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

[robrecht]

Actually I clarified my position and Ehrman's much earlier and you ignored it. I AM NOT WORNG IN MY INTERPRETATION OF Ehrman. I simply made an error in my post and later clarified it, which you ignored.

Sure. Yesterday evening you were still denying that you said what you said. You admitted just a moment ago that you were in error about what the passage from Ehrman 'obviously' meant, but now you are shouting that you are not 'WORNG'.

All this means absolutely nothing in your original wrong assertion that you did not believe that Ehrman supported that Jesus was tried, convicted, and crucified because he was in rebellion against Rome.

Nonsense. I never said this.

Why can't you admit the obvious.?!?!?! The quote stands exactly for what says. Again, again and again . . .

From: How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman, pp 123-124

"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the King of the Jews was precisely that he called himself the King of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense; when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state."

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and two others to a public place of execution and fixed them to crosses. According to the account Jesus was dead in six hours."

It is so cute that you keep quoting a passage that I first summarized for you before you even read it. What in the world do you believe you are accomplishing here?

[shunyadragon]

Sure. Yesterday evening you were still denying that you said what you said. You admitted just a moment ago that you were in error about what the passage from Ehrman 'obviously' meant, but now you are shouting that you are not 'WORNG'.

Nonsense. I never said this.

It is so cute that you keep quoting a passage that I first summarized for you before you even read it. What in the world do you believe you are accomplishing here?

Actually I referenced the book first and said Ehrman referred to Jesus as a rebel in it, and it would be a while before I found the book and the reference again. I believe your summary including more than this issue.

Actually if you read more of [Bart]'s books you will find he does consider the NT and Christian Jesus Christ is to some extent a created Hellenized and Romanized 'myth' post destruction of the Temple. Like most historians, he supports that there was most likely a Jewish rebel Rabbi who preached in the time of the 1st century.It is generally accepted that a Jew called Jesus of Nazareth lived and preached in Jerusalem that he claimed to be the promised messiah and King of Jews. He was arrested and crucified under Roman Law for rebellion against Rome and claiming to be the 'King of Jews.' It is possible Jesus was a composite of a number of rebel Jews claiming messiahship as recorded by Josephus. ...

You've since clarified that you do not mean rebel in a sense of violent rebellion. Can you provide references to Ehrman considering Jesus to be a rebel? I am only familiar with Ehrman's use of rebel in the violent context of the Judean War.

The dialogue began when I said that some secular historians considered Jesus to be a rebel. including Ehrman. You stated that this was 'controversial,' and Ehrman did not consider Jesus a rebel against Rome. You considered only advocating a violent rebellion against Rome as the only way to consider rebellion against Rome and I disagreed.

[shunyadragon]

From post #79

As I've said, I've read some of Ehrman’s work, but I did not think he described Jesus as a rebel, so I am interested to find a reference to him doing so, if he does in fact do so. I do not think the scenario sketched above is unreasonable or controversial and it is my understanding of what Ehrman believes happened. But I think Ehrman also believes that Jesus was more of an apocalyptic prophet than actual rebel, that Jesus thought of himself as becoming king in the imminent apocalyptic reign of God, and that Pilate would have no interest in such theological niceties that might distinguish Jesus from a seditious rebel in the normal sense of the term.

You actually did not summarize my reference. You sort editorialized it. Considering Jesus a rebel in the apocalyptic sense, does not negate the issue that yes Ehrman considered Jesus to claim to be a rebel. The claim by Jesus that

From: How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman, pp 123-124

"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the King of the Jews was precisely that he called himself the King of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense; when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state."

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and two others to a public place of execution and fixed them to crosses. According to the account Jesus was dead in six hours."

The claim was clear: '. . . when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king.' and of course Rome would no longer be in control. That is rebellion against Rome no matter how you word it.

[robrecht]

Actually I referenced the book first and said Ehrman referred to Jesus as a rebel in it, and it would be a while before I found the book and the reference again. I believe your summary including more than this issue.

You mentioned the title of the book, but I summarized this exact passage for you.

The dialogue began when I said that some secular historians considered Jesus to be a rebel. including Ehrman. You stated that this was 'controversial,' and Ehrman never considered Jesus a rebel against Rome.

You said Ehrman thought Jesus advocated rebellion against Rome (#25) and, after much stalling and misdirection, at long last finally answered my question about 'to whom Jesus was supposedly advocating rebellion' with Jesus' public proclamation of himself as king, but that was a completely wrong misinterpretation of Ehrman's view since he does not believe this, and tonight you finally admitted you were wrong about this, but then immediately tried to claim you weren't wrong.

[robrecht]

From post #79

You actually did not summarize my reference. You sort editorialized it. Considering Jesus a rebel in the apocalyptic sense, does not negate the issue that yes Ehrman considered Jesus to claim to be a rebel. The claim by Jesus that

...

My summary of this passage was correct. Ehrman presents Pilate as uninterested in the theological niceties of Jesus' understanding of himself as a future king in a purely apocalyptic sense. Your interpretation of it was wrong. Ehrman does not think Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king.

[shunyadragon]

You mentioned the title of the book, but I summarized this exact passage for you.

You said Ehrman thought Jesus advocated rebellion against Rome (#25) and, after much stalling and misdirection, at long last finally answered my question about 'to whom Jesus was supposedly advocating rebellion' with Jesus' public proclamation of himself as king, but that was a completely wrong misinterpretation of Ehrman's view since he does not believe this, and tonight you finally admitted you were wrong about this, but then immediately tried to claim you weren't wrong.

I am not wrong. Yes, Jesus advocated rebellion against Rome.

From: How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman, pp 123-124

"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the King of the Jews was precisely that he called himself the King of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense; when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state."

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and two others to a public place of execution and fixed them to crosses. According to the account Jesus was dead in six hours."

The claim was clear: '. . . when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king.' and of course Rome would no longer be in control. That is rebellion against Rome no matter how you word it.

[shunyadragon]

My summary of this passage was correct. Ehrman presents Pilate as uninterested in the theological niceties of Jesus' understanding of himself as a future king in a purely apocalyptic sense. Your interpretation of it was wrong. Ehrman does not think Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king.

Big difference. You selectively editorialized the citation. I gave the citation. It is irrelevant whether Jesus publically or privately proclaimed himself king of the Jews. I believe there are sufficient quotes of Jesus that clearly indicate that he claimed to be the Messiah, and therefore by prophecy claimed to be the 'king of the Jews.' Ehrman and I disagree on this.

From: How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman, pp 123-124

"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the King of the Jews was precisely that he called himself the King of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense; when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state."

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and two others to a public place of execution and fixed them to crosses. According to the account Jesus was dead in six hours."

The claim was clear: '. . . when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king.' and of course Rome would no longer be in control. That is rebellion against Rome no matter how you word it.

[robrecht]

I am not wrong. Yes, Jesus advocated rebellion against Rome. ...

The claim was clear: '. . . when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king.' and of course Rome would no longer be in control. That is rebellion against Rome no matter how you word it.

Big difference. You selectively editorialized the citation. I gave the citation. It is irrelevant whether Jesus publically or privately proclaimed himself king of the Jews. I believe there are sufficient quotes of Jesus that clearly indicate that he claimed to be the Messiah, and therefore by prophecy claimed to be the 'king of the Jews.' Ehrman and I disagree on this. ... The claim was clear: '. . . when the kingdom arrived, he would be made king.' and of course Rome would no longer be in control. That is rebellion against Rome no matter how you word it.

You gave the title of the book. I told you what was said in this particular passage that you keep citing over and over again. But I already knew what this passage said and even told you. Pilate viewed Jesus as rebelling against Rome because he was not interested in Jesus' theological views.

The fact that you did not understand Ehrman's view is crucial. Previously you assumed and mistakenly thought that Ehrman held that Jesus proclaimed himself King of the Jews to the Jewish crowds to whom he preached. You further believed that Ehrman thought Jesus was publicly preaching that he as King of the Jews would soon vanquish Rome.

But this is not Ehrman's view. I taught you this by repeatedly asking you, according to Ehrman (not Pilate or you), to whom was Jesus advocating rebellion against Rome? And, again according to Ehrman (not you or Pilate), what specific rebellious acts was Jesus advocating that they take against Rome? In this manner we exposed your ignorance of Ehrman's view and distinguished the differences between your assumptions and Ehrman's actual view. You should be thanking me for teaching you what Ehrman's actual view is.

[shunyadragon]

My summary of this passage was correct. Ehrman presents Pilate as uninterested in the theological niceties of Jesus' understanding of himself as a future king in a purely apocalyptic sense. Your interpretation of it was wrong. Ehrman does not think Jesus publicly proclaimed himself king.

That is not the summary of the whole passage. It is your selective editorial comment on part of the passage. It is irrelevant to the question whether Jesus proclaimed he was the king of the Jews publically or privately.

I simply disagree with Ehrman, and gave valid reasons why.

[robrecht]

That is not the summary of the whole passage. It is your selective editorial comment on part of the passage. It is irrelevant to the question whether Jesus proclaimed he was the king of the Jews publically or privately.

I simply disagree with Ehrman, and gave valid reasons why.

I correctly summarized the essential point and you misunderstood it to be 'obviously' saying something that it clearly did not say. If you care about not misrepresenting the views of others, you should be grateful that I pointed out your errors of interpretation.

[shunyadragon]

I correctly summarized the essential point and you misunderstood it to be 'obviously' saying something that it clearly did not say. If you care about not misrepresenting the views of others, you should be grateful that I pointed out your errors of interpretation.

That is not the summary of the whole passage. It is your selective editorial comment on part of the passage. It is irrelevant to the question whether Jesus proclaimed he was the king of the Jews publically or privately.

I simply disagree with Ehrman, and gave valid reasons why.

[robrecht]

That is not the summary of the whole passage. It is your selective editorial comment on part of the passage. It is irrelevant to the question whether Jesus proclaimed he was the king of the Jews publically or privately.

I simply disagree with Ehrman, and gave valid reasons why.

You did not merely disagree with Ehrman. You first misunderstood what he was saying, assumed he was saying what you thought to be the case, and completely misrepresented his view. Only after I pointed out that you had misunderstood Ehrman's position did you develop what you consider to be valid reasons to disagree with him. It is only irrelevant if you do not care about understanding or misrepresenting the positions of others. For anyone who actually wants to understand Ehrman's position it is absolutely relevant. More specifically, if one wants to understand if and to whom Ehrman believes Jesus was advocating rebellion and specifically what acts of rebellion he was advocating to this audience, the very questions I was asking of you, it is completely relevant. You at first believed that Ehrman saw Jesus as advocating rebellion to the crowds that they follow him as their king in vanquishing Rome. Turns out that is completely false.

[Adam]

I'm getting confused, and have stopped automatically "Amen'ing" everything Robrecht says.
Sure, Shuny misstates a lot and keeps obfuscating his mistakes, but....
In his #157 Shunyadragon quotes Ehrman at some length:
"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it." (pg. 123 in How Jesus became God)
So J. D. Crossan (cute, same initials as my Grandfather Adams) gets no points here towards joining the revolutionary crowd with claims that Jesus was inciting the peasants to riot or even for his followers to become Zealots against Rome. Ehrman says here (note that Ehrman is not one for consistency--whatever it takes to win one internet-video debate he will readily contradict to make points in some different debate) that he has proven that Jesus was known to have claimed to be King of the Jews. Ehrman does not claim that Jesus PUBLICALLY proclaimed it, and from the Bible itself we cannot find anywhere that Jesus preached that he was King of the Jews.
What Ehrman said is one thing (quite reasonable here, the middle position that Jesus did acknowledge the Title without confirming he believed it was precisely correct. Ehrman argues beyond this, however, that this implies in addition that Jesus believed it and must have said so to someone who reported it to Pilate--otherwise Jesus would have had the easy out of specifically denying it, and he did not deny it. Ehrman pushes too much even for this, as in my Thompson Chain Reference Bible NIV 1983 they fail even to list a "King of the Jews" item. It's not in the Bible anywhere else (other than same context: Mt. 27:11, Luke 23:3, but I guess we have to regard Mark 15:2 as in error when Jesus is quoted, "'Yes, it is as you say.'". (And here goes my Thompson Chain Reference Bible into the trash, it almost made me make a huge error ON THE INTERNET.) If his apostles or evangelists wanted to admit it, they never did. So I go with Jesus never having said it. Not only is Ehrman wrong, but all the Ravi Shankar (Aslan or whatever) revolutionaries are quite wrong. As for Shuny, he's wrong to see anything revolutionary in Jesus, but it turns out (inadvertently, I suppose) that he was not wrong about Ehrman at least stating that Jesus is at least implied to be revolutionary--or at least in the apocalyptic sense.
I don't see where Robrecht clarifies at least the small degree to which Shuny is right.
(And is this the book he was talking about--the bigger Ehrman book is the earlier [I]Did Jesus Exist?/I]?

[robrecht]

I'm getting confused, and have stopped automatically "Amen'ing" everything Robrecht says.
Sure, Shuny misstates a lot and keeps obfuscating his mistakes, but....
In his #157 Shunyadragon quotes Ehrman at some length:
"Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he was in fact calling him this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews., and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it." (pg. 123 in How Jesus became God)
So J. D. Crossan (cute, same initials as my Grandfather Adams) gets no points here towards joining the revolutionary crowd with claims that Jesus was inciting the peasants to riot or even for his followers to become Zealots against Rome. Ehrman says here (note that Ehrman is not one for consistency--whatever it takes to win one internet-video debate he will readily contradict to make points in some different debate) that he has proven that Jesus was known to have claimed to be King of the Jews. Ehrman does not claim that Jesus PUBLICALLY proclaimed it, and from the Bible itself we cannot find anywhere that Jesus preached that he was King of the Jews.
What Ehrman said is one thing (quite reasonable here, the middle position that Jesus did acknowledge the Title without confirming he believed it was precisely correct. Ehrman argues beyond this, however, that this implies in addition that Jesus believed it and must have said so to someone who reported it to Pilate--otherwise Jesus would have had the easy out of specifically denying it, and he did not deny it. Ehrman pushes too much even for this, as in my Thompson Chain Reference Bible NIV 1983 they fail even to list a "King of the Jews" item. It's not in the Bible anywhere else. If his apostles or evangelists wanted to admit it, they never did. So I go with Jesus never having said it. Not only is Ehrman wrong, but all the Ravi Shankar (Aslan or whatever) revolutionaries are quite wrong. As for Shuny, he's wrong to see anything revolutionary in Jesus, but it turns out (inadvertently, I suppose) that he was not wrong about Ehrman at least stating that Jesus is at least implied to be revolutionary--or at least in the apocalyptic sense.
I don't see where Robrecht clarifies at least the small degree to which Shuny is right.
(And is this the book he was talking about--the bigger Ehrman book is the earlier [I]Did Jesus Exist?/I]?

See above (#96) where I quoted Ehrman's view about the extent to which he acknowledges revolutionary implications of Jesus' moral teachings. I have absolutely no problem with Ehrman's understanding the future apocalyptic sense of Jesus' royal claim, and seeing this as easily interpreted by Pilate as a capital offense, but I do not see this to mean that Ehrman believes Jesus was advocating that others commit acts of rebellion against Rome. He does not say that in any of his writing that I have read, rather he affirms that Jesus taught that taxes should be paid to Rome and enforced service should not be resisted. As for my own personal opinion, I give more credence to Crossan's view than Ehrman does. I would also suspect that some of Jesus' contemporaries also interpreted him as someone close to the zealot camp as well. From the point of view of social memory theory, there is probably some truth in many of the various portraits of Jesus that circulated among his listeners.

[shunyadragon]

You did not merely disagree with Ehrman. You first misunderstood what he was saying, assumed he was saying what you thought to be the case, and completely misrepresented his view. Only after I pointed out that you had misunderstood Ehrman's position did you develop what you consider to be valid reasons to disagree with him. It is only irrelevant if you do not care about understanding or misrepresenting the positions of others. For anyone who actually wants to understand Ehrman's position it is absolutely relevant. More specifically, if one wants to understand if and to whom Ehrman believes Jesus was advocating rebellion and specifically what acts of rebellion he was advocating to this audience, the very questions I was asking of you, it is completely relevant. You at first believed that Ehrman saw Jesus as advocating rebellion to the crowds that they follow him as their king in vanquishing Rome. Turns out that is completely false.

That is not the summary of the whole passage. It is your selective editorial comment on part of the passage. It is irrelevant to the question whether Jesus proclaimed he was the king of the Jews publically or privately.

I simply disagree with Ehrman, and gave valid reasons why.