This is a great analysis! A lot of interesting ideas that I hadn't considered before, and a rare look at the training and motivation behind the mainstream assumptions which is most welcome.
Would you consider reading the scholarship on the historicity of Jesus and then writing another article delving into that topic as well?
Thanks. To me, whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant because he exists to billions of people—so I focus my critique on that story, which is believed to be real. It's not worth the hassle---let's say we could move the needle from 80% confidence in his existence to 40%--it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna critically analyze the story of Jesus. What I'd like to focus on is the literary aspects of the Jesus story and show how it clearly was filled with the hallmarks of literature...etc. I just need a wealthy patron to support me writing :)
All fair points about the scholarship and most of the passages and I agree that the historicity of Jesus is a side issue, but then sometimes you speak as if there were one Jesus, as there was in fact one David Koresh. If it's a matter of interpreting texts then there are at least 4 or 5 Jesuses in the NT. If I may make a suggestion, concentrate on the NT authors, not Jesus. What are they tryng to say? Your points still hold about the scholarship and bias, but I think you might understand it more as devotional fiction. What you see as misinterprtations were invited by them to some extent as metaphorical expansion imo. Yes it has "cultic" aspects, but in fact the ancient world was run by cults. (I would ask which world isn't, but that's beyond my scope here.)
For the sake of my work, I treat the Gospels as one story because that's how it's believed and accepted by billions. So, I analyze the character that the Gospel portrays.
I think I take your point. All major forms of Christianity conveniently condense the several Jesuses in the NT into one. But I would point out, not the same one. Depending on the apostolic succession (real or imagined) the Church, sect, even the preacher, different devotional Jesuses are constructted by emphasizing different textual Jesuses, no doubt using some of the techniques of misinterpretation and misconstruction you allege above. It seems to me you are saying Ehrman has the meaning of the text wrong, but at the same time you are not looking at the text historically yourself. Perhaps he is taking it metaphorically and universalizing its application, but reads it differently historically. Have you asked him?
I've found that I understand the narrative better when I include all the background information that comes with studying the historicity of Jesus. In particular the context and the sequence of events leading up to the current canon.
By the way, I loved the line "Wealth is dangerous to Jesus’s movement because it gives followers options." Absolutely perfect!
An ex Wheaton College Biblical scholar I know studied all this and decided “Jesus” was an invented character rather than a real human because there’s so little support for his existence. He thinks early “Christians” were a charitable movement that got usurped by people who wanted to use it for the money. A religion that requires payment for sins and donations to the church is an ideal get rich quick device. Notice how “payment” went from humans to lambs to $$$ as cultures developed.
Lots of people see “Jesus” in near death experiences but we don’t know what that’s about yet. He’s definitely a thought form. But was he a real human? And how accurate is the story in the New Testament?
I am a nonbeliever with no skin in the game. I find this is just an another reading and not a particularly good one. It consistently does the thing it rightly says Ehrman and the entire history of commenters on Jesus do, read their context into the gospel narratives, which are already doing theology, not history. It indulges in the fantasy that it understands the “real” Jesus as though that would be possible, but, does it with less self awareness than the scholars it is critiquing. The trad Catholic will read the Greeks as paving the way for a proper understanding of the world that will be realized in Christ, when the head of a classics department will read it differently. Is it any surprise that the person writing about cults finds Jesus to be a dangerous cult leader?
New Testament commentator here. Other than the shock-value « Jesus is cult leader » nonsense (you study cult leaders, so obviously he’s a cult leader; bultmann was a post-lutheran, so Jesus was one to him), this is a well written and largely accurate account of what can *literally* be read as « living like Jesus » in the gospels. Your best critique of Ehrman’s book is that he completely skips over the issue of slavery.
I also argue Jesus was not a queer-friendly, progressive leftist—but I am a progressive myself. So I don't just transplant my views on Jesus. I'm an expert in cults, so I can identify behaviors that are cultic in ways others cannot. I pointed those out. It doesn't matter if he was a "cult leader" or not--what matters is how it felt to be his follower—the stress, the panic, fear, overwhelm...etc. All for what? So he could have an entourage of followers as he played prophet in the desert?
Fair point about not projecting leftism onto him despite being a leftist yourself. As someone who is not a typical leftist, I grow irritated with people on all sides claiming their ideologies fit Jesus’ own; and Ehrman certainly falls into this.
I would be willing to say that whether Jesus was a « cult leader » is largely a semantic matter.
Yeah and once again the title doesn't matter. It's that he created a high-demand group that for all intensive purposes functioned as modern day cults do. What did you think about me shattering the universal application of Sermon on the Mount and the Sheep and the Goats passage and revealing they were field instructions and threats to protect his men?
I completely agree with the Sermon on the Mount part. That’s a view Dale Allison supported in his Matthew commentary from the early 90s and it has been pretty standard thinking for longer than that. Hardly new, but good to reiterate.
With the sheep and goats I think it’s more nuanced; for instance, is there one or two judgments, one for gentiles and one for Israel?This and other questions are still being debated in Matthew scholarship.
With the field instructions, I am less convinced. Dan McClellen among others has argued against tying « turn the other cheek » to anything to do with how Roman soldiers would treat people, so the same for several of the other examples you give. It’s not impossible, but it’s a bit of a stretch.
It's not just Roman soldiers. It's anyone who could harm them. Why else would Jesus tell his disciples in a specific context as he sends them out on a dangerous mission to "turn the other cheek"? The other instructions in that “Eye for Eye” sequence in Matthew 7:38-42 are all dangers and hazards they face: being slapped, being sued for your tunic, being demanded money, and being forced to walk a mile.
Why would Jesus be talking about being sued for a tunic, being forced to walk an extra mile by people, and asked for money--all local problems--but then say "turn the other cheek" in some global, universalist meaning? There is zero reason to think that Jesus was giving his men anything other than field instructions.
In regards to the Sheep and the Goats--"is there one or two judgments, one for gentiles and one for Israel?" But that is not the point I made. I was talking about what the judgment was for. What the judgment caused from not feeding/caring for his own disciples or for the needy in general. He's clearly referring to his own men.
I'm confused because you said you agree with the Sermon on the Mount part but then said you are less convinced about the field instructions—but the field instructions are in the Sermon on the Mount. So, please clarify what you were meaning.
Even if that were true, which I wouldn't accept, what was his "work"? I point out in this piece that he didn't do any of the charitable work—it was an apocalyptic road show, like a circus.
This is a great analysis! A lot of interesting ideas that I hadn't considered before, and a rare look at the training and motivation behind the mainstream assumptions which is most welcome.
Would you consider reading the scholarship on the historicity of Jesus and then writing another article delving into that topic as well?
Thanks. To me, whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant because he exists to billions of people—so I focus my critique on that story, which is believed to be real. It's not worth the hassle---let's say we could move the needle from 80% confidence in his existence to 40%--it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna critically analyze the story of Jesus. What I'd like to focus on is the literary aspects of the Jesus story and show how it clearly was filled with the hallmarks of literature...etc. I just need a wealthy patron to support me writing :)
All fair points about the scholarship and most of the passages and I agree that the historicity of Jesus is a side issue, but then sometimes you speak as if there were one Jesus, as there was in fact one David Koresh. If it's a matter of interpreting texts then there are at least 4 or 5 Jesuses in the NT. If I may make a suggestion, concentrate on the NT authors, not Jesus. What are they tryng to say? Your points still hold about the scholarship and bias, but I think you might understand it more as devotional fiction. What you see as misinterprtations were invited by them to some extent as metaphorical expansion imo. Yes it has "cultic" aspects, but in fact the ancient world was run by cults. (I would ask which world isn't, but that's beyond my scope here.)
For the sake of my work, I treat the Gospels as one story because that's how it's believed and accepted by billions. So, I analyze the character that the Gospel portrays.
I think I take your point. All major forms of Christianity conveniently condense the several Jesuses in the NT into one. But I would point out, not the same one. Depending on the apostolic succession (real or imagined) the Church, sect, even the preacher, different devotional Jesuses are constructted by emphasizing different textual Jesuses, no doubt using some of the techniques of misinterpretation and misconstruction you allege above. It seems to me you are saying Ehrman has the meaning of the text wrong, but at the same time you are not looking at the text historically yourself. Perhaps he is taking it metaphorically and universalizing its application, but reads it differently historically. Have you asked him?
I've found that I understand the narrative better when I include all the background information that comes with studying the historicity of Jesus. In particular the context and the sequence of events leading up to the current canon.
By the way, I loved the line "Wealth is dangerous to Jesus’s movement because it gives followers options." Absolutely perfect!
An ex Wheaton College Biblical scholar I know studied all this and decided “Jesus” was an invented character rather than a real human because there’s so little support for his existence. He thinks early “Christians” were a charitable movement that got usurped by people who wanted to use it for the money. A religion that requires payment for sins and donations to the church is an ideal get rich quick device. Notice how “payment” went from humans to lambs to $$$ as cultures developed.
Lots of people see “Jesus” in near death experiences but we don’t know what that’s about yet. He’s definitely a thought form. But was he a real human? And how accurate is the story in the New Testament?
Very interesting read. Thanks for sharing
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Great read thanks 🙏
Thank you kindly! Please share with someone you might also enjoy it!
I am a nonbeliever with no skin in the game. I find this is just an another reading and not a particularly good one. It consistently does the thing it rightly says Ehrman and the entire history of commenters on Jesus do, read their context into the gospel narratives, which are already doing theology, not history. It indulges in the fantasy that it understands the “real” Jesus as though that would be possible, but, does it with less self awareness than the scholars it is critiquing. The trad Catholic will read the Greeks as paving the way for a proper understanding of the world that will be realized in Christ, when the head of a classics department will read it differently. Is it any surprise that the person writing about cults finds Jesus to be a dangerous cult leader?
I know this required a good deal of mental labor. Love your work. It opens the mind and makes me question.
New Testament commentator here. Other than the shock-value « Jesus is cult leader » nonsense (you study cult leaders, so obviously he’s a cult leader; bultmann was a post-lutheran, so Jesus was one to him), this is a well written and largely accurate account of what can *literally* be read as « living like Jesus » in the gospels. Your best critique of Ehrman’s book is that he completely skips over the issue of slavery.
I also argue Jesus was not a queer-friendly, progressive leftist—but I am a progressive myself. So I don't just transplant my views on Jesus. I'm an expert in cults, so I can identify behaviors that are cultic in ways others cannot. I pointed those out. It doesn't matter if he was a "cult leader" or not--what matters is how it felt to be his follower—the stress, the panic, fear, overwhelm...etc. All for what? So he could have an entourage of followers as he played prophet in the desert?
Fair point about not projecting leftism onto him despite being a leftist yourself. As someone who is not a typical leftist, I grow irritated with people on all sides claiming their ideologies fit Jesus’ own; and Ehrman certainly falls into this.
I would be willing to say that whether Jesus was a « cult leader » is largely a semantic matter.
Yeah and once again the title doesn't matter. It's that he created a high-demand group that for all intensive purposes functioned as modern day cults do. What did you think about me shattering the universal application of Sermon on the Mount and the Sheep and the Goats passage and revealing they were field instructions and threats to protect his men?
I completely agree with the Sermon on the Mount part. That’s a view Dale Allison supported in his Matthew commentary from the early 90s and it has been pretty standard thinking for longer than that. Hardly new, but good to reiterate.
With the sheep and goats I think it’s more nuanced; for instance, is there one or two judgments, one for gentiles and one for Israel?This and other questions are still being debated in Matthew scholarship.
With the field instructions, I am less convinced. Dan McClellen among others has argued against tying « turn the other cheek » to anything to do with how Roman soldiers would treat people, so the same for several of the other examples you give. It’s not impossible, but it’s a bit of a stretch.
It's not just Roman soldiers. It's anyone who could harm them. Why else would Jesus tell his disciples in a specific context as he sends them out on a dangerous mission to "turn the other cheek"? The other instructions in that “Eye for Eye” sequence in Matthew 7:38-42 are all dangers and hazards they face: being slapped, being sued for your tunic, being demanded money, and being forced to walk a mile.
Why would Jesus be talking about being sued for a tunic, being forced to walk an extra mile by people, and asked for money--all local problems--but then say "turn the other cheek" in some global, universalist meaning? There is zero reason to think that Jesus was giving his men anything other than field instructions.
In regards to the Sheep and the Goats--"is there one or two judgments, one for gentiles and one for Israel?" But that is not the point I made. I was talking about what the judgment was for. What the judgment caused from not feeding/caring for his own disciples or for the needy in general. He's clearly referring to his own men.
I'm confused because you said you agree with the Sermon on the Mount part but then said you are less convinced about the field instructions—but the field instructions are in the Sermon on the Mount. So, please clarify what you were meaning.
Even if that were true, which I wouldn't accept, what was his "work"? I point out in this piece that he didn't do any of the charitable work—it was an apocalyptic road show, like a circus.