Block 3 - Ehrman, Pages 183-206

Ehrman takes a different approach than most Jesus scholars, in that he only delves into the externals of Jesus ministry (geographical location, disciples, interaction with other groups) after he has discussed the sayings of Jesus and arrived at his conclusions on that matter. In discussing Jesus' baptism by John (Chapter 11, page 184), as we might expect, he focuses on what he sees as continuity between John and Jesus, in that John's unabashedly apocalyptic message would be reflected in the one who comes after him, meaning that the message of Jesus should be interpreted along the same apocalyptic lines as a matter of logical progression among two associates in the same business. Speaking of associates, Jesus' closest associates, "The Twelve," Ehrman is merely stating the obvious in saying they come from a lower class background.

In his discussion of "The Twelve," Ehrman is responding to the view of John Dominic Crossan who says that "The Twelve" is a Christian fiction that is designed to offer a Christian counterpart to the 12 tribes of Israel, which certainly makes no sense to Crossan in the context of Jesus' ministry in which Jesus is advocating a renewal movement within Judaism. But (for Crossan) "The Twelve" smacks of a Christian viewpoint that sees itself as superseding Judaism, something that would be impossible within Jesus' own earthly lifetime. I do not often agree wholeheartedly with Ehrman, but I do on this point. Ehrman is sure the tradition of "The Twelve" goes back to Jesus. You will find that in many of his conclusions about the life of Jesus, Ehrman is much less skeptical on matters of the historicity of the Gospel accounts than Crossan, or Borg. But part of the reason for Ehrman's embrace of "The Twelve" as belonging to Jesus' ministry is that in Jewish apocalyptic thought in Jesus' time, the restoration of the Twelve tribes of Israel is an important theme of the end-times, and Ehrman believes that in the mind of Jesus this restoration of the Twelve tribes of Israel is behind Jesus' choosing "The Twelve" and is a part of Jesus' preparing for the coming of the Kingdom of God. It all fits together very nicely for Ehrman. I say the Twelve and the restoration of the 12 tribes of Israel makes sense, but does not necessarily require an apocalyptic interpretation. Traditional Christian theology has located the significance of this connection in the "Church" being the earthly manifestation of the restoration of the Twelve tribes.

A note about Ehrman's comment at the bottom of page 185 about having followers (disciples) as an unusual practice: I do not think it is unusual in the context in which we find Jesus. About 25 years ago I read an interesting article on this topic in an obscure publication that proposed a very reasonable theory. We know that before Jesus' time, it was Greek philosophers who were most likely to assemble a limited group of followers. We might think such would be like a small academy to learn the deep thoughts of a certain philosopher. But the philosophers who attracted followers, were not interested in simply attracting students to educate (and so make a living). These philosophers were well educated and often original thinkers who had a very particular philosophy of life and their goal was to teach their disciples this way of life. (Aside: A good 1st century CE example of this is the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who both taught about a creator god and living a moral way of life.) Theory goes, sometime in the century before Jesus, traveling philosophers came through Palestine, the Pharisees are exposed to this method of discipleship, and then take up the practice themselves. (We must remember that the religious influence of the Pharisees in Jesus' time far outweighs their numbers; so their numbers were not large though they loom large in the Gospels). We know the Pharisees had disciples (see Matthew 23:15). Both John the Baptist and Jesus also had disciples, and it seems reasonable to conclude that they picked up this practice from the Pharisees, because all of these groups, as divergent as their views and opinions were on religious matters, they were all interested in promoting a particular way of life, and sought to educate their disciples in that way of life by bringing them into a common life together that embodied the ideal their teacher sought to promote. In this regard the pattern of the Stoic philosopher/teachers is very suitable to these Jewish religious groups because all of these groups desired to inculcate in their disciples a particular way of life.

On Jesus and the Outcasts (page 187-188), I think Ehrman does a good job explaining this. On Jesus and women followers (pages 188-191), it does seem that Jesus was unique in allowing women to have a significant place in his movement. The women around Jesus often crossed well defined social boundaries in their participation in this movement. The reference to a "'radically egalitarian society'" , which is coined by Schussler-Fiorenza and taken up by Crossan and others who sympathize with this understanding of Jesus offering an alternative community, is a major debating point among scholars. How much was Jesus trying to change society here and now? And how much was Jesus looking to a new society when the Kingdom of God would arrive in its fullness? Many middle-of-the-road scholars take a view somewhere between Crossan and Ehrman, that Jesus' life with his disciples and the outcasts and other followers was intended to be a prophetic statement about what life would be like in the Kingdom of God, and may represent a taste of the kingdom now. But a overall change of attitudes on social relations was not Jesus' primary focus. Indeed, the emphasis on Jesus reinventing society, I believe, poses the danger of focusing too much on social issues (i.e. Crossan) when everything (to Jesus) was fundamentally a religious issue. Focusing on social issues is a 20th century American pastime, not something that was a part of ancient religious movements.

When Ehrman speaks (page 191) of the Jesus Seminar and Jesus and Cynic philosophers, he is referring directly to John Dominic Crossan. Having mentioned Crossan so much, you may wonder why I didn't use one of his books in this course. The main reason is that Borg does a better job of portraying that viewpoint, even though many of the significant ideas originated with Crossan. If you are interested in Crossan, I would recommend you try his Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. If you are really ambitious you might want to try his The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant. The first book is a summary of The Historical Jesus. The problem with reading The Historical Jesus is that Crossan is so detailed in his discussion of his methodology that it would weary most readers. Indeed, he seems to spend more time justifying his methodology than presenting his conclusions about the historical Jesus. But he is thorough.

Ehrman's comment on page 191 about Jesus and Sepphoris is well stated. Crossan, Borg and others in the Jesus Seminar would like to think that Jesus must have been more cosmopolitan than how he is presented in the Gospels with a Greek speaking metropolis so close by his home town. Even in this day and age there are a number of people in the town I live in who will not drive to Sioux City or Sioux Falls (the nearest cities) because they see no need to go to a large crowded busy city and rarely travel farther than the nearest grocery store. If that can be true today, think of how much more true that would be in a time and place where there was also a language barrier. There are a number of Greek speaking cities that existed in Palestine in Jesus' time. But (as Ehrman points out) there is no record of Jesus going near any of them. Jesus sticks to the small Aramaic speaking towns. Certainly the majority of people living in the Greek speaking cities would have been Jewish. But, the presence of Jewish people in Palestine adopting Greek ways of living goes back to 200 BCE. So, there was certainly a variety of Jewish lifestyles in Palestine in Jesus' time. Rather obviously, Jesus represents the small town and rural label that Ehrman prefers.

Ehrman's discussion of Jesus and his miracles (pages 192-200) I think is rather well done. You should know by now that there is no way Ehrman is going to believe they actually happened as narrated in the Gospels. However, Ehrman does make a very good point that I believe cannot be refuted on historical grounds alone: Jesus had a solid reputation as a healer and an exorcist. The mere fact that so many of the episodes in the Gospels recount an exorcism or a healing make it evident, I believe, that this was perceived as a central feature of Jesus' ministry by his contemporaries. (I will say more about the religious significance of these accounts of miracles in my discussion miracles in Block 4.) Whether or not a modern person believes Jesus performed miracles, it seems quite certain that his disciples believed he performed miracles.

The discussion of the rejection of Jesus (pages 200-202) is fairly well portrayed. Ehrman is attempting to counter the Sunday school curriculum tendency to see Jesus as wildly popular everywhere he went. It is easy for us to want to overlook the references to the rejection of Jesus, but the fact that the Gospels (which are intended to spin the story his way) include references to various types of rejection that Ehrman mentions, makes it clear that such rejection did occur. Indeed, Jesus himself is recorded as making a connection between rejection of him and his message and his eventual death. Of course, there are also prophetic denouncements of those who reject him, but rejected by many he was.

I like Ehrman's discussion of Jesus and the Pharisees (pages 202-206). In particular, I think Ehrman does a fine job of explaining exactly what Jesus and the Pharisees had in common. Why do people in families fight? They fight because they have something in common that is important to them that they want to protect, but they often disagree about who is right. Jesus and the Pharisees both believed the Jewish Law was good, but it is obvious Jesus deeply disagreed with many of the Pharisees' interpretations of that Law. That is what their disagreements were about. Many of the average Jews may well have considered such discussions arcane, but they are central even today to Orthodox Judaism, especially with questions of what can done on the Sabbath. If you want to see that in action, go to the web site for the Orthodox Union and see the rules on the sabbath. Here is the address to that basic information - http://www.ou.org/publications/kaplan/shabbat/work.htm This offers insight into the Jewish way of thinking about these things. It was important to the earliest Christians who were converts from Judaism to offer Jesus' critique of Jewish practices as a defense of their own religious practices. But by 100 CE, the majority of Christians were born pagan and references to Jewish practices probably meant little to them.