Speaker: Bart Ehrman

Topic: A Core Teaching of Jesus. And Why His Followers Abandoned It

Overview: Central to Jesus’s teaching was the need to repent in preparation for the coming Kingdom of God. Those who returned to God would be graciously forgiven for their transgressions, with no penalty or payment required. After Jesus’ death his followers reversed his teaching, maintaining that God did not freely forgive sins but required an atoning sacrifice. In this lecture we consider why the Christian church abandoned a key element of Jesus’s proclamation.

John the Baptist practiced a baptism for the remission of sin which was needed because a day of judgment was imminent (the axe was at the tree).  People needed to repent and turn back to God.  Temple sacrifice was not needed.  Jesus’ first message is repent because the Kingdom is near.  Evil forces and people will be destroyed.  The lords prayer suggests we will be forgiven, a debt that does not need to be paid.  This is reflected in the parable of the unforgiving slave in Matthew.  There is the story of the rich young man who will be saved by giving everything to the poor, and the story of the sheep and goats.  Jesus taught God forgives sins.  His followers taught God required atonement.  Jesus taught for sinners to repent and be forgiven.  The story of the prodigal son is about God forgiving if we repent and turn back to him. 

Paul doesn’t talk about forgiveness, but atonement.  Mark 10:45 also sees his death as an atonement.  The temple curtain rips, suggesting access to God without a further atoning sacrifice. Luke does not have atonement and has the curtain tearing beforehand indicating the destruction of the temple for what they did to Jesus.   Luke-Acts also has the forgiveness of sins.  The followers of Jesus experienced their master crucified, but he was seen after death and so there must have been reason Jesus died. 

Analysis:

To follow Ehrman here you would have to suppose Mark was making a propaganda (which is what “gospel” meant in its roman context) document about the crucifixion and resurrection but unwittingly included material that spoke against this theme.  Let’s try to think it otherwise.

The phrase “by virtue of the absurd” is associated with the Danish Christian philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, particularly in his work Fear and Trembling (1843), written under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio. It emerges from his exploration of faith, specifically in the context of the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac and is a key concept in his existential philosophy.  Abraham was the paragon of faith in the Old Testament because God miraculously gave him a son and promised him a great line of descendants through that son, but then God told Abraham to kill his son.  It was Abraham’s faith in God despite contradictory divine commands that indicated exemplary faith.  The contradiction doesn’t cancel the two sides out, but points to the even greater faith of the son who trusts God and is willing to die – an obedience even greater than Abraham who was willing to lose a great line of descendants.

This use of contradictions in the ancient world was well known, such as with Plato’s Republic, the most famous book of the period.  For example, we might be going along with our cherished traditional definition of marriage when suddenly we encounter the violence it does to LGBTQ rights and so are compelled to rethink marriage in a more inclusive way.  We seem to see this played out in the New Testament with the seeming contradiction of forgiveness theology and atonement theology which points to the contradiction that Jesus was greater than any old testament prophet and yet begging God for his life in Gethsemane. Hebrews has Jesus’ atoning death, but also a death of forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22) as in Luke where the people come to see themselves as guilty in the wrongful death of God’s beloved (agapetos) Jesus .

A pre-sacrifice Jesus approach would then emphasize obedience to God, taking up your cross rather than being crucified, like how it was the obedience of Isaac that trumped him actually having to die.

Contradictions are rampant and brilliantly imposed. The story of Jesus’ death has long been recognized as historical fact yet wildly fictional, such us being told what Jesus said from the cross, but also what Jesus and the high priest said to each other, and what Jesus and the crowd said to each other (who would have been around to record these conversations?).  Moreover, Mark has invented the narrative details of the “cruci-fiction” by recapitulating Psalms and Second Isaiah.  

Similarly, as I said previously, we have the satirical loophole trial of Jesus by the Jewish high council and its literary pair, the satirical trial and execution by Rome for political insurrection while Jesus’ partners in crime were not prosecuted and even came to settle and headquarter in Jerusalem fearing no reprisal.  This can be combined with the satirical arrest of Jesus where the whole point of the gospel is the cross and resurrection, yet apparently no one told Jesus’ followers because they were armed and got violent with the arresting party.  Mark’s excuse?  The disciples lived day in and out with Jesus but couldn’t understand the idea that he was supposed to die, while the reader gets it after a brief acquaintance with the text. 

There are instances in the Old Testament where satire is used, though it’s not always overt or comedic in the modern sense. Satire in the Old Testament often employs irony, exaggeration, or biting critique to expose folly, critique idolatry, or challenge human behavior, typically with a theological or moral purpose. Elijah and the Prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27): During the contest on Mount Carmel, Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal as they fail to summon their god. He sarcastically suggests that Baal might be “busy,” “traveling,” or even “sleeping and must be awakened.” This sharp irony ridicules the impotence of false gods and their worshippers, using satire to underscore the supremacy of Yahweh.

Isaiah’s Critique of Idol-Worship (Isaiah 44:9–20): Isaiah employs satire to expose the absurdity of idolatry. He describes a craftsman who cuts down a tree, uses part of it for fuel or tools, and then carves the rest into an idol to worship. The passage drips with irony, highlighting the foolishness of worshiping something made by human hands, as the idolater fails to see the contradiction in their actions.

Jonah’s Story: The Book of Jonah has satirical elements, particularly in its portrayal of Jonah’s stubbornness and exaggerated reactions. Jonah’s attempt to flee from God, his sulking over the sparing of Nineveh, and even the absurdity of being swallowed by a fish can be seen as a satirical take on human reluctance to obey divine will. The humor lies in Jonah’s over-the-top petulance contrasted with God’s patience and mercy.

Ecclesiastes’ Cynical Tone: While not satire in the strictest sense, Ecclesiastes uses a biting, ironic tone to critique human pursuits of wealth, pleasure, and wisdom as “vanity” or “meaningless.” The Preacher’s exaggerated despair over life’s futility serves to provoke reflection on the limits of human endeavor apart from God.

Unlike modern satire, which often aims for humor, Old Testament satire is typically more serious, aiming to convict or instruct rather than entertain. It often targets idolatry, hypocrisy, or disobedience to emphasize God’s truth or justice. The satire is rooted in ancient Near Eastern literary styles, where irony and rhetorical exaggeration were common tools for teaching or critique.

We thus see the further satire of Jesus needing to be baptized for forgiveness by John the Baptist, which was simultaneously not the proper way because Jesus later baptized with spirit. Mark thus underlies the story with fiction. Mark says “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ; as it is written in the prophets.” Mark immediately interprets John the Baptist as a forerunner of the Messiah (a la Elijah in II Kings 1:8). Mark then clothes John similar to Elijah (Mark 1:6. II Kings 1:8.) He then says John ate locusts and wild honey, the food of the wilderness in which Elijah lived (and so on and so on). Price comments

In any case, the scene has received vivid midrashic coloring. The heavenly voice (bath qol) speaks a conflation of three scriptural passages. “You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11) combines bits and pieces of Psalm 2:7, the divine coronation decree, “You are my son. Today I have begotten you;” Isaiah 42:1, the blessing on the returning Exiles, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;” and Genesis 22:12 (LXX), where the heavenly voices bids Abraham to sacrifice his “beloved son.” And as William R. Stegner points out, Mark may have in mind a Targumic tradition whereby Isaac, bound on the altar, looks up into heaven and sees the heavens opened with angels and the Shekinah of God, a voice proclaiming, “Behold, two chosen ones, etc.” There is even the note that the willingness of Isaac to be slain may serve to atone for Israel’s sins. Here is abundant symbolism making Jesus king, servant, and atoning sacrifice… In view of parallels elsewhere between John and Jesus on the one hand and Elijah and Elisha on the other, some (Miller, p. 48) also see in the Jordan baptism and the endowment with the spirit a repetition of 2 Kings 2, where, near the Jordan, Elijah bequeaths a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior. 

As Goodacre noted in his presentation, John the Baptist being in the gospels need not be because he was connected to Jesus (Josephus knows no such connection, and John’s death is different in Josephus), but because John was really famous.  We see similar things when people do work on Stalin and try to impose Lenin as a major influence, which he probably wasn’t.

Mark signals the fictive nature of John’s relation to Jesus by changing the real reason for John’s death (outlined in Josephus), making it a literary pair with Jesus’s death, John’s humiliating death being doubled by Jesus’ more tortuous and humiliating death.  The point is the death of a supremely just man like John avails nothing (the reference here is probably to Socrates’ death and Plato’s impaled just man) unless this man is also the especially loved one by God.

One of Mark’s main strategies is to create apparent contradiction/absurdities and resolve them, like the absurdity in a gospel promoting the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus to have Jesus in Gethsemane think God’s plan could be realized without him dying.  Similarly, with the temptation by the Devil in Matthew where the devil cites scripture, Jesus goes against scripture yet maintains the spirit of God’s word (don’t tempt the lord).  This provides a context for Jesus’ ethical innovations (You have heard it said….but I say to you).