Re: [JesusMysteries] The Messiah Before Jesus?
From: Ronald Salmond M.D.
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 20:20:16
Lowell wrote:
> It is my understanding that the word, Hosanna, is a misinterpretation of
> the Aramaic phrase 'save us'. Because it is misinterpreted as an
> acclamation, it is clear that something is wrong with the text. Perhaps
> canonical Mark was redacted from an earlier version with a more militant
> twist -- meaning that Jesus was interpreted as the Davidic Messiah by this
> crowd who wanted him to overthrow the government on the spot (as it were).
David replied:
> Think of the gospels as apologies intended to answering charges leveled
> against Christians like the authors of the gospels, and the founder of
> their movement. Everything becomes explanations for how Jesus could have
> been wrongly accused of all those charges of revolution or being a mamzer
> or being a commoner rather than a king.
Hello Lowell and David,
Lowell's theory: "Perhaps canonical Mark was redacted from an earlier
version with a more militant twist -- meaning that Jesus was interpreted as
the Davidic Messiah by this crowd who wanted him to overthrow the government
on the spot (as it were)" has elements of the theories on Jesus posited by
Paula Fredriksen and Bart D. Ehrman in recent works of theirs. Neither
author asserts that Mark was redacted from an earlier version with a more
militant twist. They do assert that "Jesus might have been interpreted as
the David Messiah by the crowd who wanted him to overthrow the government on
the spot". I don't have Fredricksen in front of me, but, if I remember
correctly she saw Jesus as an apocalypticist who's message was
misinterpreted by his followers, who on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem had the
expectation Jesus would be the Davidic Messiah who would liberate the Jews
from Roman hegemony. This triumphal act of entry into Jerusalem as an appeal
to Hebrew Bible messianic tradition would have been seen by the Romans as
seditious, and a threat to the Pax Romana. Implicit in this interpretation
of Jesus triumphal entry into Jerusalem is an assumption by those who
support the theory that Jesus was mistaken by his followers as a claimant
to the throne of David, and that the Roman's had some concept of Jewish
messianic expectations. I am not sure about this. From the Roman perspective
it probably didn't matter whether a Jewish insurrectionist was simply
organizing Jews in a manner which the Romans deemed to be threatening [the
Egyptian], was asserting claims of Jewish independence based on religious
considerations [messianic claimant like Bar Kochba], or strictly political
[Theudas, Zealots, Sicarii], any such movement would have been seen by the
Romans as a threat to the Pax Romana and would be dealt with accordingly.
Supporters of the historicity of Judas Iscariot cite this theory as reason
for the Gospel portrayal of Judas' betrayal of Jesus. Judas supposedly
expected that Jesus would reveal his true intentions to claim the throne of
King David and restore the independence of the Jewish state. Ehrman on
Jesus' trip to Jerusalem writes:
"It is not clear why, exactly, Jesus went with his disciples to Jerusalem.
A theologian, of course, might say that it was in order to die for the sins
of the world. This view, though, is based on Gospel sayings (such as Jesus'
prediction of his own Passion in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10: 33-34) that cannot
pass the criterion of dissimilarity, in that they portray Jesus as being
fully cognizant of the details of his own fate. From a strictly historical
perspective-that is, restricting ourselves to what we can show on historical
grounds-perhaps we should recall what we saw happen in chapter 7 [chapter 7
of Erhman's book], that Passover was a popular festival and that the size of
Jerusalem swelled during its celebration. It may be, then, that Jesus went
to Jerusalem, like so many thousands of other Jews at the time simply in
order to celebrate the Passover feast."
Ehrman like you and Lowell questions the historicity of Jesus' triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. Ehrman writes"
"If Jesus actually entered the city with such fanfare, crowds shouting
their support for him as their new ruler, the king who fulfills the
prophecies (who would therefore, need to overthrow the present rulers and
his armies!), it is nearly impossible to understand why he wasn't arrested
and taken out of the way immediately. Probably the most we can say is that
maybe Jesus actually did enter Jerusalem (!), that he was one of the
pilgrims coming for the feast, and that he may well have entered on a
donkey."
Therefore, David may well be right in his characterization of the Gospels
as "apologies intended to answering charges leveled against Christians like
the authors of the gospels, and the founder of their movement. Everything
becomes explanations for how Jesus could have been wrongly accused of all
those charges of revolution or being a mamzer or being a commoner rather
than a king."
Best,
Ronald Salmond, M.D.
Source: Bart D. Ehrman, "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,
Oxford University Press, pages 209-211, 1999
