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 :)
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?
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.
Ah, let me clarify. I agree the field instructions are directed to the disciples in Sermon on the Mount, not global. I don’t think they can be tied to the roman empire. I was drawing issue with those claims.
With the sheep and goats, that isn’t your point but I was mentioning that debate on judgment to say how it’s complicated what exactly is going on there. Yes, I do think Jesus is telling *his disciples* to feed the hungry and clothe the poor etc. It is not a universal categorical imperative.
So we basically agree that what Jesus said throughout Matthew was directed to his disciples.
Scholars like Ulrich Luz among others would say that these logia would have been interpreted by the Matthean audience (whoever they were) as directing them to do these things, but the fact remains, I think, that Jesus did not mean for a secular person like Bart to follow his words.
What were you referring to here: "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." Still not sure what Dale Allison view you were referring to.
"Yes, I do think Jesus is telling *his disciples* to feed the hungry and clothe the poor etc." - Jesus wasn't telling his disciples to feed the hungry and clothe the poor in the Sheep and the Goats. He was issuing a warning saying that if the nations didn't feed/clothe/visit his disciples they would go to hell. The issue I pointed out is that Ehrman interpets this passage as saying those who didn't feed/clothe/visit the needy in general in society would go to hell. I'm saying he's wrong. Jesus said those who didn't help his own men would go to hell--not society at large.
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 :)
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!
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.
Ah, let me clarify. I agree the field instructions are directed to the disciples in Sermon on the Mount, not global. I don’t think they can be tied to the roman empire. I was drawing issue with those claims.
With the sheep and goats, that isn’t your point but I was mentioning that debate on judgment to say how it’s complicated what exactly is going on there. Yes, I do think Jesus is telling *his disciples* to feed the hungry and clothe the poor etc. It is not a universal categorical imperative.
So we basically agree that what Jesus said throughout Matthew was directed to his disciples.
Scholars like Ulrich Luz among others would say that these logia would have been interpreted by the Matthean audience (whoever they were) as directing them to do these things, but the fact remains, I think, that Jesus did not mean for a secular person like Bart to follow his words.
What were you referring to here: "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." Still not sure what Dale Allison view you were referring to.
"Yes, I do think Jesus is telling *his disciples* to feed the hungry and clothe the poor etc." - Jesus wasn't telling his disciples to feed the hungry and clothe the poor in the Sheep and the Goats. He was issuing a warning saying that if the nations didn't feed/clothe/visit his disciples they would go to hell. The issue I pointed out is that Ehrman interpets this passage as saying those who didn't feed/clothe/visit the needy in general in society would go to hell. I'm saying he's wrong. Jesus said those who didn't help his own men would go to hell--not society at large.
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.