ruling the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:28-30; this comes from the Q source).
Kesler:
While Matthew’s version specifies 12 thrones, Luke’s does not. Luke 22:30 says, “…you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:28: “…you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'” Questions: If, as you say, this saying is authentic to Jesus, which version did he really speak–the version that says 12 thrones or the one that doesn’t? If we decide that Matthew’s is original because it’s “more difficult,” then why would Matthew retain his version which assumes that Judas would get a throne rather than removing the difficulty as Luke did?
I think 12 thrones must be the original, since it’s not something someone would make up (since it means Judas would be a ruler). Why did Matthew retain it? That’s how he heard it. Why didn’t he think harder about it? I often ask myself that about people who say things to me, either my students or anyone else: why don’t they think harder about it??? Don’t they see the problem?!
Ehrman:
I think 12 thrones must be the original, since it’s not something someone would make up (since it means Judas would be a ruler). Why did Matthew retain it? That’s how he heard it. Why didn’t he think harder about it? I often ask myself that about people who say things to me, either my students or anyone else: why don’t they think harder about it??? Don’t they see the problem?!
Kesler:
Do you think it’s possible that the reason Matthew retains the “twelve thrones” reading is that Matthew, unlike Luke, says that Judas confessed his sin to the “chief priests and elders” (Matthew 27:1-4; cf. Matthew 18:15-22), and therefore in Matthew’s view Judas would have a “throne” after all?
I doubt it. His hanging himself appears to show that he was never reconciled with Jesus, unlike Peter who denied him.
Bart: I have a question. Jesus was an apolyptic prophet. He believed he was living at the end of an age and that God would soon intervene to defeat the forces of evil and establish his kingdom. Then there is the crucifixion, and God did not intervene. The forces of evil still controlled the world. Jesus was defeated.
However, at some point relatively soon after the crucifixion his closest followers came to believe he was alive in some way. They conclude as we see from Stephen in Acts that Jesus is alive in heaven as the Son of Man. They further came to believe that God would soon send this Son of Man from heaven to establish his kingdom on earth.
This makes logical sense to me. What doesn’t make logical sense are the stories about the human Jesus during his ministry bringing in the kingdom by healing disease and exorcising demons. This is a different Jesus from the Son of Man and this Jesus was defeated by the crucifixion. The writers of the gospels putting their stories together 40, 50 ,60 years after the crucifixion knew this Jesus was defeated. Where did these stories come from? Why were they placed as prominent stories within the Synoptic gospels. Thanks!
The idea appears to be that the life of Jesus and all he does reflect what it will be like when the kingdom comes. There will be no more illness, demonic forces, or death. It will be brougght by Jesus as the Son of Man. But already in his ministry he is showing that he can do it.
That makes good sense. Thanks!
You state that Jesus didn’t expect that he would be crucified, as he thought he was the Messiah and would reign on earth. In the synoptic gospels, didn’t they say that he claimed that he would have to be crucified and resurrected? Are we to assume that those passages do not express his own beliefs?
Yes, they definitely do say that. In Mark he predicts his passion explicitly three times (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34) and implicitly refers to it repeatedly; same with Matthew; Luke has him predict it four times; and he does so in other terms throughout John. The quesiton I’m dealing with is not whether the Gospel protray Jesus as anticipating his death, but whether Jesus himself actually did so. The Gospels are written by believers in Jesus’ death and resurrection living 40-65 years later and basing their accounts on the stories about Jesus that had been in circulation for all that time. There are many things recorded in the Gospels that almost certainly did not happen and sayings of Jesus he almost certainly did not actually say. Historians have to figure out which is which. Which passages record what actually happened and which are based on later stories about Jesus. It’s a difficult business, but it’s what all historians do for all historical figures for whom we have written accounts (for Julius Caesar, Constantine, George Washington, John Wilkes Booth, etc.). When the Gospels are studied not only to see what they are trying to say about Jesus, but also to see which materials go back to him, these Passion Predictions seem most likely to be ways of showing that Jesus came to the world to die for others and be raised, and that he knew about it all along. He was not taken by surprise!
Dr. Ehrman,
Can you recommend any books that go into the specific subject of how the gospel authors’ post-resurrection perspective colored their representation of the pre-crucifixion Jesus?
Also, do you have any thoughts about Lydia McGrew’s defense of the historical reliability of the Christ-sayings in John’s gospel (Eye Of The Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage, DeWard, 2021)? She argues at p. 273 ff that you got it all wrong saying surely the Synoptics would never have chosen to exclude Jesus’ more explicit claims to deity if they knew he really made such claims.
There are lots of books on this; many of them are called something like “Jesus and the Gospels.” You might try the ones by Graham Stanton, or John Carroll, or Clifton Black.
I haven’t read her book, so I don’t know what her logic is. It certainly seems to me that if an ancient person wanted to write an account about JEsus as the Son of God and was eager to include the most important things he said and did (I put the Synoptics in that category), if he knew that Jesus declared himself God that would be a rather important part to include. It’s hard to imagine them thinking “Ah, that bit doesn’t really matter enough to mention.”
reading through your piece: I thought God the Creator: has not been competent: as we proclaim our Lord & Saviour. How would God, lets even say triune GOD, be capable as ruler of any human society. No experience at all!
most nonDictatorship nations’ Christians are gonna be intolerable to live in authoritarian [divine] dictatorship!
That’s what I assumed 3 of 7 churches in Revelations 2-3 were with correct prophetic teaching [Phillipi Smyrna & Sardis?].
Ruth Graham {Billy USA Evangelist’s wife]: “If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom
&Gomorrah.”
2. Learnt in Sunday School: All chosen disciples predestined & chosen by God the Creator, so how could Judas Iscariot be mistaken
AI:
Judas Iscariot chosen to fulfill God’s plan& fulfill prophecy:
Jesus quoted Psalm 41:9 in John 13:18-refers to Judas’s betrayal. Peter also pointed to fulfilled prophecy in Acts 1:16, linking Psalms 69:25 & 109:8.
God’s plan required someone to betray Jesus & Jesus chose Judas to accomplish this. The death of Jesus was prophesied in the OT&NTs.
Jesus knew that Judas’ wicked & unbelieving heart, chose Judas anyway. Judas’ many opportunities to believe in Christ, but chose to betray Jesus. Judas responsible for his actions & not forced to betray Jesus
The Beginning
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.…
Berean Standard Bible
https://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm
I learnt this was in the beginning of before Creation was the Bible substituting this w/Jesus OK.
But God knew all the Evil before Creation. So we suffer just because!
Anyways why would or could anyone live in near poverty when riches is spewed. Really how strange 13 men etc hanging around together in “civil society”.
John the Baptist & the Essenes were one thing but …
I don’t think that this Judas argument is so strong. It doesn’t seem implausible at all that the author of Q didn’t think of the circumstance that Judas was one of the twelve when he wrote about them becoming rulers, or that he didn’t mean Judas but Mattias, who replaced Judas by Acts 1:26.
After all, Paul also made a similar mistake 1 Corinthians 15:5, where he wrote that the resurrected Christ first appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. Judas wasn’t one of the twelve then, he was already dead, and Mattias hadn’t been appointed yet, so they were just eleven. Also, he expresses it as that Cephas (Peter) wasn’t one of the twelve, which is obviuosly wrong.
Som it isn’t uncommon to make mistakes of this kind.
However, I still think you’re right that Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah.
I don’t think the author of Q came up with the saying; in any event, there’s nothing to suggest the author would have known the book of Acts.