See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301553186
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus"
Article · April 2001
CITATION
READS
1
905
1 author:
Dennis Ingolfsland
Randolph Baptist Church
13 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Ingolfsland on 21 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
BlBLlOTHECA SACRA 158 (April-June 2001): 181-97
AN EVALUATION OF BART
EHRMAN'S "HISTORICAL JESUS"
Dennis Ingolfsland
B
ART EHRMAN, professor of religious studies, Hellenistic re­
ligion, and New Testament at the University of North
Carolina, has recently published Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet
of the New Millennium.1 In this book he presents his methods and
conclusions regarding the historical Jesus, using three primary
criteria for ascertaining which of Jesus' sayings and actions re­
corded in the New Testament are authentic: independent attesta­
tion, dissimilarity, and contextual credibility.2
Independent attestation occurs when two or more independent
sources attest to the same event or saying. If source A copied,
summarized, or even alluded to source Β in a specific event, the
two sources would not be considered independent attestations for
that event.
The criterion of dissimilarity, according to Ehrman, states that
if a saying of Jesus recorded in a particular Gospel is dissimilar to
what other Christians were saying about Jesus when that Gospel
was written, the saying is more likely to be genuine. Similarly, if a
saying does not support a Christian agenda, or if it appears to work
against a Christian agenda, it is more likely to be genuine.
The criterion of contextual credibility asserts that traditions
are more likely to be reliable if they conform well to what is known
Dennis Ingolfsland is Associate Professor of Bible, Bryan College, Dayton, Tennes­
see.
1
Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999).
2
For other discussions on historical criteria as applied to the Gospels see John P.
Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1:167-84; Robert H. Stein,
Gospels and Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 153-87; E. P. Sanders and
Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989),
301-44; Ν. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: For­
tress, 1992), 81-120; and Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1990), 1-31.
182
BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / April-June 2001
of the historical and social situation of the time. 3
According to Ehrman, when these criteria are applied to the
study of Jesus, the following picture emerges: Jesus was a Jewish
apocalyptic prophet whose message centered on a future kingdom
of God that would be free of poverty and oppression. Jesus taught
His followers to seek this kingdom above all else and to behave now
as they would in the kingdom. This meant not only loving God
above all else but also loving one's neighbor and even one's ene­
mies. Jesus spoke of a coming judgment on the religious leaders of
His day, and this is what led to His execution.
While many aspects of Ehrman's presentation of Jesus make
good sense of the biblical data—for example the importance of lov­
ing God and others, Jesus' preaching of a future kingdom in which
there will be no oppression, and the preaching of a future judg­
ment, he has not adequately dealt with the issue of Jesus' selfunderstanding.
On the other hand Ben Witherington, professor of New Testa­
ment at Asbury Seminary and a research fellow at Cambridge Uni­
versity, has done an excellent job of discussing Jesus' selfunderstanding, using the same kinds of standard historical-critical
criteria that Ehrman uses. By combining the insights of Witherington's book The Christology of Jesus with the insights of Ehrman's
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Mellennium, the picture that
emerges is remarkably similar to that presented in the Gospels.
EHRMAN'S VIEW OF JESUS
/
THE APOCALYPTIC JESUS
Ehrman views Jesus as a strongly apocalyptic figure, that is, one
who believed that God will one day conclude human history in a
dramatic visible way. Ehrman's view is somewhat of an update of
the apocalyptic view of Jesus espoused by Albert Schweitzer, which
Ehrman says is "a view of Jesus that has been maintained for most
of the present century by the majority of critical scholars in both
4
the United States and Germany." Since the earliest sources—the
documents of the New Testament—and the majority of critical
5
scholars have presented Jesus in an apocalyptic light, Ehrman
6
Ehrman, Jesus, 90-95.
4
Ibid., χ, 19. See Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Critical
Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1998), 1910; and idem, A Psychiatric Study of Jesus (Magnolia, MA: Peter
Smith, 1911).
5
Ehrman, Jesus, 128.
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus" 183
asks why some recent scholars6 have interpreted Jesus in a nonapocalyptic way. Those who view Jesus as nonapocalyptic generally
see Him as someone who was concerned with life here and now,
with little or no concern or belief in the end of human history.
First, Ehrman notes that those who advocate a nonapocalyptic
Jesus believe that the earliest nonextant sources, like Q,7 portray
Jesus in nonapocalyptic terms. Ehrman, however, points out that Q
actually supports an apocalyptic view of Jesus. To solve this problem, nonapocalyptic interpreters postulate multiple redactions of Q
and relegate all the apocalyptic Q material to later editions.8 Ehrman argues that this tactic goes beyond what is actually known.9
While the existence of Q is widely accepted even among evangelical
scholars, Q is still only a hypothetical source—one that has been
increasingly called into question.10 Ehrman finds it a very weak
argument to postulate multiple editions of a hypothetical document, and conveniently relegate evidence for an apocalyptic Jesus
to later editions—and then to use this as evidence to support a
nonapocalyptic view of Jesus.
Second, some who advocate a nonapocalyptic Jesus date apocryphal documents such as the Egerton manuscript, the Gospel of
6
Although Ehrman does not list specific authors, examples might include John
Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991); idem, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994); Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence:
Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1998); idem, The Lost Gospel:
The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993);
idem, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995); Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First
Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1994); idem, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley
Forge, PA: Trinity International, 1984); idem, Jesus; A New Vision: Spirit Culture
and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); and Robert Funk,
Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1996).
The letter "Q" (from German Quelle, "source") refers to a hypothetical source
that may have been used by Matthew and/or Luke, a document that was allegedly
the source of approximately two hundred verses common to Matthew and Luke that
are not found in Mark. Q can also be used, as in this article, as shorthand for material common to both Matthew and Luke, without comment on the plausibility of
such a hypothesis.
8
See for example, Mack, The Lost Gospel, and John Kloppenborg, The Formation
ofQ: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
9
10
Ehrman, Jesus, 133.
See David Laird Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 368-91; and Alan J. McNicol, Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke's Use of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity International, 1996).
184
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / ApriKJune 2001
the Hebrews, and parts of the Gospel of Peter even before the canonical Gospels.11 This, according to Ehrman, is overly speculative,
since there are no good reasons to date these documents in the first
century.12
Since the nonapocalyptic view of Jesus does not stand up to
scrutiny, Ehrman asks whether the apocalyptic view holds up
when examined by specific historical criteria. His answer is yes, for
some of the following reasons. First, that Jesus held an apocalyptic
worldview is strongly attested in the earliest sources, including
Mark (1:13-24, 27, 30), Q (Luke 17:24, 26-27 = Matthew 24:27,
37-39; and Luke 12:39 = Matthew 24:44), M (Matthew 13:40-43), L
(Luke 21:34-36), and later in the Gospel of John. 13
Second, Ehrman's apocalyptic view of Jesus is supported by
the criterion of contextual credibility. Numerous apocalyptic Jews
lived in first-century Palestine, as seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2
Baruch, and Josephus.14
Third, both John the Baptist before Jesus and the early church
after Jesus were unquestionably apocalyptic in their views.15 The
question is which view makes more sense historically—that Jesus
shared John's apocalyptic views and passed them on to His disciples, or that Jesus rejected John's apocalyptic views and for some
reason Jesus' disciples rejected His views and reverted back to the
apocalyptic views of John? An apocalyptic Jesus meets the criteria
of multiple independent attestation and contextual credibility, and
in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, it is preferable to postulate continuity between John, Jesus, and the ekrly
church as far as apocalyptic expectation is concerned.
THE MESSAGE OF JESUS
According to Ehrman, Jesus' message centered on the priority of
the kingdom of God.16 The parables show that Jesus believed the
11
See Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 427-29.
Ehrman, Jesus, 134. For an excellent analysis of two nonapocalyptic scholars,
Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, see Gregory Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of
God? (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1995). See also N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of
God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 28-82.
3
Ehrman, Jesus, 128, 137. M is used by scholars to denote material unique to
Matthew; L for unique Lucan material.
14
Ibid., 134-35.
15
Ibid., 139 (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:51-57; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).
Ibid., 167-68.
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus" 185
kingdom had both present and future aspects, 17 but when Jesus
spoke of the kingdom of God, He was often referring primarily to a
literal kingdom in which God will rule (e.g., Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke
22:30; including Q [Luke 13:23-29 = Matthew 8:11-12]).18 Though
the kingdom is "small and inauspicious" in the present, it will one
day exist in power and glory (Mark 4:26-29, 30-32; Q [Matt. 13:33
= Lukel3:20]). 19
Jesus said this future kingdom would be marked by several
"role reversals." For example the people of God who were suffering
and oppressed would replace the forces of evil who were then in
power (Matt. 20:16; Mark 10:29-31; Luke 13:29-30). Those who
were in poverty would be wealthy in the kingdom. These role reversals would occur after the imminent (Mark 8:38-9:1; 13:33-37;
Q [Matt. 24:43-44, 48-50 = Luke 12:39-40, 45-46]; M [Matt.
25:13]; L [Luke 12:36]) coming of universal judgment (Mark
13:24-25) by the Son of Man (Mark 8:38; 13:24-27; Luke 17:24,
26-27, 30; cf. Matt. 24:25, 27-29; Luke 12:8-9; Matt. 10:32-33;
Luke 21:34-36; Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50), who according to
Ehrman will be someone other than Jesus and at whose coming
even the temple itself will be destroyed (Mark 13:2; 14:58; 15:29;
John 25:19).20
For Jesus, absolutely nothing was more important than loving
God and seeking His kingdom. Jesus likened the kingdom to a
treasure that was worth more than one's very life (Matt.
13:44-46).21 So this present life should be a matter of indifference
at best,22 which is why Jesus taught that His followers should not
be concerned about food or clothing.23 In fact even one's closest
loved ones were to be considered secondary to the kingdom (Q
[Luke 14:26 = Matt. 10:37] ).24
For Jesus, putting the kingdom first involved obedience to the
principle found in the Law of Moses that one should love God above
all else and love one's neighbor as oneself. Jesus' devotion to the
17
Ibid., 177.
18
Ibid., 143.
19
Ibid., 179-80. See also the Gospel of Thomas, 9.
20
Ehrman, Jesus, 145-48,158-59. See also the Gospel of Thomas, 71.
21
Ehrman, Jesus, 167-68. See also the Gospel of Thomas, 76,109.
22
Ehrman, Jesus, 167.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid, 130. See also the Gospel of Thomas, 55.
186
BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / April-June 2001
Law is well attested (Mark 10:17-22; Q [Luke 16:16 = Matt. 5:18];
M [Matt. 5:17, 19-20]; John 10:34-35), but unlike some of the
Pharisees, Jesus did not emphasize legal minutiae. Unlike the
Sadducees, Jesus did not place supreme importance on the temple,
and unlike the Essenes, He did not teach that one can be pure by
isolation from others. 25 One thing that distinguished Him from
various Jewish sects was His insistence that the command to love
one's neighbor takes precedence over other laws and practices.
For example, while Jesus may have agreed with Pharisees
about such legal matters as tithing and abstaining from work on
the Sabbath, legal technicalities were never to take precedence
over the Law's command to love one's neighbor by helping the poor
or easing human suffering (Mark 2:27; Q [Luke 11:42 = Matt.
23:23]). And while Jesus joined the Pharisees and Sadducees in
worshiping at the temple, not even the temple itself was as important to Jesus as love for one's neighbor (M [Matt. 9:13; 12:7]).26
Jesus was particularly insistent that loving one's neighbor included the needs of the poor, the sick (Matt. 25:31-46), and the socially outcast like women (Mark 7:27-28; 14:6-9; Luke 10:38-42;
John 4:7-26; 11:20-27) and children (Matt. 18:9; Mark 9:37, 42;
10:14; Luke 9:48).27 Jesus' command to love others extended even
to enemies. In fact Jesus' command to forgive one's enemies is one
of His most strongly attested teachings (Mark 11:25; Q [Luke 11:4
= Matt. 6:12; Luke 17:3 = Matt. 18:15]; L [Luke 17:4; 7:40-43]; M
[Matt. 18:22-35]).28
Jesus expected His followers to prepare for the kingdom at
once—which meant that they were to behave in the present as they
would in the kingdom. Since there would be no war in the kingdom,
Jesus' followers were to abstain from all violence now. Since the
kingdom would have no poverty, Jesus' followers were to help the
poor now. Since there would be no oppression or injustice in the
kingdom, Jesus' followers were to treat all people with fairness and
justice now. Since there would be no hatred in the kingdom, Jesus'
followers were to serve others lovingly now.29
Ehrman emphasizes that Jesus' teachings were not designed
25
Ehrman, Jesus, 166.
26
Ibid., 171-72.
27
Ibid., 175-76. See also the Gospel of Thomas, 22.
28
Ehrman, Jesus, 173-74.
29
Ibid., 181.
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus" 187
to bring about long-term social change in society—because in Jesus' view there would be no time for such change to be brought
about. The Son of Man would come soon and set up the kingdom,
and preparing people for this event was "at the heart of Jesus' ethics."30 Preparing people for the kingdom also involved offering salvation to sinners—the corrupt, self-centered, and godless—who
needed to repent and live in light of the role reversals in the coming kingdom.31
Jesus believed that this message of the kingdom was good
news, and He actively called people to live in the present in light of
the future. Jesus spoke of this good news as a light on a hill that
should not be hidden (Matt. 5:14-16; Mark 4:21).32 Those who saw
the light needed to abandon everything to proclaim and live the
message in preparation for what was about to take place. Indeed,
laborers are needed (Matt. 9:37; Luke 10:2; John 4:35), and Jesus
Himself led the way.33
Jesus' kingdom teachings were not difficult to understand, but
they required absolute commitment, and no one should begin the
journey before counting the cost, because it would cost everything
(Luke 14:28-33).34
THE ACTIONS OF JESUS
Ehrman points out that context determines meaning and that the
apocalyptic context of Jesus' teachings provides clues to the meaning of His actions.35 For example Jesus' reputation as an exorcist is
widely attested (Mark 1:21-28, 32-34, 39; 3:9-12; 5:1-20; 7:24-30;
9:14-29; M [Matt. 9:32-34]; L [Luke 13:10]; Acts 10:38),36 but His
exorcisms were not merely acts of compassion. Jesus was manifesting the power of God over evil in the present in anticipation of
the total destruction of evil in the kingdom.37
Likewise Jesus' reputation as a healer is widely attested (e.g.,
30
Ibid., 162.
31
Ibid., 151-52.
32
See also the Gospel of Thomas, 33.
33
Ehrman, Jesus, 181.
34
Ibid., 169.
35
Ibid., 183-84.
36
It is important to note that Jesus' exorcisms were interpreted apocalyptically
(e.g., Matt. 12:27 = Luke 11:19-23).
37
Ehrman, Jesus, 198.
188
BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / ApriKJune 2001
Mark 5:35-43; John ll:38-44). 38 But His healings were not simply
acts of kindness. They were a foretaste of the kingdom in which
there would be no disease or disability (Matt. 11:4-5; Luke 7:22).39
Another well-attested tradition concerns Jesus' association
with women. Women accompanied Him on His journeys (Mark
15:40-41; L [Luke 8:l-3]), 40 engaged in discussions with Him
(Mark 7:24-30; John 4:1-42), and supported Him financially (Mark
15:40-41; Luke 8:1-3). Women were with Jesus even at His death
(Matt. 27:55; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:49; John 19:25) and were the
first to proclaim that He had risen from the dead (Matt. 28:1-10;
Mark 16:1-8; Luke 23:55-24:10; John 20:l-2). 41
Some have interpreted Jesus' association with women as if He
were advocating a "radically egalitarian society."42 But since Jesus
was not attempting to reform society—which was doomed for destruction—it is more likely that women were attracted to Him because of His apocalyptic message about the reversal of roles in the
kingdom. Those who were at the low end of the social ladder, such
as women, would be elevated in the kingdom. The fact that Jesus
expected His followers to implement these changes in the present
also explains why women and other social outcasts of His time
would be among His followers.43
JESUS' DEATH
Ehrman emphasizes that many reconstructions of Jesus' life fail to
establish a plausible link between Jesus' life and message, and His
death. Why, for example, would anyone crucify a Jewish rabbj/who
taught people to love God and be good to each other?44 Although
attested tradition shows that Jesus often clashed with Pharisees
over the proper interpretation of the Law (Q [Matt. 15:14 = Luke
6:39; 14:5 = Matt. 12:11; 23:23 = Luke 11:42; Luke 11:52 = Matt.
38
See also Dennis Ingolfsland, UQ, M, L and Other Sources for the Historical Jesus," Princeton Theological Review 4 (October 1997): 20. For excellent discussions on
Jesus' healings see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus
(New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:509-772; Graham Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle
Worker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999); and idem, Jesus the Exorcist
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993).
39
Ehrman, Jesus, 180, 200.
40
See also the Gospel of Thomas, 114.
41
Ehrman, Jesus, 188-89. See also the Gospel of Peter, 50-57.
42
For example Crossan, The Historical Jesus.
43
Ehrman, Jesus, 190.
Ibid., 208.
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus" 189
23:13]; L [Luke 13:15]; Mark 2:25-26; 7:19-23, John 7:22-23)45 and
that His message met with widespread rejection (Mark 3:21,
31-35; 6:1-6; Matt. 13:53-58; Q [Luke 10:13-15 = Matt. 11:20-24];
John 4:4; 7:5),46 these controversies were not what led to Jesus'
crucifixion. The religious leaders understood that Jesus' message
meant they would be recipients of judgment by one whom Jesus
called "the Son of Man." According to Ehrman this is what led to
Jesus' execution.47
The Romans, of course, cared nothing for Jewish doctrines or
the sensibilities of Jewish religious leaders. They were concerned
about charges that Jesus considered Himself to be a king of the
Jews (Mark 15:2, 26; John 18:33; 19:19). According to Ehrman—and contrary to many scholars of the Jesus Seminar—it is
almost historically certain that some people thought of Jesus in
these terms during His lifetime. Otherwise it is difficult to explain
why after His death, His followers taught that He was the Messiah, because Jews did not expect a Messiah to rise from the dead.
Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to crucifixion because of His royal
claim.48
JESUS' RESURRECTION AND BEYOND
According to Ehrman, although the resurrection of Jesus is highly
attested,49 it is still highly problematic. He says the earliest accounts of Jesus' resurrection are impossible to reconcile.50 And he
says that since historians can only establish what probably happened and since miracles by their very nature are highly improbable, historians cannot conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.51
Ehrman notes, however, "It is a historical fact that some of Jesus'
followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead
soon after his execution." Ehrman points out that Christianity did
45
See also the Gospel of Thomas, 34, 39.
46
Ehrman. Jesus, 200-205. See also the Gospel of Thomas, 31.
47
Ibid., 206, 208-9, 218.
48
Ibid., 218.
49
For specific attestation see Dennis Ingolfsland, aQ, M, L and Other Sources for
the Historical Jesus," 21-22.
50
However, John Wenham provides a very plausible solution to the problem (The
Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? [Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1996]).
51
Ehrman, Jesus, 227-28. For excellent contrary opinions on miracles and history,
see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:509-34; and Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker,
38-53.
190
BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / April-June 2001
not develop because of Jesus' death. If there had been no subsequent belief in the resurrection, Jesus' death would have likely
been viewed as just another of a long line of tragic incidents, but it
would not have been interpreted as an act of salvation and it is unlikely that a new religion would have developed.52
Jesus' followers then concluded that Jesus had not only been
raised, but had also been exalted to heaven and would one day return. 53 Christians soon began to identify the Son of Man in Daniel
7:13 with Jesus Himself.54 Therefore when Christians spoke or
wrote of Jesus, they began to change what Jesus said about a
coming Son of Man, using the first-person singular to make it refer
to Jesus (Matt. 10:32; 16:13; Mark 8:27, 38). Before long, Jesus was
being proclaimed as the Christ, the unique Son of God, and the
Savior of the world.
EVALUATION OF EHRMAN'S WORK
JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING
One of the strengths of Ehrman's book is that he is generally consistent in applying his historical criteria. It is therefore somewhat
surprising that he failed to be consistent in his assessment, of Jesus' self-understanding. Three areas are particularly noticeable.
First, as noted earlier, Ehrman insists that Jesus believed in a
coming Son of Man who was someone other than Himself. Ehrman
holds this view in spite of the fact that the tradition equating Jesus
with the Son of Man is supported by the criteria of multiple independent attestation.
Ehrman would undoubtedly point out that not even the criteria of multiple independent attestation can be applied mechanically but must be balanced with other criteria. So, for example,
though Jesus' resurrection is independently attested in multiple
sources, Ehrman does not believe He actually rose again because
dead people do not come back to life after three days. Even if Ehrman's point here were to be granted for the sake of argument, there
5á¿
Ehrman, Jesus, 231. See also Wright, The New Testament and the People of God,
399. Ehrman takes this argument one step further and argues that if a person came
back to life in the ancient world, others might be convinced that the world was truly
a strange place, but a resurrection alone was not likely to convince them that the
resurrected person was the Messiah or the Son of God. If Jesus had not taught His
disciples that He was the Messiah and the Son of God, it is difficult to understand
why belief in His resurrection would have automatically led to that conclusion.
53
Ibid., 233. See also Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 175-76.
Ehrman, Jesus, 233.
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus" 191
are no such overriding considerations with regard to Jesus' selfunderstanding. In other words there is nothing impossible or necessarily improbable with the assumption that Jesus could have
thought of Himself as the Jewish Messiah or even the Son of Man
referred to in Daniel 7:13.
In The Christology of Jesus Witherington argues against the
theory that distinguishes Jesus from the Son of Man. He points out
that "nowhere else in the gospel tradition is there so much as a
hint that Jesus expected a successor."55 Witherington also quotes I.
Howard Marshall as saying that the theory that separates Jesus
and the Son of Man requires the "peculiar conclusion—that a
proper response to Jesus now will lead to some favored status with
a hitherto unknown Son of man. But why should this be the case if
Jesus and the Son of man are not one and the same or if the connection is never made clear. In short, this theory raises more
problems than it solves and is based on too little evidence."56
Witherington notes that the theory that Jesus thought of the
Son of Man as someone other than Himself might be thought of as
being supported by only four passages (Matt. 19:28; Mark 13:26;
14:62; Luke 12:8-9),57 whereas the vast majority of Son of Man
sayings clearly identify Jesus with the Son of Man.
The four passages that supposedly support the distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man do not actually assert that there is
a distinction; they simply leave the identity of the Son of Man ambiguous. On the other hand Witherington points out that Luke
9:58, a passage that identifies Jesus with the Son of Man, is held
by most critical scholars to be authentic. As Witherington notes, if
only one saying in which Jesus identified Himself as the Son of
Man is authentic—and Luke 9:58 apparently does so—the view
that makes a distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man would
be shown to be a failure.58
The consistent application of Ehrman's own criteria, therefore,
leads to the conclusion that Jesus thought that He Himself was. the
Son of Man of Daniel 7:13 who would sit at the right hand of the
Father and rule over an everlasting kingdom.
Second, the tradition about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a
55
Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 257.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid. Ehrman believes Matthew 19:28 is a church formulation. Mark 8:38 was
not included since it is probably a variant of Luke 12:8-9.
58
Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 257.
192
BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / April-June 2001
donkey in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 is supported by the criteria
of multiple independent attestation (Mark 11:1-10; John
12:12-15). Even so, Ehrman argues that this event is probably not
historically accurate because Jesus was not arrested immediately.59 But this is no proof that the event did not happen. The
Gospels record that the Jewish leaders were concerned about the
wide following Jesus commanded, and it is very plausible, therefore, that they might have proceeded carefully about the arrest of
Jesus. The consistent application of Ehrman's criteria would lead
to the conclusion that Jesus did enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey and that He was deliberately presenting Himself as Israel's
King, a role Zechariah 9:9 seems to apply to Yahweh Himself.
Third, Ehrman argues that though the Lord's Supper is supported by the criteria of multiple independent attestation (Matt.
26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26), it is
difficult to know how much of that event is historical since it seems
"so heavily 'Christianized' with the doctrine of the saving effect of
Jesus' death."60 But as Witherington points out, "The idea of a human sacrificial death atoning for sin seems to have been very much
alive in Judaism during Jesus' era."61 The Lord's Supper therefore
meets both Ehrman's criteria of multiple attestation and contextual credibility. Consistent application of Ehrman's criteria leads to
the conclusion that the Lord's Supper is historical and that Jesus
saw His death as having salvific significance, not unlike that portrayed in Isaiah 53.
MORE THAN A PROPHET
Using the criterion of multiple independent attestation does not
lead to conclusions about Jesus that differ widely from the church's
traditional understanding. In fact it can easily be shown that Jesus
thought of Himself as more than a prophet. "Jesus not only claimed
that he personally could grant forgiveness of sins but that he would
one day 'return' to separate his people from the rest and execute
judgment on the nations, something presumably only Yahweh
could do. He taught that those who would be his followers must be
devoted to him above all else, which to the Jewish mind would
probably have been a clear violation of the first commandment. He
also seemed to have taught that people's eternal destiny would de5y
Ehrman, Jesus, 210.
60
Ibid., 215.
61
See 2 Maccabees 7:37-38; 4 Maccabees 6:27-29; and Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 252.
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus" 193
pend on their relation to him. Teachings like this would certainly
account for the accusations of blasphemy leveled at Jesus." 62
Witherington follows standard historical-critical methodology,
focusing mostly on Q and the Gospel of Mark to demonstrate that
Jesus thought of Himself as more than an ordinary human being.63
For example Witherington points out that Jesus actually considered Himself above the Torah (e.g., Mark 2:18-28; 7:15).64 Witherington also demonstrates that the phrase "Amen, I say to you,"
which occurs numerous times in all four Gospels,65 shows that Jesus spoke not just as a prophet of God, but as one speaking with
His own divine authority and power.66 According to Witherington
Jesus believed that it was God's will that He die as a ransom for
many,67 but that He would be vindicated after His death, coming in
the clouds of heaven to judge the world, as indicated by Daniel's
vision of the Son of Man.68 Jesus thought He was bringing about
the eschatological blessings promised by Isaiah (Q [Matt. 11:2-19 =
Luke 7:18-35]) and may even have seen Himself as the embodiment of divine wisdom.69
Is it historically possible that a first-century Jew could have
come to think of Himself as the very embodiment of Yahweh? This
can be answered in the affirmative for several reasons. First, it is
important to note that the appearance of gods as human beings
was well known in contemporary Greek thought, and recent studies have asserted the widespread influence of Greek thought in
Galilee. Second, one need only remember the story of Yahweh's interaction with Abraham in Genesis 18 to know that the idea of God
appearing to people as a human being was not foreign to Judaism.
Third, it was not unusual in the ancient world for a human being
bZ
Ingolfsland, "Q, M, L, and Other Sources for the Historical Jesus," 17-22.
63
Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 29-30.
64
Ibid., 65, 69, 80.
65
The phrase is highly attested at all levels: "thirteen times in Mark, nine in Q,
nine in M, nine in L, twenty-five times in John" (ibid., 187).
66
Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 189.
67
Ibid., 252.
68
Ibid., 262.
69
Ibid., 51-52. Witherington notes that in early Judaism wisdom was viewed as a
divine being expressing the mind of God to people and desiring to live with them,
but who was rejected by the people (Job 28; Prov. 1; 8; Sirach 1, 24; HQPs a 18; Baruch 3-4, 48; 1 Enoch 42; 4 Ezra 5:2).
194
BiBLlOTHECA SACRA / April-June 2001
to think of himself as the embodiment of a god.70 True, such
thinking would have been unusual for a Jew and especially for a
peasant, but the idea that God could become human was well
known.71 Therefore the idea that Jesus thought of Himself as "one
with the Father" is not only supported by the criterion of multiple
independent attestation but it is also contextually credible.
EXPLANATION OF JESUS' DEATH
Ehrman makes the point that many historical reconstructions of
Jesus rise or fall on their explanation of Jesus' death. As Ehrman
asks, Why crucify a Jewish rabbi who taught people to love God
and be good to each another?72 Ehrman's point is well taken. Whoever proposes a historical reconstruction of Jesus must take seriously the fact that the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead and the
Roman government agreed with their demands. Numerous religious reformers and cynic sages were present in the ancient world,
but they were not automatically given a death sentence. While
Ehrman makes an excellent point, his own explanation for Jesus'
death is not convincing.
According to Ehrman the Jewish leaders arranged Jesus' execution because He taught that they would be recipients of God's
judgment.73 But just predicting God's judgment on the temple establishment does not seem to have been sufficient reason in itself
for His execution, since the Essenes, too, threatened the temple
establishment with God's judgment. Besides, Ehrman's view does
not explain the tradition that Jesus was charged with blasphemy.
A more historically probable explanation for Jesus' death is that
He presented Himself as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies about
God coming to His people as their Shepherd and King.74 If Jesus
taught these things to others, such teaching could have unquesFor example Ovid's Metamorphosis has a story about the gods visiting an elderly
couple (8.626-724). That this story was taken seriously by some is reflected in the
Book of Acts (14:8-15) when the people of Lystra welcomed Paul and Barnabas as
gods. Some of the Caesars also thought of themselves as divine or as sons of gods.
71
Some of the pharaohs and Caesars were thought to be sons of God. In addition
Israel Knohl has convincingly demonstrated that one of the writers of the Dead Sea
Scrolls clearly compares himself with God (The Messiah before Jesus [Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 2000], 17, 19, 25-26). Knohl states emphatically, "We
can no longer rule out the possibility that Jesus indeed would have regarded himself
as the 'son of God' " (ibid., 96).
72
Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 208.
73
Ehrman, Jesus, 206, 208-9, 218.
See Ezekiel 34 and Zechariah 11-14.
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus" 195
tionably led to charges of blasphemy by Jewish leaders. It would
have been a very small step to turn such charges of blasphemy into
charges of sedition before Pilate.
CONCLUSION
Many elements in Ehrman's view of Jesus are convincing. These
include the following: (1) His conclusion that Jesus was a Jewish
apocalyptic prophet, whose message centered on the kingdom of
God, in which there would be no poverty, illness, or oppression. (2)
The point that for Jesus absolutely nothing was as important as
loving God and seeking His kingdom. (3) The fact that Jesus called
His followers to behave now as they will in the kingdom, and this
meant not only loving God above all else but also loving one's
neighbor and even one's enemies. (4) The note that Jesus' exor­
cisms and healings, besides being acts of compassion, were also
designed as a foretaste of His coming kingdom.
While these aspects of Jesus as presented by Ehrman are com­
pelling, Ehrman's views are inconsistent and incomplete. Wither­
ington, Ν. T. Wright, and others have shown that Jesus saw Him­
self as more than a Jewish prophet. Jesus spoke as one who was
above the Law and the temple, one who could speak on His own
divine authority and could forgive sins. He taught that His death
has salvific significance, consistent with Isaiah 53, and He said He
would return as the coming Son of Man, who will judge the world
75
and rule over the kingdom of God, as seen in Daniel 7.
That Jesus actually presented Himself as King, Son of Man, and
Savior is a matter of history that has been well established by us­
ing the same historical criteria Ehrman used to present his own
view of Jesus.
But if someone—even in the first century A.D.—actually thought
of himself in such lofty terms, why would anyone believe him?
Would not someone like that be dismissed as insane? First, it must
be noted that most people did not believe Jesus. Some thought He
was a blasphemer, others thought He was demon-possessed, and
some thought He was insane. The Gospel sayings that record these
views about Jesus meet the criterion of embarrassment, which as­
serts that it is unlikely that early Christians would have made
things up about Jesus that were not flattering or were even embar-
75
Ingolfsland. aQ, M, L, and Other Sources for the Historical Jesus," 20-21. See
also Witherington, The Christology of Jesus; Wright, The New Testament and the
People of God; and idem, Jesus and the Victory of God.
196
BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / ApriKJune 2001
rassing. It is highly unlikely that early Christians would have fabricated sayings about people thinking Jesus was insane or demonpossessed.76 If Jesus, therefore, taught that He was the fulfillment
of prophecies about Yahweh coming to His people, the charges of
blasphemy, demon possession, or even insanity are what one might
expect. This increases the historical probability that Jesus presented Himself as more than just a Jewish prophet.
Those who did believe what Jesus taught about Himself probably did so for several reasons. First, they believed because of the
compelling nature of His teaching. It was not the Resurrection
alone that convinced them that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of
God. As Wright noted, "For someone who had been certifiably dead
to become alive again would mean that the world was indeed a
stranger place than one had imagined; it would not at all justify a
claim that the person to whom this odd event happened was therefore the saviour of the world, the 'son of god,' or anything else in
particular. " 77
In other words the earliest followers of Jesus believed that He
was the Messiah and the Son of God because that is what He
taught about Himself. His resurrection was the confirmation of
what He had already taught. 78
Second, those who believed in Jesus did so because of His miracles. In Jesus' day no one denied that He did amazing signs and
wonders, but people differed in their view of the nature and source
of those powers. Jesus' enemies thought He was a sorcerer or that
He did miracles by the power of Satan. His followers wer^ well
aware of traveling sorcerers, but they countered that no one has
ever done miracles like these before! Third, those who believed in
Jesus did so because they were absolutely convinced that He had
risen from the dead. This is a fact that even Ehrman concedes.79
Fourth, those who believed in Jesus did so because they were convinced that He had actually fulfilled prophecies in the Jewish
7b
That these things were recorded speaks volumes about the honesty and objectivity of the Gospel writers.
77
Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 399.
Following Wrede, many modern scholars believe that Jesus did not believe He
was the Messiah or the Son of God and that these ideas were only attributed to Him
by the church long after His death.
79
See also E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin,
1993), 10-11. Sanders is one of the world's foremost Jesus scholars, and, though not
a Christian, he is convinced that it is almost beyond dispute that Jesus' earliest
disciples believed they had seen Him after His death (but Sanders adds, "in what
sense is not certain").
An Evaluation of Bart Ehrman's "Historical Jesus" 197
Scriptures about a coming Messiah and about Yahweh coming to
His temple and visiting His people.80
Ehrman is correct in insisting that for Jesus, love for God and
His kingdom is to be the highest priority. Ehrman referred to Matthew 10:37 and Luke 14:26 to show that for Jesus, the kingdom
was more important than one's closest relatives and loved ones.81
But these verses actually present Jesus as saying that people must
love Him—not just the kingdom—more than anything or anyone
else. What Ehrman misses is that for Jesus, putting the kingdom of
God first also meant putting the King first—and Jesus taught that
He was that King, the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies about Yahweh coming to His people.82
With teachings like this, it is no wonder that Jesus' enemies
said He was insane or demon-possessed. It is no wonder that the
religious leaders sought to have Him executed for blasphemy. It is
no wonder the Romans crucified Him for sedition. And it is also no
wonder that those who believed in Jesus gave their lives for Him
and awaited His return. According to the Gospels Jesus once asked
Peter, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matt. 16:15; Mark 8:29;
Luke 9:20). Consistent application of strict historical criteria has
made those words just as relevant today as when Jesus first spoke
them.
80
While some prophecies were undoubtedly deliberately fulfilled by Jesus as a
prophetic statement—such as riding into Jerusalem on a donkey—others were not
under His human control, like His birth in Bethlehem. While most nonevangelical
scholars assert that Jesus was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, His birth
in Bethlehem is supported by the criteria of multiple independent attestation, while
a Nazareth birth has no support at all. In fact my suspicion is that the only real
reason many scholars deny that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is that it fulfills
prophecy. On a human level, however, does it make more historical sense to say that
the early church made up a story about their King being born in a stable in Bethlehem, or to say that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and His lineage from David (which is
also supported by the criteria of multiple independent attestation) are among the
factors that affirmed Jesus' mission and ministry as Messiah?
81
82
Ehrman, Jesus, 170.
See, for example, Isaiah 35:4-6; Zechariah 2:10-12; 8:3; 9:9-10; 12:8-10; 14:1-9;
Ezekiel 34:11-25; 43:7.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.
View publication stats