(14 votes, average: 4.79 out of 5)
Loading...The big question to emerge from my previous post is: If Jesus’ disciples (or at least some of them) believed he was the messiah before he died (as I tried to show they must have done) then what would have led them to think so?
I think there are two possibilities, one of which strikes me as implausible. The implausible one, in my opinion, is that Jesus did things that the messiah was expected to do, and because of that, his followers thought he was the messiah. My reason for not being drawn to this interpretation is precisely that Jesus in fact did not do any of the things that the messiah was expected or supposed to do.
Some of my Christian students don’t get this. Doesn’t the Bible predict that…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. It doesn’t cost much to join — about a Starbuck’s coffee a month (NOT a decaf caramel macchiato or whatever crazy other thing people drink — just a coffee!) . And the blog will keep you so much more alert and vibrant. So JOIN!!!
Dr. Ehrman, you keep leaving us in suspense! 🙁
I’m curious if you’re familiar with J. R. Daniel Kirk’s views on Synoptic Christology – perhaps best represented in his book “A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels”? It seems he sits somewhere in between yourself and Simon Gathercole. Would that be a fair analysis?
He was my student as an undergraduate! But I haven’t read his book.
Everything I can think of to describe how good this is falls short. It’s that good.
What sources do we have that showed those three kinds of messiah the Jews were expecting?
Mainly apocryphal texts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Psalms of Solomon. If you’re interested you might want to read John Collins The Star and the Scepter, where he deals with all the texts in a helpful study.
“Jesus was known as a great miracle worker”
What was Jesus doing in front of the people for them to think that he was a great miracle worker? Was he doing tricks?
I imagine the sorts of things most miracle workers with reputations continue to do. Most people believe in them not because they’ve done things but because they have been reputed to have done things.
“I imagine the sorts of things most miracle workers with reputations continue to do. Most people believe in them not because they’ve done things but because they have been reputed to have done things.”
Looking at it that way, I automatically think of someone who has a miracle-working reputation–Benny Hinn. Can Benny Hinn perform miracles? I don’t think so. People who follow him believe he can perform miracles, and I’m assuming he also believes himself to be a miracle worker. But here’s my question–What set the whole thing in motion in the first place? What happened to make him believe this about himself as well as others? These are the questions I ask myself when it comes to Jesus.
I’m not sure if a modern-day context is appropriate for Jesus, but I imagine him as having a dynamic personality. Mainly because televangelists and those I’ve known personally who were also believed to be miracle workers, modern prophets, etc… always seemed to be charismatic types. There’s also other traits I’ve noticed: they’re usually the center of attention, followed by an entourage or maybe in Jesus’ case–admirers, they pray for people, and rebuke evil spirits.
When I read the New Testament, that magnetic, energizing personality comes through. The historical Jesus does not give me the same sense. He feels very ordinary and somewhat dull, but I don’t think that’s right. To me, it makes more sense that those who followed Jesus were so enthralled by charismatic character, he was seen as a miracle worker during his lifetime.
Do we know what most miracle workers with reputations do? I’m guessing tricks that can impress an uneducated crowd?
One thing we can say is that their followers spread lots of stories about their miraculous deeds!
Wait. They would call him “son of God”?
Sorry, I don’t know what you’re asking.
You wrote above:
“Jesus was known as a great miracle worker and teacher. What did people call a great miracle worker and teacher? They did not call him the messiah. They normally called him … a great miracle worker and teachers Or if they wanted to give such a person a title, it might be “son of God” or “holy man” or “righteous one.” But not messiah.”
So I ask again, they would call him “son of God”?
Yes.
Why would they call him “son of God”?
That was a term that could be used of people considered “holy.”
Or maybe Jesus did neither. Perhaps it wasn’t until after his crucifixion that the myth of Jesus as messiah grew up and the stories began to be circulated.
What attitudes would the Jews who knew of Jesus’s activities but remained adjacent to his movement have had towards Jesus? I seem to remember him described as a “sorcerer” in some Halachic or Talmudic source-would that have carried negative connotations at the time?
There must have been an enormous range of opinions.
Do you believe everything that everyone said about Obama on Facebook? The gospel authors produced a Facebook abstract. Nearly every belief that people at the time (4 decades later) had was incorporated into the gospel narratives. But if the main characterization as a sage of Second Temple Judaism was correct, then everyone thought of him as a typical backwoods sage, a student of Hillel. A respected position, but also held by many others, and many much more prominent.
I know I should wait for the next post but…. Even though Jesus himself wasn’t a cosmic Son of Man figure, that figure did play a major role in Jesus’s message. Might not Jesus, along with his followers, have thought of himself as, say, the herald of the Son of Man? Also, the messiah, like Jesus, was to be an apocalyptic figure.
My point is that perhaps the association of Jesus with the Son of Man and with apocalypticism gave him sort of a “family resemblance” to the messiah even though he himself was not the type of figure the messiah was expected to be. There was enough resemblance so that it wasn’t such a huge leap for Jesus, along with his followers, to think of himself as the messiah.
My view is that Jesus did not see himself as the son of man. I’ll get to that!
Let us not understand this.. Let’s put our hands over our ears, close our eyes and scream LA, LA, LA!!!! Just a word of thanks Bart.. It has been a tough road for me personally to leave traditional Christianity.. I lost my own family along the way. At the end of the day though? I can sleep in peace at night. A life lived with no illusions is to me a better way to live. Thanks
The thrust of Jesus’ message was that the ‘Kingdom of God’ was at hand, and it is also true that Jesus did not expect to be a martyr. These points are explained clearly in “Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet . .’
Therefore it is not unreasonable to say Jesus would have expected to have a role or even be the ‘King’ in this imminent ‘Kingdom of God’.
But it is equally clear that Jesus’ conception of a ‘Kingdom’ and the role of its leader i.e ‘King’ was 180 degrees completely opposite to what the general population of Judea or even the world understood, and even his disciples did not understand this part of his teaching. Like his disciples, I have a hard time understanding his descriptions of the Kingdom – like a mustard seed or some leaven or a pearl. But I’m sure that the Kingdom was NOT at all meant to be like those headed by Caesar and Herod.
what i mean is
There is a question more fundamental than whether Jesus told his disciples that he was going to be a king. That is: what did the mean by “the Kingdom of Heaven” and what did it mean to be the ruler there?
I hope you will answer that.
“My thesis is that it was not because of anything that Jesus did. It was because of something he said. This is the second of my two possibilities, then. The followers of Jesus came to think he was the messiah because he told them he was. He told them he was going to be the king of Israel. This, in the end, is what got him killed. I’ll explain all that in future posts.”
But why would Jesus think he was the Messiah? If you don’t answer that, you’ve just shifted the question back a step.
Do you mean what were the inner psychological processes within his own consciousness? That’s something no historian could ever know (about Jesus or anyone else!)
No, not really. I’m not asking about his inner psychological world. You’ve established that the disciples would not have believed that Jesus was the Messiah because, for example, he did not do any of the things that were expected of a Messiah. So why would Jesus have believed himself to be a Messiah? Would he not have had the same expectations of a Messiah that his disciples did?
I wish we knew! But apart from psychological explanations, I’m not sure what options there are for speculating. (A lot of people think that God has a particular and particularly important plan for them)
I think the best speculation on this matter accepts that Jesus probably enjoyed some measure of real success in his early Gallilean social and religious teachings. This also helps explain the growith of the early movement if it already had a substantial basis beyond the small group of disciples who fled the scene when Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem. Surely he must have been an extraordinary leader and brilliant teacher if some were willing to entertain the idea that he was a Messiah.
Robert,
Dr Erhman has described three COMMON views of the messiah, and Jesus didn’t fit those.
So, unless you think Jesus is psychotic (eg he saw himself as a cosmic ‘cloud-riding divine judge’) , you should conclude that Jesus’ view of the Messiah was different than the three COMMON views.
After recently reading Dr. Ehrman’s “Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet. . ” which I would recommend, I picked up John Cobb’s “Jesus’ Abba” which presents a possible view Jesus held of the role of the Messiah which is different than these three and to me is more reasonable.
Tyler Henry could!
It’s another cliff hanger!
1. Paul thought Jesus was the Messiah because God raised him from the dead.
2. The followers of the historical Jesus believed he was the Messiah because he was going to be the king of Israel.
3. The Gospel of John teaches that Jesus was the Messiah because he is God .
4. No one thought he was the Messiah because he was crucified as a criminal.
Do you agree?
Not exactly, but it would take too long to explain in a comment. I’d be happy to comment on any of them if you want to try one.
The expectation that the Messiah would set Israel free was probably the most prevalent view. Certainly the view of the Emmaus disciples. However, Jesus does explain that this was a misreading of the scripture. He goes on to explain that the Messiah had to “…undergo all this so as to enter into his glory”.
The other point is why was Jesus known by his disciples as a miracle worker? Did he actually perform miracles? Or do you believe they made up those stories while he was still alive?
I myself don’t think he did miracles. But I can imagine people claiming he did even during his lifetime.
Bart,The subject of Jesus and all the prophets in both testaments is very fascinating for Muslims as,well.we believe,he did miracles ,i.e he was born without male intervention According to Quran ,his first miracle was when he spoke and defended his mother,when jews,came accusing Mary of adultery.Jesus cured leper,he raised dead to life etc.Quran claims,itself to be a criterion ,that to confirm what is true,so to know what really is truth if u want in case of suspicion,read Quran and u will find correct answers.
Do you think anyone would have *falsely* claimed he did? I mean, knowing that what they were saying wasn’t true?
I just had this thought about his disciples, that Passover Week in Jerusalem, “stirring up interest” by making claims no one who *knew* him, up in Galilee, would have believed…
Of course. False claims about miracle workers happen all the time, and always have. They happen even now, regularly, when such things can be more easily *checked*. All the time!
Your Christian students have been taught from their earliest days that the OT is all about Jesus with prophecies being fulfilled by the Gospels. I doubt very much if an explanations by a secular prof will do much to convince them.
Of course, the Christian students are right. The Gospels are chock full of OT prophesy fulfillment. Randel Helms in “Gospel Fictions” does a great job in identifying the extend.
The Mythicists explanation is that the Gospel writers were clueless about the life and times of Jesus Christ – since Paul provided none. So, following Paul’s, “according to the scriptures”, they mined the Septuagint, and wrote their story about the Jerusalem Messiah accordingly.
This also made it necessary to include the Hebrew Bible in the Orthodox Christian Canon.
If not the messiah, who was the author of Isaiah speaking of in chapter 53?
He is explicit. It is the Servant of the Lord. He identifies who this is in Isa. 49:3. It is Israel.
If I could clarify your point, Dr. Ehrman, I think English speakers often get confused by the word “servant” in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew word that is often translated as servant is ‘eved — עבד — which literally means a laborer, as in someone who does physical work, as opposed to someone who doesn’t do physical work (such as an aristocrat, for example). So, in some cases, ‘eved can mean a slave, such as a literal bonded servant, or in other cases it can mean a free laborer (like a hired hand), but it can also simply define a hierarchical relationship between a master and his subject, such as how priests and Levites were the ‘evdim, i.e. “servants” of God, or how a prophet, whom God used as a conduit though which to speak his will, was a “servant” of God. Similarly, angels were “servants” of God, as were anyone who, technically, “worshipped” God, for anyone who “worshipped” a god was a servant of that god. That’s why throughout the ancient literature, in both the Hebrew and Aramaic, you’ll often find ‘eved translated as “worshipper,” because in ancient times, one would “worship” a deity by, in effect, working for that deity!
Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that when Isaiah is talking about the “servant” of God in chapter 53 and its adjacents, he’s referring, by way of synecdoche, to the totality of those people for whom YHWH is their God, and they are his worshippers, or ‘evdim, i.e. “servants”. In other words, God is the master in the metaphor, while all Israel are the “servant” who is being punished for his disobedience.
I love and respect so many of your informative posts, Talmoore. Putting together Bart’s response and yours about Isaiah 53 helps immensely. Do you have a blow by blow Jewish response to Christian claims about verses in the “Old” Testament that are messianic prophecies which they take, of course, to be referring to Jesus? One that you have a link to or in something you’ve published? I know this is something sites like JewsForJudaism.com address but I’m interested in your treatment of these Christian claims.
I had the exact same question! It would be fascinating to see a complete list of 1) the passages from the OT that the early Christians believed reflected prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, and 2) the arguments why these passages were in fact wrenched out of context by the early Christians. An article or book on that topic would be great!
Sorry if you’ve addressed this elsewhere, but what about the Gospel of Thomas? There are some reasons to believe it is contemporary with or possibly even older than the other Gospels. I know this is not certain, but if we were to accept that this is the case then what are we to make of the fact that this document does not refer to Jesus as Christ or Lord at all?
It’s debated, but my view is that it dates to the early second century, some decades after the Gsopels of the NT.
And yet, I must again bring up the undeniable fact that many of the followers of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who died 1994, believed he was the Jewish Messiah, and some still do. And it seems pretty clear he never told anyone that he was. And this modern day Messiah story casts some serious doubt on a basic assumption you are making here. That devout followers of a man they believe to be holy are just puppets on a string–that they don’t have their own ideas, their own visions, which they project onto some figure (who may nor may not be worthy of their devotion), because they so desperately need to believe there is someone who can lead them to the promised land, whatever they think that may be.
Jesus told them things that allowed them to believe he was Messiah–but he never told them in so many words that he was, and he almost certainly did tell them he would not live much longer, and this was a source of agony and even outright rebellion among the tiny ranks of his followers. He was refusing to live up to the image they had of him, the hopes they had for him. But after his death–and their failure to intervene effectively to save him–their guilt forced them to reexamine their assumptions about what the Messiah would be, and of course it triggered religious visions, that further convinced them that they had been wrong, and Jesus had been right.
So he was really “in it for himself” (since he expected the Messiah to be exalted, not martyred!). And that may be precisely what turned Judas against him.
But that makes no sense, since Judas would have likewise believed the Messiah was supposed to rule. Jesus lived a life of extreme poverty–he practiced what he preached. I don’t believe he thought he was going to be an earthly king, but even if he did, that would not explain Judas’s betrayal, assuming any such betrayal took place. If Judas believed in the conventional image of the Messiah, he would want Jesus to rule over Israel.
But Judas might not have believed Jesus was the Messiah! He might not have been one of the Jews who anticipated a “Messiah.” He might have believed only in the future “Kingdom” – and *not* in the very human Jesus being destined to rule it.
I’m curious to know why you think Jesus was from the line of Judah. I know Matthew and Luke say so, but is there any reason to think their genealogies of Jesus are accurate?
By jesus’ day the only tribes left were Levi, Benjamin, and Judah. Jesus was not from Levi — he was no priest — and that leaves two. The majority of Jews were from Judah. So lacking evidence to suggest Benjamin, I tend to think Judah.
Dr. Ehrman, there’s a 4th possibility. When the Hasmonean Aristobulus I conquered the Galilee 100 years before Jesus, most of the Galilee was not Jewish but Aramean and Arab pagan. There’s no way to know for sure what the Jewish population of Galilee was before the conquest, but it almost certainly wasn’t a majority; possibly it was divided in thirds: one-third Jewish, one-third Aramaen (i.e. worshippers of Hadad, et al.), one-third Arab pagan (ignoring for a moment any Greek or other foreign immigrant populations); but there’s no way to know for sure. Anyway, my point is that it’s totally possible that Jesus was descended from non-Judean converts and his ancient ancestors weren’t even Jewish!
Incidentally, I exploit this possibility in my Jesus novel by making Jesus of mixed ethnicity (simply to mess with the heads of devout readers): part ethnic Judean (with ancestors who immigrated to Galilee from Judea), part ethnic Iturean Aramean from the lower Galilee (who go back centuries), and part ethnic Arab (who immigrated from the Golan, or ancient Gaulanitis during the time of Simon the Hasmonean). Yes, I’m making Jesus a mutt. Why? Because it’s my novel and I want to. :p
Yup, it’s possible. But there’s no hint of anything like that, even in the accusations of his opponents….
Possible is good enough 😉
If the NT is true, Jesus did not have a jewish father.
Are you saying God isn’t Jewish?
Couldn’t his family have been relatively recent converts to Judaism? That seems to have been the case with a fair number of Galileans (one of several reasons why the Messiah was not supposed to hail from Galilee).
It would also help explain the extreme religiosity both he and many of his family members showed (zeal of the convert), but also the highly unconventional manner in which they expressed it.
Obviously he could have had some ancestors of that tribe, but I find it hard to believe those geneologies in the gospels are much more than a lot of wishful thinking, on the part of both his disciples and his family.
It’s possible, but there’s no hint of that in our sources.
Bart,
What do you make of godspell’s comments above about the Lubavitcher movement? Rebbe Schneerson never explicitly claimed he was the Messiah, but a huge following came to think he was. Of course Schneerson had a “priestly” position in the Jewish hierarchy, but wouldn’t Jesus’ followers have thought the priestly system was largely corrupt and that is why Jesus was not a part of it? If so, then couldn’t Jesus’ followers have thought he was the Messiah without Jesus ever claiming to be, just like the Lubavitch did? And if not being a part of the priestly system was such a deal breaker for Jesus’ followers, then why would Jesus saying he was the Messiah convince anyone that he was?
Also, what do you make of many of the Lubavitch concluding, after Rebbe Schneerson’s death, that Rebbe Schneerson would resurrect from the dead at any moment and usher in the final redemption? Seems very close to the belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead up to heaven (an invisible realm) and would return at any moment to usher in the final redemption. What makes you rule this out as the cause of the resurrection belief (as opposed to a rare post-mortem bereavement hallucination)? Seems too that hallucinations would be more likely in the resultant highly charged religious environment, offering a better explanation for the appearance to Peter. Note too that the Lubavitch had a known burial location for their Messiah, whereas Jesus’ followers did not, which would explain why Jesus’ followers could believe that Jesus was already resurrected instead of soon to be resurrected (modern sensibilities and Lubavitch specific theology would also account for this difference).
How much have you looked into the Lubavitch or this approach, if at all?
Yes, I’m absolutely not saying that the only way people would think a person is the messiah is if that person claimed to be. I am saying that if they didn’t claim to be, then something about their life must lead others to think so.
Bart,
Thank you for your response. However, it seems to me that there HAD to be something about Jesus’ life for others to think he was the Messiah; otherwise, why would anyone believe Jesus when he told them that he was the Messiah? But if there was something about Jesus’ life that lent itself to being the Messiah, then it seems godspell’s point is still a pretty good one: followers of religious men often have their own ideas, their own visions, which they project onto some figure because they so desperately need to believe there is someone who can lead them to the promised land. So why do you find it implausible that Jesus’ followers projected their own ideas and hopes onto Jesus and thought him the Messiah without Jesus ever saying so? That appears to be precisely what happened with Rebbe Schneerson of the Lubavitch movement. As far as I know, Rebbe Schneerson didn’t do anything that defined the Messiah; he just inspired a lot of people, apparently with his unique charity and teachings and charisma (I think his status as the Rebbe was secondary, since there had been many Rebbe’s before him and none were thought of as the Messiah, and it seems plausible that Jesus’ followers would have thought the priestly system was largely corrupt and that is why Jesus was not a part of it). So why couldn’t a unique combination of charity, teachings, and charisma have led Jesus’ followers to think he was the Messiah without Jesus ever claiming to be, just like Rebbe Schneerson?
Also, could you please comment on my second question? What do you make of many of the Lubavitch concluding, after Rebbe Schneerson’s death, that Rebbe Schneerson would resurrect from the dead at any moment and usher in the final redemption? Here we have a case where the supposed Messiah did something that the Messiah was NOT supposed to do – die before ushering in the final redemption. And yet his followers again did what godspell brought up: they imposed their own ideas, their own visions, onto Rebbe Schneerson because they so desperately needed to believe there is someone who can lead them to the promised land. What do you make of this aspect of human behavior? Do you think it could have led Jesus’ followers to the belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead up to heaven and would return at any moment to usher in the final redemption without any post-mortem bereavement hallucination at all?
Thank you.
My sense is that Schneerson’s followers were heavily influenced by Christian teachings of Jesus. These are precisely the views you don’t find in Jewish writings prior to Jesus.
FYI, one of the first social anthropologists to study the Lubavitch says there is “no empirical evidence” that the Lubavitch were influenced by modern day Christian beliefs (Simon Dein, Lubavitcher Messianism (2012), pg. 133). But since this influence cannot be ruled out, how about the conclusions of Shabbetai Ẓevi’s followers and the Millerites as examples where followers imagine things that did not previously exist in their writings or the writings of other religions around them (a Messiah who would fake his apostasy to Islam so he could defeat it from within, and a second coming of Jesus in heaven instead of on earth). These seem like good examples of what godspell is talking about: followers of religious men having their own ideas, their own visions, which they project onto some figure because they so desperately need to believe there is someone who can lead them to the promised land. Why couldn’t this aspect of human nature lead Jesus followers to make the same twist on Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings after his death that you say needed a hallucination to happen? It seems like a pretty small step actually: instead of the cosmic Son of Man in heaven coming to earth to establish Jesus’ messianic rule, Jesus is now the cosmic Son of Man in heaven who will come to earth to establish his own messianic rule. With no body to disconfirm the resurrection belief, it’s all imaginary wishes in an invisible realm, exactly the kind of thing the followers of religious men sometimes do. And if this gave birth to the resurrection belief, now you have a highly charged religious environment, and the odds of a hallucination would seem magnitudes higher than a post-mortem bereavement hallucination (which are actually pretty rare, especially if you are imagining one where there is conversation and/or sensations of touch).
Yes, I think that anthropologist cannot possibly be right.
If the messiah was not expected to be divine and if many readers of this blog know that, and they are not using “messiah” in a title, as in “President Obama,” why do so many capitalize “messiah”?
I doubt Cyrus called himself a [Jewish] messiah. But Israel called him that because of what he did (restored Israel to their land).
You make the comment, “So far as we can tell, he was a pacifist.” Would you please elaborate on this point? I myself have felt this was the case for most of my adult life. However, my more church going relatives (Baptist) were all supporters of the Iraq war. In fact, I was drawn to your writings in part as a matter of self-defense.
Much of history is full of war and violence committed by “Christians” often against other “Christians”. How does that reflect the pacifism of Jesus?
Pacifist teachings are throughout the tradition (turn the other cheek; love your enemy; etc), and are often taken to be authentically tied to Jesus.
Jesus, just like every other “pacifist” (martin luther king, ghandi etc) were only “strategic” pacifists, in that they knew they would have gotten annihilated if they attempted a violent movement (since they were vastly outnumbered), and so had no choice but to have a “peaceful” movement.
Bart,
Just curious what you make of the conclusions of Shabbetai Ẓevi’s followers and the Millerites. They seem to have come up with new beliefs that did not previously exist in their writings or the writings of other religions around them (a Messiah who would purposely fake his apostasy to Islam so he could defeat it from within, and a second coming of Jesus in heaven instead of on earth). How do you think these new beliefs came about?
I think each case has to be examined individually — I don’t think there’s just one reason that beliefs about a great leader evolve.
I agree, but can you take a stab at explaining the beliefs of Shabbetai Ẓevi’s followers and the Millerites? Nothing in their writings or the writings of other religions around them would ever suggest what they came up with. Have you ever looked into these cases?
I haven’t studied them closely, though I do discuss the Millerites in my book Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Their fervent beliefs about the imminent end of the age continued on despite being disconfirmed. But I don’t believe they proclaimed their dead leader as the messiah. Maybe someone can correct me!
Great, sounds like you are familiar with the Millerites. In that case, how in your mind were the Millerites able to reach their conclusion that the second coming of Jesus occurred in heaven instead of on earth if that idea did not previously exist in their writings or the writings of any other religion around them?
I’m not sure I understand the question. Even if the Millerites got it from someone else — the someone else must have come up with it or got it from someone else who did. So *someone* had to come up with it! No reason it couldn’t have been the Millerites.
Bart,
Your point earlier was that Jesus’ followers could not have come up with the resurrection belief and the reconfiguring of Jesus’ teachings (Jesus was now the cosmic Son of Man in heaven coming to earth to establish his messianic rule) all on their own without a hallucination of Jesus because “these are precisely the views you don’t find in Jewish writings prior to Jesus.” However, as you just noted about the Millerite conclusion that the second coming of Jesus occurred in heaven instead of on earth: these are precisely the views you don’t find in the Millerite or any other writings of the time so “someone had to come up with it!”
So my question is, why couldn’t Jesus’ followers have just come up with the belief that Jesus resurrected without ever having a post-mortem bereavement hallucination of Jesus?
I think you misunderstand me. I was arguing that they would not have come up with the idea of Jesus being *the Messiah* (specifically using that particular title) even if they came to believe in his resurrection. And I’m not arguing that they could not have come up with the belief in Jesus’ resurrection without having a visionary experience. I’m arguing that they did indeed (a few of them? three of them?) have a visionary experience and this is what led them to believe in the resurrection.
OK. Got it. You are open to the possibility that Jesus’ followers could have come up with the belief in Jesus’ resurrection WITHOUT a visionary experience (like the Millerites and Ẓevi’s followers came up with new beliefs to explain away their disappointments). If so, why do you propose a post-mortem bereavement hallucination had to be involved in giving birth to the resurrection belief when such hallucinations are so rare? It would seem a LOT more probable that hallucinations of Jesus would come in the highly charged religious environment that existed AFTER the resurrection belief and expectation of Jesus’ imminent return came about.
You should read my book How Jesus Became God. I have a full discussion of the matter there.
Already read your whole book. Just asking a follow up question. Is that ok? If you think Jesus’ followers could have come up with the belief in Jesus’ resurrection without a visionary experience (like the Millerites and Ẓevi’s followers came up with new beliefs to explain away their disappointments), why do you propose a post-mortem bereavement hallucination was involved (pg. 203) when such hallucinations are so rare?
In part because every reference to Jesus’ followers coming to believe in the resurrection indicates that it was because some of them saw him alive afterward (all the Gospels; Paul; etc.) No other reason is ever given.
“the Messiah” is purely a Christian invention. It bears no relation to any Jewish idea whatever. Greek mystery religions had already been thinking about a universal sacrifice. But a sacrifice needs only to die, not be resurrected. As an afterthought, I think earliest Christians sought to associate their new religion with an ancient one, to gain philosophical respect and perhaps Roman religio licita protection. Some thought only a god would qualify as that sacrifice. If you want your religion to be universal, choose a monotheistic religion. That would be Judaism. Practice pesher to claim as much as you can that texts in Tanakh were talking about and predicting Jesus. Sure, call him a messiah. But since he never successfully accomplished anything that would qualify him to Israel in the role of a messiah, invent a new definition and new qualifications.
By the time our gospel diarists got around to writing their bios narratives, at least 3 decades later, people were believing and talking about all kinds of things about Jesus. That’s why you can find so many different portrayals. I think the very idea of seeking what the historical Jesus might have said is a hopeless and misguided effort. The criterion about whether a saying matches a Christian idea is useless. Any idea you can find portrayed in the gospels was certainly believed and talked about by some Christians somewhere. He was an apocalyptic prophet, a Pharisee, a Zealot, a magician, a healer, and various other things that some Christians thought he should have been, including being virgin-born. We must show Jesus fulfilling our misinterpretation of Isaiah 7.
Can you please give one reference in Paul where you can tell that visions CAUSED the resurrection belief instead of the visions coming AFTER the resurrection belief was born?
It’s what all the Gospels say (see the final chapter of each). And Acts 9, 22, 26 (with respect to Paul). Paul in 1 Cor. 15 is giving proof for how we know Jesus died (he was buried) and for how we know he was raised (he appeared). So I don’t know how much more you need! If you have an alternative understanding of why anyone came to think Jesus was raised, what is it?
Bart,
If all hallucinations of Jesus came AFTER the resurrection belief was born, the 1 Cor. 15 appearance list would seem to look exactly the same, and it would still function as proof that Jesus was raised (as you say it does). Same thing with the Gospels. They are aimed at giving proof that Jesus was raised, so they are not going to say that Peter and a few others initially just thought Jesus was raised up to heaven (turning defeat into victory like the Millerite and Ẓevi examples I gave) and then Jesus appeared to them; they are going to make the initial resurrection belief a product of hard evidence — the discovered empty tomb and corporeal appearances of Jesus. How do you think the Gospels and appearance list in 1 Cor. 15 should have looked if the resurrection belief came first and then all of the hallucinations followed? Thank you.
We seem to be kicking a dead horse. Maybe you could indicate what you’re trying to argue? What’s the point you’re trying to make?
The point I am trying to make is: Jesus’ followers could have come up with the belief that Jesus’ was raised WITHOUT a visionary experience (just like the Millerite and Ẓevi followers came up with new beliefs to explain away their disappointments). I think you agree with this. However, you propose a post-mortem bereavement hallucination started the resurrection belief. Post-mortem bereavement hallucinations are very rare, so in using this you have just reduced the probability of your whole hypothesis by a whole lot. As far as I can tell, you seem compelled to say there was a post-mortem bereavement hallucination that started it all because the Gospels (written decades later!) always connect seeing Jesus with initial belief in Jesus’ resurrection. However, the Gospels are aimed at giving PROOF that Jesus was raised, so they are not going to say that Peter and a few others initially just THOUGHT that Jesus was raised up to heaven and then Jesus appeared to them; they are going to make the initial resurrection belief a product of hard evidence — the discovered empty tomb and corporeal appearances of Jesus. So why do you propose a post-mortem bereavement hallucination was involved? Why don’t you just propose that Jesus’ followers came up with the belief that Jesus’ was raised WITHOUT a visionary experience (just like the Millerite and Ẓevi followers came up with new beliefs to explain away their disappointments)?
But I don’t understand what it is that you think made anyone think Jesus was raised from the dead. Something must have done it. All the sources indicate that it was someone seeing Jesus alive afterward. If you don’t think that was it, what do you think it was?
That’s evidence that people believed he was raised. We have comparable evidence that people believed others were also raised, such as Apollonius. Paul said why people believed: people had visions (dreams) about it. Hearing about dreams triggers dreams of your own. Besides, who wants to be left out? My friends had visions of Jesus, why can’t I? The gospel diarists were just reporting these reports of visions, decades later, far from the scene of the action.
“post-mortem bereavement hallucination” — Rare? Not at all! It’s very common for people to dream about deceased loved ones. Some cultural anthropologists think such dreams were the origin of the idea of an afterlife. But today, we don’t assert reality to things we dream about. The ancients did.
Bart,
You asked: What would make anyone think Jesus was raised from the dead if it was not a vision of Jesus?
Answer: The human desire to explain away disappointment. Not a single other Jew in history ever concluded from a post-mortem bereavement hallucination that their lost loved one had been resurrected up to heaven. To get past this hurdle, you propose that Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings made a resurrection interpretation plausible. But if Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings could plausibly support a resurrected Messiah, then Jesus’ followers would have found that same plausible explanation on their own without any hallucination at all when they tried to explain away their disappointment in Jesus’ death (just like the Millerites and Ẓevi followers found their own far-fetched explanations to explain away their disappointments). Said another way, Jesus’ followers did exactly what the interpretive step of your own hypothesis already requires: a reconfiguring of messianic expectations and Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings. Granted, a hallucination of Jesus would have pointed Jesus’ followers more directly to this reconfiguring of messianic expectations and Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings, but post-mortem bereavement hallucinations are rare, so introducing this reduces the probability of your whole hypothesis by a significant amount. It is a matter of probabilities. A reinterpretation of Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings seems much more probable to me than a rare post-mortem bereavement hallucination. I believe my approach would also more plausibly explain the first hallucination of Jesus to Peter, since hallucinations are significantly more probable in environments like the white hot excitement of Jesus’ resurrection and imminent return. Have you ever studied the Millerite and Zevi movements and the psychology that lies behind the human tendency to explain away disappointments? Here is just one relevant quote from probably the world’s leading authority on the Zevi movement: “When discussing the Sabbatian paradox by means of which cruel disappointment was turned into a positive affirmation of faith, the analogy with early Christianity almost obtrudes itself” (Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, pg. 795). Thoughts?
I suppose it’s possible. But it makes one wonder why there weren’t hundreds of raised messiahs then.
Great question. I think I have a great answer.
There are two reasons why there were not hundreds of other raised messiahs (or even one!). First, Jesus was a NON-military messiah figure. Almost all other Jewish messiah movements were military messiah movements that were crushed militarily. Because of this, the followers of these other messiah movements would have had a much harder time rationalizing their man was still the Messiah after he had just been killed by the same enemies he explicitly said he was going to kill. As your esteemed colleague James Crossley points out about two of the larger of these messiah movements, “Simon bar Giora and bar Kochbah were military figures expecting military victories. Of course their deaths would be deemed as a failure” (Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2005)). Second, most (if not all) other Jewish messiah movements presumably had access to the corpse of their dead messiah, which would have been empirical proof that their dead Messiah could not possibly have been bodily raised to heaven. As your own hallucination hypothesis requires (and I agree), Jesus’ body was not available to empirically disconfirm the resurrection belief, so the resurrection belief could emerge and flourish without the impediment of an observable corpse. Let me finish with another quote that is relevant to your question, this one from probably the world’s most respected authority on the psychological process that I am proposing led to the resurrection belief: “Where there are a number of people having the same cognitive dissonance, the phenomenon [of explaining away their disappointment] may be much more spectacular, even to the point where it is possible to withstand evidence which would otherwise be overwhelming….There is a tendency to seek explanations of these striking phenomena which match them in dramatic quality; that is, one looks for something unusual to explain the unusual result. It may be, however, that there is nothing more unusual about these phenomena than the RELATIVE RARITY OF THE SPECIFIC COMBINATION OF ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES that brings about their occurrence” (Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, pg. 233, 247). That is all that has happened here, a relatively rare combination of circumstances, and two of those circumstances are those mentioned above. You are almost there Dr. Ehrman. What’s your next question?
“Jesus was a NON-military messiah figure.” — Even if true, that didn’t matter. He was ACCUSED of being such. That did matter.
The idea of the resurrection existed at the time of Paul, but perhaps not much earlier than that. The idea arose among Greek polytheists outside of Palestine, perhaps as much as 2 decades later. Of course they had no access to a body. That’s almost certain, since for shaming purposes, the Romans didn’t let people bury victims of crucifixion. The bodies were dumped where scavengers would devour the remnants. That’s why the diarists had to concoct an implausible burial story. Do you think anyone demanded evidence for all the various mythical figures who rose from the dead?
Compounded evangelistic exaggeration?
Bart,
I hope I did not say something to offend. “You are almost there” was tongue and cheek to reflect my own bewilderment that not many scholars seem to know about or use the psychological approach. If you would like, I can send you an article that I believe makes the most succinct and powerful case that the psychological approach is more plausible than the hallucination hypothesis. Are you interested?
I’m interested — but I’m afraid I’m too swamped to read anything other than the huge stack of htings on my desk I *have* to read. Thanks for offering though. BTW: the hallucination hypothesis *is* a psychological approach. I explain all that in my book How Jesus Became God.
Well, let’s be honest though, the hallucination hypothesis is a LOT less of a psychological approach than what I was advocating and what we see happened in the Millerite and Zevi movements. And the post-mortem bereavement hallucination required in the hallucination hypothesis is a LOT less probable than a hallucination would have been in a supercharged religious environment AFTER the resurrection belief came about. Anyway, thanks for the brief back and forth, and thanks for all of the time you take communicating with the public. If you ever change your mind and would like to see the most succinctly argued case that I am aware of (10 pages) for a purely social-psychological cause of the resurrection belief, I am sure you have my contact information from signing up to your blog for a month.
Dr Ehrman, I am sorry if you covered this question elsewhere. Do you believe that the calling of the 12 goes back to the historic Jesus? If you do, what might that indicate about Jesus’ belief about his ministry and himself?
Thank you!
Kevin
Yes, I do. ANd I think it indicates something about his preaching of the kingdom. In ancient Israel there were 12 Patriarchs, head of the 12 tribes; in the kingdom there will be the 12 disciples, rulers of the restored tribes.
I think the opposite. I think it’s more likely a sage would accumulate students one at a time. 12 was just a popular number. Israel always had 12 tribes, even if they had to fudge. The gospels never give a reason for 12, but according to Acts, they wanted to keep it at 12 so they replaced Judas.
Professor Ehrman,
I agree that Jesus likely told his followers he would be the King one day, and in *some* sense, that had Messianic overtones despite Jesus not being the type of Messiah most people imagined. Something I am curious about, however: Could Mark 12:35-37 possibly be taken as evidence that the historical Jesus rejected the notion of a Davidic Messiah, and indirectly supports the idea that for him, Messiah was to be the angelic Son of Man figure? Or is this verse better understood from a later non-Jewish perspective (that of Mark and his community) as meaning that the Messiah, being the Son of God (God being Lord of non-Jew and Jew alike) rather than just Son of David (I.E. a distinctly Jewish messiah) belongs to the whole world, not just the Jews? Is my understanding of this off base?
It is often taken that way. Another option is that he is simply asking a stumper of a question to show publicly that his opponents aren’t as smart as they think they are. One piece of support for that view is that Jesus clearly is the Son of David in Mark.