Skeptical response to Bart Ehrman's book in the historical Jesus

[shunyadragon]

It is indeed controversial. There are indeed some historians who consider Jesus to have been a rebel, but Ehrman opposes this view. Again, do not equate the Roman view of Jesus with the view of Ehrman.

I do believe that a reasonable understanding that Jesus Christ was tried, convicted and crucified under Roman Law for sedition/treason for claiming to be the 'King of Jews' is controversial. It is not specifically the Roman view nor Ehrman's view, and it is non-controversial. I believe Ehrman accepts this as history.

What do you believe Ehrman proposed happened in the trial and execution of Jesus?

[shunyadragon]

Ehrman offered different hypothetical alternatives for the accounts of Jesus's arrest, trial and cruxifiction. Here's one.

Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesusqanda.html

Ehrman offers the interesting theory that Jesus "as a country fellow from rural Galilee who preached against wealth and power" may have found the opulence of the Temple** so upsetting that "the place made his blood boil on principle." The peasant revolutionary may have responded with some sort of a small-scale symbolic protest and a prediction amount the ultimate downfall of the Temple. If anyone were to speak out--especially in the Temple during the Passover festival-- against the corruption and opulence of the Temple, and begin to draw a crowd of supporters, it certainly would have caught the attention of religious authorities. Caiaphas, the high priest of the Temple, might well have been expected to respond with an order to Temple police to track down and arrest the troublemaker.

The exact nature of the charge against Jesus is not known. Had he been charged with sedition and asked about his movement, his silence would be easy to understand: he would be reluctant to reveal details and expose others to prosecution. Some historians have argued that Jesus was a Jewish nationalist who might have supported an armed insurrection against Rome. Others--citing the pacifism of his teachings--find that suggestion implausible and argue that his messianic claims, coupled with the subversive act against the Temple that led to his arrest, would have been more than enough reason for Pilate to support his crucifixion--Pilate being anxious to preserve his relations with Caiaphas and other Jewish leaders. John Crossan, in Who Killed Jesus?, even questions whether any trial at all took place. Crossan argues that for "a peasant nobody like Jesus" there might have been "standing agreements and orders" concerning subversive action during the Passover that "would beget instant punishment with immediate crucifixion as public warning and deterrent."

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

Ehrman offered different hypothetical alternatives for the accounts of Jesus's arrest, trial and cruxifiction. Here's one.

Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesusqanda.html

Ehrman offers the interesting theory that Jesus "as a country fellow from rural Galilee who preached against wealth and power" may have found the opulence of the Temple** so upsetting that "the place made his blood boil on principle." The peasant revolutionary may have responded with some sort of a small-scale symbolic protest and a prediction amount the ultimate downfall of the Temple. If anyone were to speak out--especially in the Temple during the Passover festival-- against the corruption and opulence of the Temple, and begin to draw a crowd of supporters, it certainly would have caught the attention of religious authorities. Caiaphas, the high priest of the Temple, might well have been expected to respond with an order to Temple police to track down and arrest the troublemaker.

© Copyright Original Source

Sure, and Jesus the rebel is another hypothetical alternative, but it is one that Ehrman opposes from what I've read of his writings, which is why I've asked if you have any references to where Ehrman embraces the view that Jesus was a rebel.

[robrecht]

I do believe that a reasonable understanding that Jesus Christ was tried, convicted and crucified under Roman Law for sedition/treason for claiming to be the 'King of Jews' is [not?] controversial. It is not specifically the Roman view nor Ehrman's view, and it is non-controversial. I believe Ehrman accepts this as history.

What do you believe Ehrman proposed happened in the trial and execution of Jesus?

[shunyadragon]

I would not hang on subtle differences in definition, and choice of words. Very few believe that Jesus advocated a violent rebellion against Rome. Jesus was charged with sedition/rebellion against Rome by declaring himself King of the Jews..

[robrecht]

I would not hang on subtle differences in definition, and choice of words. Very few believe that Jesus advocated a violent rebellion against Rome. Jesus was charged with sedition/rebellion against Rome by declaring himself King of the Jews..

I don't think these are unimportant subtleties. Did the Roman and or Jewish authorities who played a part in the crucifixion of Jesus correctly understand whether or not Jesus was in fact a seditious rebel? Did Jesus claim to be the current or coming King of the Jews or was that later attributed to him after his death? If the former, in what sense might have Jesus claimed this title? If the latter, is it more likely that Jesus merely considered himself to be a prophet, perhaps an apocalyptic prophet, or perhaps merely a rabbi of some sort? If so, can he classified among a particular group of Pharisees or among other sects of the time? Do his preserved teachings reveal more of a religious genius or highly creative theologian that combined several aspects of a number of different schools and sects in a relatively unique manner? These and other such questions are all of great interest to scholars trying to reconstruct a plausible historical view of Jesus. In the end, one may certainly conclude that we do not possess sufficient evidence to reliably choose among a variety of plausible portraits and scenarios, but these 'subtleties' are of great interest to historians involved in trying to approach these questions in a scholarly manner.

[Adam]

I would like to see your argument here again.

Frank, unlike Robrecht and Tassman and The Pixie and the Overcomer (sp?) whom I debated here about 2010-2011 during my derivation of the seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, you have been nothing but a hindrance from when I first appeared on the old TWeb back about 2007. I have ZERO interest in re-inventing the wheel once again with YOU!
As for anyone else, I would welcome opening up an interchange, but only with someone willing to at least look at what I have presented elsewhere (or going to the WayBackMachine for old TWeb, which I understand to be a very trying proposition). You would need to quote extensively if you choose Christian Forums, as I cannot access it for six months because I have been banned (apparently for winning too many debates--lots of sore losers over there who report me when I win).

[Adam]

Exactly what Establishment bias and presuppositions are you speaking of here with respect to Van Belle? Do you have a substantive critique or just this dismissive rejection?

I suppose it's unkind of me to mention this during our current love-fest with Pope Francis here today in the U. S., but yes, that for starters. Any Roman Catholic scholar who hasn't been in trouble with the Inquisition (which Ratzinger was in charge of before he became Pope Benedicut XVI, under the pseudonym of Society for the Propagation of the Faith) would seem chargeable with too pliant an acceptance of Establishment preconceptions. I'm not saying he should be a Hans Kung or Schillebeekx, but he should have been in at least some trouble with the Holy See. He shows standard RC prejudices for Matthew as against ur-gospel hypotheses. (I may even have these misstated, so little did I find worth getting his perspective from--he is just too darn conventional.) He is particularly lacking in serious criticism of source gospels within the Gospel of John, which is my specialty in following up on the genius of Howard M. Teeple. Even Teeple got lots of things wrong, but his detailed stylistic criticisms are always worth studying regarding sources within John.

I would have said the same thing basically against Gilbert Van Belle even when I was still a convert to Roman Catholicism until 1992. (Of course I did not derive the full seven written eyewitness source of Jesus until 2011.

[Adam]

Have to admit I was getting the glow myself what with Pope Francis (couldn't have picked a better name, except that that 13th Century monk got canonized for being very simple and not worldly-wise). Our current pope shows great worldly wisdom in saying all the right things that are the most anyone could expect from the 266th leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He could not endorse abortion or homosexual "marriage" like the Left wanted him to (but knew he could not do), but in all other matters he lock-step affixed "nihil obstat" on the program of the Democrat Party. Except in the ONE KEY MATTER where he could have changed everything and "saved" the world--the Holy See is not obligated doctrinally to discourage population control. So Good Prince Francis said all the good things about poverty and migration and all, EXCEPT for the one thing that ever could mitigate and (potentially, not really) eliminate poverty and the wars that cause disruptions causing mass migration. There just has to be a stop to population increase. Even the Pope's interest in ballooning his constituency does not apply to approving Moslem immigration into Europe and North America. Birth control by whatever means is desperately needed in all the Moslem and Hindu and animist world, none of this reducing (obviously increasing) his power in the world. As for the equally desperate need for population control in Central and South America and in Catholic parts of Africa, I would not tell the Pope he must propagandize "artificial" contraception in all his bailiwicks, but abstinence has always been permitted, the rhythm method widely practiced, and newer and better methods of identifying a woman's fertile periods have been taught in Catholic parishes for at least forty years. When I was Roman Catholic I excused my indifference on this matter as letting our faith encourage more spiritual "relations" between husband and wife. Eventually I found out the dirty secret that the Catholic Church has always had an unholy alliance with the retrogrades of other religions (particularly ISLAM!) to stifle world-wide efforts at population control. Pope Francis as a simple man, as spiritual, cannot deal with "intimate" realities. He is unfit to be pope. He will leave the world a worse place than it was because of his limitation of his reforms to being a conservative, reactionary effort to clean up his own house (chucking out pedophile priests and the bishops who coddle) without doing any good outside of it.

So as I said so often at Christian Forums (and even said, "I wonder how long until the powers-that-be here make me stop saying it"), I was even myself "drinking the Kool-Aid" earlier today and during my 1969-92 years in the Roman Catholic Church. As you can see above, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid any more. What was it Voltaire always said, "Ecrasez l'infame!" ?

[shunyadragon]

I don't think these are unimportant subtleties. Did the Roman and or Jewish authorities who played a part in the crucifixion of Jesus correctly understand whether or not Jesus was in fact a seditious rebel? Did Jesus claim to be the current or coming King of the Jews or was that later attributed to him after his death? If the former, in what sense might have Jesus claimed this title? If the latter, is it more likely that Jesus merely considered himself to be a prophet, perhaps an apocalyptic prophet, or perhaps merely a rabbi of some sort?

From a secular historical perspective I do not believe it is a question of 'correctly understanding' the Claims of Jesus Christ could be objectively answered. This would be a rather anecdotal subjective issue based on a religious belief. From a purely historical perspective form the it was common for messianic and rebel Jews to rise up and make this claim. Whether it referred to this life, the next or a later return could not be a question that could only be answered as a religious belief.

If so, can he classified among a particular group of Pharisees or among other sects of the time? Do his preserved teachings reveal more of a religious genius or highly creative theologian that combined several aspects of a number of different schools and sects in a relatively unique manner? These and other such questions are all of great interest to scholars trying to reconstruct a plausible historical view of Jesus. In the end, one may certainly conclude that we do not possess sufficient evidence to reliably choose among a variety of plausible portraits and scenarios, but these 'subtleties' are of great interest to historians involved in trying to approach these questions in a scholarly manner.

I do not believe there is enough objective evidence to consider these ambiguous religious questions in a scholarly manner. The known facts believed by historians is that Jesus Christ was tried for sedition/treason by Roman authorizes, and executed by crucifixion, which was the standard punishment for the crime.

[robrecht]

From a secular historical perspective I do not believe it is a question of 'correctly understanding' the Claims of Jesus Christ could be objectively answered. This would be a rather anecdotal subjective issue based on a religious belief. From a purely historical perspective form the it was common for messianic and rebel Jews to rise up and make this claim. Whether it referred to this life, the next or a later return could not be a question that could only be answered as a religious belief.

I do not believe there is enough objective evidence to consider these ambiguous religious questions in a scholarly manner. The known facts believed by historians is that Jesus Christ was tried for sedition/treason by Roman authorizes, and executed by crucifixion, which was the standard punishment for the crime.

It seems you're totally missing the point. Secular historians do not answer questions based on their religious beliefs but they are still very interested in knowing if an historical figure may have made such claims. Don't you think that Bart Ehrman is a secular historian and scholar? He certainly thinks that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah in an apocalyptic sense, ie, that he would, in effect, be the King of God's coming Kingdom.

[Adam]

Sorry, Robrecht,
For my migraine today. It's too late to go back and change my Post #84. It's out of my control now.
Dale

[robrecht]

I suppose it's unkind of me to mention this during our current love-fest with Pope Francis here today in the U. S., but yes, that for starters. Any Roman Catholic scholar who hasn't been in trouble with the Inquisition (which Ratzinger was in charge of before he became Pope Benedicut XVI, under the pseudonym of Society for the Propagation of the Faith) would seem chargeable with too pliant an acceptance of Establishment preconceptions. I'm not saying he should be a Hans Kung or Schillebeekx, but he should have been in at least some trouble with the Holy See. He shows standard RC prejudices for Matthew as against ur-gospel hypotheses. (I may even have these misstated, so little did I find worth getting his perspective from--he is just too darn conventional.) He is particularly lacking in serious criticism of source gospels within the Gospel of John, which is my specialty in following up on the genius of Howard M. Teeple. Even Teeple got lots of things wrong, but his detailed stylistic criticisms are always worth studying regarding sources within John.

I would have said the same thing basically against Gilbert Van Belle even when I was still a convert to Roman Catholicism until 1992. (Of course I did not derive the full seven written eyewitness source of Jesus until 2011.

[shunyadragon]

It seems you're totally missing the point. Secular historians do not answer questions based on their religious beliefs but they are still very interested in knowing if an historical figure may have made such claims. Don't you think that Bart Ehrman is a secular historian and scholar? He certainly thinks that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah in an apocalyptic sense, ie, that he would, in effect, be the King of God's coming Kingdom.

I do not think I am missing the point. Yes, secular historians are interested in the nature of the claim. The nature of the claim of Jesus as the King of God's coming Kingdom would not be a factor concerning the Romans judgment at that time that would effect the nature and consequences of how the Romans would have judged Jesus Christ. This question would be more an issue from the Christian theological view of the history of Christianity and the life of Jesus.

The secular view in the book Jesus as A Figure in History by Mark Allan Powell addresses this to a certain extent.

Example: citing N. T. Wright: Jesus 'was handed over by the powerful Jewish element to the Romans to be crucified as an insurrectionist.' p 206.

N. T. Wright addresses the issues of the nature of Jesus's claim concerning the 'Return of the King' and 'The Mindset of Jesus' in response to your questions on pp 212 to 215 as a separate issue from simply the facts of history.

[robrecht]

I do not think I am missing the point. Yes, secular historians are interested in the nature claim. The nature of the claim of Jesus as the King of God's coming Kingdom would not be a factor concerning the Romans judgment at that time that would effect the nature and consequences of how the Romans would have judged Jesus Christ. This question would be more an issue from the Christian theological view of the history of Christianity and the life of Jesus.

The secular view in the book Jesus as A Figure in History by Mark Allan Powell addresses this to a certain extent.

It sounds as if you are implicitly conceding my point, ie, that secular historians are indeed interested in trying to understand as best as possible claims likely made by and about Jesus. So do you agree with Ehrman's view?