The Second Coming of Christ: How the Bible Describes Jesus’ Return

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

What is the Second Coming of Christ? It is the belief that Jesus will one day return to earth — and one of the central tenets of Christian eschatology. For many believers, it represents not only the culmination of God’s plan for humanity but also a moment of ultimate justice and redemption. But how did this belief emerge, and what does the Bible actually say about it? Was the Second Coming of Christ a late addition to Christian doctrine, or was it a foundational part of the faith from the beginning?

In this article, I’ll trace the development of the idea of the Second Coming of Christ through key New Testament texts. Along the way, we’ll explore what early Christians believed about Jesus’ return, how those beliefs were shaped by Jewish apocalyptic traditions, and how different authors depicted what would happen when Jesus came again.

By examining the biblical sources themselves, we can better understand not only the origins of this enduring belief, but why it has remained so powerful throughout Christian history.

What Will Happen When Jesus Returns? Biblical Views

How early did the belief in the Second Coming of Christ become common among early Christians? One way to decide this is to look at biblical texts that clearly refer to it. While there are many verses referring to the return of Jesus, in this article I’ll look at them chronologically, to the extent that it’s possible. We know, for example, that Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels, so let’s start with Paul’s take on the Second Coming.

In the Jewish Annotated New Testament, David Fox Sandmel writes that 1 Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul’s letters. It was written around the year 50 CE, which also makes it the oldest book in the New Testament and, thus, a good place to start.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

It’s clear that this letter is at least partially a response by Paul to questions from members of the church that he started in the city of Thessaloniki. When this letter was written, it had already been about 20 years since Jesus’ death and resurrection. Paul was sure that Jesus would return imminently, reflecting his belief in the general resurrection of the righteous at the end of time which he believed had been initiated by Jesus’ resurrection. However, some members of the Thessalonian church had died in the years since the founding of their church. Would these deceased people be saved when Jesus’ came back?

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, Paul reassures them that these dead members will also be saved:

These verses have long been used to justify belief in the Rapture, in which Jesus returns and all Christians go up with him to heaven, leaving non-Christians behind. However, that may not be what Paul is talking about here.

Bart Ehrman points out that Paul leaves a lot of questions unanswered in this passage. Among them is whether the believers would go up to heaven with Jesus or whether he would come down with them and establish his kingdom on earth. This and other questions are probably not answered because Paul had long been preaching about this to the Thessalonians, and they already knew his answers; there was no need for Paul to reiterate them.

Having said all that, it’s clear that well before 50 CE when 1 Thessalonians was written, Paul had told the churches he’d founded that Jesus would return. However, it’s also interesting to note that Paul says that no one knows when exactly Jesus will return. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2 he says the day will come unexpectedly “like a thief in the night,” and that they should, therefore, remain prepared at all times. Later, I’ll discuss predictions about when Jesus would return.

Next we have the Gospel of Mark, written in 70 CE, or 20 years after 1 Thessalonians. What do Mark’s early Jesus traditions say about the Second Coming of Christ? In Mark 14:61-62, we see Jesus being questioned before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme council:

Jesus’ words in this passage are drawn from two Hebrew Bible passages, Psalms 110:1 and Daniel 7:13, in order to prove that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. Notice that the juxtaposition of these two quotes means both that Jesus will ultimately be seated at God’s right hand and that he will return to earth in a glorious fashion.

Matthew’s Gospel has several quotations about the Second Coming of Christ, but two are especially relevant to our discussion. First, in Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus says

Not only will Jesus return, but some of the people around Jesus will still be alive when he returns. Like Paul, the author of Matthew thought the Second Coming was imminent. However, also like Paul, Jesus says “Keep awake, therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.” In other words, he is coming very soon, but you won’t be able to predict when. Implied in this statement is that one shouldn’t try to predict when he is coming.

Skipping forward in time again, we find the book of Hebrews, written sometime between 80-100 CE. Many early Christians originally thought this book was written by Paul, but the vast majority of scholars no longer believe this. For one thing, Paul died about 20 years before this book was written. However, it is clear that this anonymous author would have agreed with Paul about the Second Coming:

While the author of Hebrews certainly believes Christ will appear again, he doesn’t talk about how: there are no clouds of heaven or angels in this passage. That might mean that such a glorious arrival was already assumed and thus went without saying, but we can’t know for sure.

Finally, jumping forward to 96 CE, the book of Revelation was written. Its author, a Jewish Christian named John (sometimes called John of Patmos, referring to the island on which he wrote the book), had a lot to say about Jesus’ Second Coming. In Rev. 1:7, in fact, he refers to the image of Jesus coming on the clouds, just as Paul and the Gospels say:

Even at this early stage of the book, we see an important difference in John’s version of the Second Coming. John’s Jesus indeed comes with the clouds, but he seems to come not only in order to save Christians but also to enact revenge upon their enemies. Notice that “even those who pierced him” — that is, the Romans — will see him and all nations will cry because of his return, presumably because Jesus’ Second Coming signals the beginning of God’s ruthless wrath upon those who have oppressed his people.

John’s Jesus makes this revenge motif clear in Rev. 22:12 when he says “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.” This ruthless, warlike Jesus finds a culmination in Rev. 19:11-16:

Jewish apocalypticism has abundant images of war and violence like this, whether in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Books of Enoch. But while Christ as judge is common in Second Coming references, this is the most violent depiction of Jesus in the entire NT.

So what can we conclude from these references? First, belief in Jesus’ return probably began fairly soon after his death and resurrection. Most scholars agree that Paul’s conversion experience happened within 4-7 years of Jesus’ death. Since Paul was so adamant that Jesus would return, this puts a very early date on this belief. It is possible that Jesus’ disciples believed it right after his death. Whatever the case, it is clear from the NT references that the belief in Jesus returning was widespread among early Christians.

In addition, many early Christians seem to have believed that Jesus’ Second Coming was a fulfillment of prophecy, that just like the “one like a son of man” in Daniel, Jesus would come on the clouds to rule the world on God’s behalf.

The only place we find a possible difference in opinion is when we look at the bloodthirsty Jesus of Revelation. While Paul and the other NT authors certainly refer to God’s wrath at the end of days, none of them go into as much bloody, militaristic detail as John of Patmos. That is, while most believed Jesus would come back, there might have been some disagreement on what he would do after his return.

When Is Jesus Coming Back?

It’s safe to say that if Paul were alive today, he’d be completely shocked that Jesus has not yet returned. It turns out that he and his whole generation of early Christians were wrong about how soon the Second Coming would happen.

When is Jesus coming back? Although Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels say that human beings cannot know the exact time when Jesus will come back, this hasn’t stopped many, many people from trying to fix a date for that return in advance. Let’s look at some of those.

In 1532, a German monk and mathematician named Michael Stifel published an unusual tome called A Book of Arithmetic about the Antichrist: A Revelation in the Revelation. In this book, Stifel claimed to have applied his mathematical knowledge to the book of Revelation, coming up with a date and time when the world would end and Jesus would come: October 19, 1533. When this forecast proved wrong, Stifel ended his career as a predictor of the Second Coming.

In his book Prophets of Doom, Daniel Cohen writes about Johann Jacob Zimmermann, a German theologian who, in the 17th century, predicted that Jesus would return and the world would end in the year 1694. Conveniently, he died in 1693, never knowing that he had been wrong.

In the Rough Guide to the Millennium, Nick Hanna writes that famed 20th-century psychic Edgar Cayce predicted the end of the world and the return of Christ in the year 2000. Cayce died in 1945, long before his prophecy would fail.

When is Jesus coming back? A number of people in the past predicted that Jesus would return at a date that has yet to happen. For example, mathematician and physicist Sir Isaac Newton used a series of convoluted calculations to conclude that the apocalypse detailed in the book of Revelation, including Jesus’ return, would occur in the year 2060. We will see.

Conclusion

Christians have long believed that Jesus’ time here in the 1st century CE was only the first of his visits. They believe he will return to earth and, although there is some disagreement about what will happen after that, this will, in some sense, end the current world.

Paul is our earliest reference to the Second Coming of Christ. Whatever else he believed, he thought that Jesus’ resurrection was only the beginning of a general resurrection predicted by prophecy and believed in by many pious Jews of his time, including the Pharisees. It seems clear from Paul’s references, and the fact that he converted so soon after Jesus’ death, that this belief in Jesus’ Second Coming began very early in the movement.

The Gospels mostly follow suit, saying that Jesus will return as judge of the living and the dead, subsequently ruling the world on God’s behalf. The book of Hebrews also espouses this belief, although its author is a bit more vague in describing the actual events coinciding with Jesus’ return. Then there’s the book of Revelation.

In Revelation, Jesus indeed comes back — with a vengeance! He is riding a war horse, has a vicious, double-edged sword, and a garment dipped in blood. He is furious and John says that he slaughters the enemies of God, including the Romans who crucified Jesus and any other nations who have oppressed God’s people.

Since humans are never good at dealing with uncertainty, many throughout history have tried in vain to predict when Jesus would return. They did this in spite of the fact that both Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels say that only God can know.

Despite all these failed predictions, perhaps at heart the idea of Jesus’ return is a message of hope: Things may look bad now, but they’re going to get better.

Yom Kippur: History & Meaning of the Day of Atonement (2025)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Yom Kippur stands as a sacred date on the Jewish calendar, a time of deep reflection, repentance, and renewal. While many today recognize it as a solemn day marked by fasting and prayer, the roots of Yom Kippur stretch back thousands of years to the rituals of the ancient Israelite priesthood, described in striking detail in the Hebrew Bible.

So what is Yom Kippur? In this article, I’ll explain its multifaceted history and the evolving Yom Kippur meaning — from its biblical origins and priestly rituals of purification to its reinterpretation in early Christianity and its modern observance focused on personal introspection and ethical living. By tracing the journey of this holy day through Scripture, tradition, and transformation, we uncover how a single day can carry both ancient weight and contemporary relevance.

When is Yom Kippur 2025? This year it will start on Oct 1 at sundown and end at nightfall on Oct 2.

Yom Kippur’s Meaning

The name Yom Kippur, designating the highest of the Jewish holy days and celebrated on the 10th day of the 7th month of the Jewish calendar (the month of Tishrei), comes from the Hebrew Bible, specifically Leviticus 23:27 and 25:9 where it is called Yom Hakippurim (the -im ending indicates pluralization, or “Day of Atonements”). Marc Zvi Brettler points out that our translation of the word “kippur” as atonement actually comes from the Septuagint, the ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.

In the Septuagint, kippur is translated as ilasmou, which can mean atonement or seeking the favor of a god. The Latin version of the Hebrew Bible then translated the word as “expiationum,” or expiation, the process by which individuals take some action to have their sins forgiven. Brettler notes, however, that the original Hebrew word kippurim does not mean individual atonement or expiation.

The ritual and purpose of the Yom Kippur is described in detail in Leviticus 16. At the end of this description, God explains the reason the ritual must be performed annually:

Brettler explains that in this ritual, “the altar absorbs certain sins of the Israelites, and the main function of Yom Kippur is to cleanse these sins by using the blood of a purification offering (sometimes called a “sin offering”) as a type of ritual detergent.” For this reason, he says that the best translation of the Hebrew word kippur would be “purgation,” which “specifically refers to the purgation or cleansing of sins from the tabernacle or temple.”

Leviticus 16 explains other connected rituals too, including a scapegoat (a literal goat) that bears away the Israelites’ sins (more on this later). Brettler concludes that while Leviticus 16 certainly addresses the purging of sin, it is not related to individual repentance, as it would be later in Jewish history.

By the way, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are called the high holy days in Judaism. Rosh Hashanah is the Jewish New Year and believed to take place on the date when God created the world, according to Samuel Boyd. As such, it’s a time for celebration. The ten days following Rosh Hashanah are called the Days of Awe, culminating in the highly solemn and sacred Day of Atonement.

Next, let’s discuss Yom Kippur’s relation to the New Testament.

The Day of Atonement in the New Testament

In The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra writes that since much of the New Testament was written after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, and since the Yom Kippur sacrifices were only to be made in the Temple, many Jews were rethinking the importance of the original ritual. This included some of the NT’s authors, some of whom characterized Jesus’ death as a Yom Kippur sacrifice. However, other NT authors, such as Paul, who was writing before the destruction of the Temple, had already begun to make this connection.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

For example, in Romans 3:23-25, Paul writes that

Similarly, in Galatians 1:4, Paul talks about Jesus “who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.” Finally, in the most explicit reference to Jesus as the Yom Kippur sacrifice, in Hebrews 9:11-14, the anonymous author writes that Jesus was both the priest performing the sacrificial rite, and the sacrifice itself:

In addition, Hebrews 10:10 says that while the Yom Kippur sacrifices had to be made every year, those who believe in Jesus “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Having explored the history of Yom Kippur, both for Judaism and Christianity, let’s look at how the original ritual was performed and what is done today.

The Ancient Ritual of Yom Kippur

A week before the ancient rite of Yom Kippur in the Temple in Jerusalem, the High Priest would live in a special chamber in the Temple to spiritually prepare himself for the Day of Atonement. On the day of Yom Kippur, he would enter the Holy of Holies, a special chamber closed off with a curtain and containing an altar. This was the place where God’s presence was believed to dwell within the Temple. Only the High Priest could enter this chamber, and only on the Day of Atonement.

On Yom Kippur, three different types of sacrificial services were performed. First, the regular daily offering which was offered every day of the year. Numbers 28:3-8 describes what was offered to God in this ritual:

Next came the Mussaf, or additional sacrifice for special days, described in Numbers 29:7-11:

Finally, the official Yom Kippur service, described in Leviticus 16, was performed. First, the high priest would donate one young bull for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. Then the people would give the priest two goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering. One of the goats would be sacrificed as atonement for the collective sins of the people while the other would be designated the scapegoat. Leviticus 16:21-22, describing Moses’ brother Aaron as the first high priest, explains what is to be done with the scapegoat:

With the sins of the people symbolically carried away by the scapegoat, the people and the Temple were purified for another year. However, once the Temple was destroyed, the Yom Kippur ritual necessarily changed, both in significance and in practice. How is the day celebrated by modern Jewish people and what does it mean now?

Modern Day of Atonement: What Do You Say on Yom Kippur?

While the Day of Atonement in the ancient world focused on purifying the collective Jewish people and their Temple of sins, modern Jewish denominations focus more on individual repentance for sins and trying to live more ethically in the future.

The website ReformJudaism.org notes that the modern practices of Yom Kippur focus on three principles. The first is t’shuvah or repentance, the recognition of what one has done wrong and the intention to do better. The second is t’filah or prayer, bringing one closer to God. The third is tzedakah, which means justice or righteousness and refers specifically to charitable giving. With these three combined, Jews believe they can atone for past wrongs and strive to be better in the future.

Leviticus 16 states that before the rituals of Yom Kippur, people must practice self-denial. For modern Jews, this means abstaining for 24 hours from eating or drinking, from wearing leather, from showering or shaving, from putting on perfumes or lotions, and from sexual relations. Keep in mind that this 24 hours is counted from sundown the day before the holiday until sundown the next day, in accordance with ancient Jewish timekeeping practices.

Additionally, many Jews wear white on Yom Kippur. ReformJudaism.org notes that for some this symbolizes purity, while for others it represents the shroud in which the dead are buried, a reminder to remain humble and repent.

At home, a final meal is eaten before sundown followed by a candle lighting to initiate the Yom Kippur fast. Many also make sure to do some form of charitable giving before going to the synagogue.

At the synagogue, there is a long series of services. Not everyone attends them all, but most religious Jews go to at least some. The first service happens the evening before the Day of Atonement and is called Kol Nidre, meaning “all vows.” It is a special liturgy only performed on Yom Kippur in a mix of Aramaic and Hebrew. Its purpose is to annul any unintended vows made to God and is repeated three times.

The services also include multiple readings from the Torah, and even a memorial service for deceased loved ones, vowing to let their memory inspire the living to be the best people they can be in the coming year.

Additionally, the congregation recites a prayer called Al Cheit, a prayer of confession that recounts the sins of the past year. Implied in this is repentance and the intention not to repeat these mistakes in the coming year.

Finally, at the end of Yom Kippur, the shofar, a ritual horn made from a ram’s horn, is blown to signal the end of the Day of Atonement and the fast is broken.

Conclusion

For Jews, past and present, Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the year. It is celebrated on the 10th day of the month of Tishrei in the Jewish calendar and signifies purification from the sins that would displease God.

The original Day of Atonement can be found in the Hebrew Bible, especially Leviticus 16. It included burnt offerings and a ritual in which a goat, the scapegoat, was symbolically loaded with the sins of the people and sent away, signifying that the sins no longer existed.

Some early Christians, such as the author of the book of Hebrews, saw Jesus as the new form of the Yom Kippur sacrifice, a sacrifice which he saw not as an annual necessity but as a one-time offering that wiped away sin forever for those who believed.

While the original rituals with burnt offerings were performed in the Temple, new traditions arose after its destruction. Modern Jews fast and abstain from luxuries like bathing and the wearing of leather on the day of Yom Kippur. They also spend a long time in prayer and liturgy at the synagogue. At the end of the day, the shofar is blown, signifying both the end of the holiday and the successful completion of the required repentance.

Did the Jews Kill (or Hate) Jesus? Learn the Truth!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Did the Jews kill Jesus? Few questions in Christian history have been as fraught with misunderstanding — and as devastating in their consequences — as that accusation. For centuries, this claim has fueled antisemitism, violence, and deep divisions between Christianity and Judaism. But does the New Testament discuss a Jewish deicide? If so, was it the murder of God? Who were “the Jews” in the Gospel narratives, and how should we understand that term today? The answer lies not just in theology or tradition, but in language, context, and history.

In this article, I’ll explore what the Gospels really meant when they referred to the Jews, how these texts have been interpreted (and misinterpreted), and, ultimately, who was truly responsible for Jesus’ death.

The deicide definition from Merriam-Webster is an event that kills a divine being or symbolic substitute of that being. However, even that descriptor is complicated since individuals and groups attribute different characteristics to Jesus depending on if they view him as a divine being, merely a historical figure, or neither.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Etymology: Who Are “the Jews” in the Gospels?

The Greek word translated into English as “Jews” in the New Testament is Ioudaioi. The problem with translating this word properly is that there are two distinct possibilities. For example, while “Jews” is one overarching option, the word technically meant “a person who resides in or is from the region of Judea,” the region in Palestine where Jerusalem was located. This would mean, of course, that Jesus — who came from the region of Galilee — might not have been classified as one of the Ioudaioi, but rather as a Galilean (Greek: Galilaios).

However, Adele Reinhartz points out that the issue of whether to translate Ioudaioi as “Jews” or “Judeans” is quite complicated. She notes that some scholars prefer “Judeans” because translating the word as “Jews” can fuel anti-Jewish biases. On the other hand, we have ancient references to some people called Ioudaioi who had no direct association with Judea, thus signaling a group identity outside of regionalism. Reinhartz finally concludes that

For this reason, most scholars and Bible translations still translate the word as “Jews.”

While there are certainly some positive references to the Ioudaioi  in the New Testament — see John 4:22, for instance, where Jesus says salvation originates with them — there are an overwhelming number of negative allusions to them as well. Let’s look at some of these examples.

References to the Jews in the New Testament

In the Gospel of Mark, there is really only one explicit reference to “the Jews” (if we leave out the multiple times Jesus is accused of saying he was “King of the Jews”). It appears in Mark 7:3, in which the Pharisees reproach Jesus’ disciples for eating without washing their hands for the purpose of ritual purity. The author then explains that “the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders…”

This is a mildly negative reference, since Jesus’ next words scold the Pharisees for caring more about outward purity than inward purification. Finally in Mark 15, we see that Jesus, having been arrested by the Jewish leaders known as the Sanhedrin, is handed over to Pilate to be killed.

However, it’s in Matthew’s Gospel that we begin to see the most damaging portraits of “the Jews.” This is odd, in a way, since Matthew is generally considered the most Jewish of the four Gospels.

Like Mark, Matthew’s explicit use of the word Ioudaioi is basically limited to the charge “King of the Jews” which accusers say Jesus has claimed for himself. However, in a scene just before his crucifixion, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, about to hand Jesus over to be crucified, washes his hands, symbolically claiming to be innocent of Jesus’ blood. The crowd, who in Jerusalem must have been mostly Jews, says “His blood be on us and on our children!” This line has been used for centuries to justify all forms of antisemitism. Not only do the Jewish leaders hand Jesus over in Matthew, but even the Jewish laypeople demand his blood.

Even worse are the references to the Jews in the Gospel of John. We see them persecuting Jesus in 5:16 and plotting to kill him in 5:18. In 8:44, Jesus describes them as the children of the devil, while in John 7:12-14, we see that the people (who, again, are predominantly Jewish themselves) are afraid of the Jews:

As in the other Gospels, Pilate is reluctant to kill Jesus in John, but when the Jews insist on his execution, Pilate acquiesces. I’ve written before about how unlikely this scenario is, based on our knowledge of the ruthlessness of Pilate and how little he cared about Jewish opinions, despite what the Gospel of John says.

Since the authors of Matthew and John (and possibly the author of Mark) were Jews themselves, what is going on here?

The Intended Meaning of Ioudaioi

In The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context, Lars Kierspel notes that the scholarly consensus is that all the references to “the Jews” in the Gospels refer only to the Jewish religious leaders. Furthermore, in The Gospel and Letters of John, Alan Culpepper notes that in some cases, translating Ioudaioi merely as “the Jews,” indicating all Jews, doesn’t entirely make sense:

As for the disturbing line in Matthew attributing guilt collectively to the Jews for Jesus’ death, there was something else going on there (this is not to deny the horrible effects of the misinterpretation of that line throughout history). In the Jewish Annotated New Testament, Aaron Gale writes that since the author of Matthew was writing years after the destruction of the Temple and the devastation of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, he was likely indicating that this destruction was a punishment for the Jewish people’s later refusal to accept that Jesus was the Messiah.

Now that we’ve looked at the literary aspects of whether the Jews killed Jesus, let’s look at the historical aspect. Was Jesus hated by the Jews, and if so, were they responsible for his death?

Did the Jews Hate Jesus?

Having clarified the meanings of Ioudaioi (Jews, residents of Judea, or Jewish religious leaders) in the Gospels, can we answer the question of whether the Jews hated Jesus during his lifetime? If we follow the Gospel narratives here, it seems there was a mixed reaction.

When it comes to the Pharisees and other religious leaders, we definitely see examples of hatred for Jesus in the Gospels, to the point of wanting to kill him (see John 11:53, for example). However, crowds of Jewish people seem to have loved Jesus. When he entered Jerusalem, for instance, Matthew 21:9  says he received a king’s reception:

Moreover, in Mark 2:1-12, it’s clear that huge crowds followed him adoringly, both to be healed and to hear his message. The question of whether ALL Jews hated Jesus is overly broad, and the answer is clearly no. So, did the Jews kill Jesus?

Who Killed Jesus and Why?

Why was Jesus killed? Many people throughout Christian history have tried to answer this question. Was he executed because he committed blasphemy, offending the Jewish leaders? Was he killed because he created a ruckus in the Temple? What was the real reason he was hung on a cross?

First, who, in Jesus’ time, regularly used crucifixion as a method of capital punishment? John Granger Cook notes that while the Persians and Carthaginians did, the people best known for it in the ancient world were the Romans. For this reason, Kaufman Kohler and Emil Hirsch write that  “The mode and manner of Jesus' death undoubtedly point to Roman customs and laws as the directive power.” So did the Romans kill Jesus?

Furthermore, Kohler and Hirsch note that “Among the modes of capital punishment known to the Jewish penal law, crucifixion is not found.” In other words, the only possible answer for who crucified Jesus was the Romans, not the Jews.

However, this leaves us the question of why the Romans would have executed Jesus. Why would they have considered him dangerous enough to kill?

In all four Gospels, the charge put on the cross over Jesus’ head to indicate his crime says one thing: “King of the Jews.” What this likely means is that Jesus had indeed claimed to be the true King of the Jews. As Bart Ehrman writes, “Anyone else who claimed to be king was usurping Roman prerogatives and was seen as a threat, or if not a threat, at least a public nuisance.  Romans had ways of dealing with lower-class peasants who were troublemakers and public nuisances.” This claim was a political crime, a form of sedition against Rome, for which the punishment would always be crucifixion.

Rome didn’t care about Jewish conceptions of blasphemy or conflicts between different Jewish groups. They only cared about threats to Roman rule.

The Jews, however defined, didn’t kill Jesus. The Romans did.

Conclusion

For millennia, Jews have been mistreated by Christians who believed they were justified in their behavior since “the Bible said that the Jews killed Jesus.” Despite the obvious horrors this interpretation caused, accurate readings of biblical texts rule that possibility out.

Ioudaioi, the Greek term usually translated as “Jews,” could also mean residents or natives of the region of Judea in southern Palestine. However, it’s clear that, in the Gospels, there are plenty of negative references to Ioudaioi that need explanation.

The Gospel of Mark characterizes the Jews as those who care more about the outward purity while Jesus and his followers prioritize inward, moral purity. In Matthew, a crowd of Jews scream for Jesus’ death while voluntarily taking responsibility for it. This line has caused more antisemitic reactions than any other in the Bible. In John, meanwhile, the Jews persecute Jesus and plot to kill him. But there is more here than meets the eye.

It's clear to most scholars that most of the references to “the Jews” in these writings refer only to the Jewish religious leaders. Translating every reference as “the Jews” is also nonsensical in some passages, such as when a crowd of Jews is afraid of “the Jews.” This is not to negate the centuries of suffering perpetrated upon Jews by misinterpretations of the texts.

Finally, it’s clear, both from the method of execution and the political charge, that Jesus was killed by the Romans. Although he never says it explicitly in the Gospels, he probably did call himself “King of the Jews,” a title which smacked of sedition to Rome, and likely brought the force of the occupying Roman powers down on his head.

Did the Jews kill Jesus? No. Jesus was definitely killed by the Romans.

Was Jesus (Really) a Carpenter? Maybe Not!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Was Jesus a carpenter? The image of Jesus as a humble carpenter has become deeply ingrained in Christian tradition, exemplifying his connection to everyday working people and his unassuming origins. But how solid is the biblical foundation for this familiar portrayal? What did the term “carpenter” mean in the ancient world? Could it just as easily refer to another kind of manual labor if we explore Greek translations? And what does Jesus’ possible trade tell us about his social status and the world he inhabited?

In this article I’ll examine the evidence — biblical, linguistic, and archaeological — to explore what it really means to say Jesus was a carpenter, and whether that title is supported by the historical record.

Where in the Bible Does It Say Jesus was a Carpenter?

Unfortunately, our evidence for Jesus being a carpenter is extremely scanty, comprised of only two terse references, in fact. Mark, our earliest written Gospel, gives us the clearest evidence, in 6:2-3. In these verses, Jesus and his disciples visit Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth. On the Sabbath, Jesus goes into the synagogue and teaches, prompting amazement and resentment from the locals among whom he had been raised:

The shock and indignance of Jesus’ hometown crowd seems to indicate two things. First, they did not remember him as being particularly wise or impressive when he lived there as a child and young man. They even name his family members as if to say, “He was just a normal local boy. What happened to him?”

Second, they remember him as having a particular profession, a carpenter in most English translations (more on that later). The fact the locals are surprised that a carpenter can be so extraordinary seems to indicate people in that profession were not expected to be sages or religious teachers. In other words, carpentry was not considered a high-status job.

Scholars know that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, written at least a decade after Mark, used Mark as a principal source, changing some details and often adding new ones. In this case, Matthew 13:54-56 tells the same story of Jesus being rejected by the people of his hometown, but changes slightly how they remember him:

How do we account for the difference between “carpenter” in Mark and “the carpenter’s son” in Matthew? One possibility is that while Mark felt comfortable saying that Jesus had been a carpenter, traditions about Jesus tended to exalt him more and more over the years. So, by the time Matthew was written, it seemed impossible for Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God, to have such a humble profession himself. Either way, in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, John Dominic Crossan notes that, in some ways, the two assertions amount to the same thing, since in the ancient world, sons almost always did the same work as their fathers.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

These verses in Mark and Matthew are all the biblical evidence there is for Jesus as a carpenter. Luke and John don’t talk about it, nor does Paul or any other NT author. For this reason, in order to determine the likelihood that Jesus really was a carpenter before beginning his ministry, we’ll need to do some historical work, first on the etymology of the original Greek word translated as carpenter and then on the economy of ancient Roman Palestine.

Was Jesus a Carpenter or Something Else?

The biblical Greek word usually translated as carpenter is tektōn. While “carpenter” is certainly one possible translation, there are others, opening up possibilities for what Jesus’ early profession might have been. A look into the Cambridge Greek Lexicon shows us that while tektōn can mean “a builder in wood, or a joiner,” it can also mean “a skilled worker in other materials, a craftsman.” This could include being a stonemason or even a sculptor. While it’s unlikely (as we will see) that someone raised in Nazareth would be a professional sculptor, it is entirely possible he was a stonemason.

However, whether we translate the word as carpenter or stonemason, we should be wary of importing modern ideas about those professions onto their ancient counterparts. In the modern world, a carpenter is a skilled, lucrative, and respected middle-class profession. But Crossan says this wasn’t the case in Jesus’ time and place. He notes that in Roman-controlled Palestine, economic inequality was brutal, and that the social distinction between rich and poor often meant distinguishing between those who had to work with their hands (the poor) and those who didn’t (the elite).

It's not that carpenters and stonemasons were not skilled. It’s just that in the ancient hierarchy of skills, manual labor was always less valued by the elite, those in control, than mental labor. In other words, carpenters and stonemasons generally lived in poverty, a hand-to-mouth existence. To understand this further, let’s look at the economy of ancient Palestine and, specifically, that of a tiny hamlet like Nazareth.

It’s About the Economy!

In The New Testament World, Bruce J. Malina writes that Palestine and other Roman provinces were “a nearly perfect example of what anthropologists call classic peasant society: a set of villages socially bound up with administrative preindustrial cities.” In his book Jesus and the Peasants, Douglas Oakman defines what this meant:

So peasants were those who labored constantly but could never get ahead because so much of the fruits of their labor were given, usually through taxation, to wealthy landowners who typically lived in large cities such as Jerusalem. And as we’ll see, Nazareth was most definitely a small village, not a city.

First-century Palestine was a typical agrarian society. In Christian Origins: A People's History Of Christianity, Steven Friesen explains that this means wealth was almost completely based on land ownership and that most of the land was controlled by a tiny number of elite families. The wealth of these families also meant they had undue influence on the politics of the region, allowing them to profit from taxation of the peasantry as well.

Friesen estimates that 40% of people in the Roman provinces, including Palestine, lived “at subsistence level and often below minimum level to sustain life.” Among those in this situation, Friesen places small families of farmers, laborers (skilled and unskilled), artisans (such as carpenters or stonemasons), and fishermen. If indeed Jesus was a carpenter or stonemason, he and his family were barely able to keep their heads above water.

In a rural village like Nazareth, were carpentry or masonry common professions? In Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity, Eric Meyers and James Strange note that Nazareth in Jesus’ time was a village of only 400-500 people. It was so small, in fact, that it’s not even mentioned in Jewish sources until the 3rd century CE, according to an article by James Strange in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

While many people in small villages worked as fishermen, Nazareth was 23 miles from the Mediterranean Sea and 19 miles from the Sea of Galilee, making it all but impossible to commute daily on foot. Instead, people from Nazareth would probably have been either artisans or workers on surrounding farms.

While people have speculated for years that Jesus did his early carpentry in the nearby city of Sepphoris, a significantly larger and more Roman-influenced town than Nazareth, recent archeology puts that conclusion in doubt. Archeologist Ken Dark writes that the Galilean region which included Nazareth “was unusual for the strength of its anti-Roman sentiment and/or the strength of its Jewish identity.” Furthermore, he notes that the archeological evidence shows that it’s likely that “there was no close connection between Nazareth and Sepphoris in the Early Roman period.”

If Jesus was indeed a carpenter, what kind of work would he have done in and around Nazareth? In her book Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament, Sabine R. Heubner writes that ancient carpenters made many items for local people, including wagons, yokes for oxen, oil mills, and boats. These would have been useful for the Galilean peasantry and did not require any contact with Roman forces or culture.

Heubner also says that while it’s difficult to know how much a carpenter was generally paid, since elite writers paid little attention to the lower classes, an ancient lease agreement for an oil mill shows that the carpenter that worked on it received 50 denarii a month working for an elite owner. When working for poor farmers or tradespeople, though, carpenters might have merely traded their services for goods or services they needed.

In other words, in a village as small as Nazareth, it is plausible that Jesus could have grown up to be a carpenter. In addition, since carpentry was not a high-status profession in the ancient world, it seems difficult to imagine that the author of Mark would invent this detail for Jesus. Instead, it’s likely that memories of Jesus’ humble origins had long circulated and thus, his early life as a tradesman was common knowledge.

Some common misconceptions are that Jesus was a fisherman or shepherd. We already established earlier that it was unlikely he was a fisherman due to  geographic reasons. Although the New Testament calls him “the Good Shepherd (John 10:11),” this is a metaphorical title and there is no evidence that Jesus himself was a shepherd.

Conclusion

Was Jesus a carpenter? Our analysis began with the unfortunate fact that there are only two references in the entire New Testament indicating this possibility. In Mark, he is called “the carpenter” by the people among whom he grew up. In Matthew, this is changed to “the carpenter’s son.” However, that is an almost meaningless distinction since the son of a carpenter would, in normal circumstances, have been a carpenter as well. What other evidence is there, then, that Jesus could have been a carpenter?

Etymologically, the Greek word translated as carpenter — tektōn — denoted a skilled builder who could have worked with wood, but also possibly with stone or other materials. Both carpenters and stonemasons were ubiquitous in the ancient world, so either is possible as a correct translation.

While we may think of carpenters as skilled, highly-respectable professionals, in the ancient world they would have been consigned by the elite to that massive lower echelon of the economy reserved for those who worked with their hands. If Jesus was a carpenter, he was not a member of the elite. Instead, he and his family would have lived at a subsistence level.

Finally, having seen that Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown, was a tiny village located far from large bodies of water, it is likely that a young man would have been involved in a trade such as carpentry or masonry in order to make a living. We can never be entirely certain, but there is no reason not to believe Jesus was a carpenter before his ministry began.

Biblical Inerrancy: Does the Bible Have Mistakes?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Few topics stir as much debate within Christian theology as the question of whether the Bible is completely without error. But what exactly qualifies as an “error”? Are we talking about contradictions, historical inaccuracies, or theological missteps? Which errors in the Bible matter most? And how have Christians throughout history understood these supposed flaws?

Understanding biblical inerrancy isn’t just about theology; it also touches on how we read ancient texts, approach questions of truth, and navigate the relationship between faith and reason. In this article, we’ll grasp what’s really at stake, exploring how the idea of biblical inerrancy developed and why it still matters today.

What Does Biblical Inerrancy Mean?

Inerrancy simply means without mistakes. The most basic definition of biblical inerrancy, then, is the notion that the Bible is entirely without errors. But what kind of errors? Do we mean untruths, contradictions, grammar mistakes, all of the above? It may seem like a simple point, but defining what is meant by errors in a biblical context is crucial for understanding the definitions of biblical inerrancy.

Unsurprisingly, there are many definitions of what qualifies as an error in a biblical context. But to understand these different ideas, we need to look at a little history.

By the way, perceived errors in Scripture come from many different causes. For example, ancient writers’ scientific knowledge was very limited, leading to errors of fact about natural phenomena. Additionally, since ancient writings were copied by hand, scribes could inadvertently (or sometimes purposely) make changes to an original writing. Finally, events could not be recorded as they were happening, as they often are now. So, writing about an occurrence long after it happened depended on memory and word of mouth, which we know to be unreliable at least some of the time. 

History of the Idea of the Inerrancy of Scripture

A New Testament verse that would become key to the notion of biblical inerrancy can be found in 2 Timothy 3:16, which says “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” First of all, keep in mind that “Scripture” for the earliest Christians was simply the Hebrew Bible. Now let’s unpack this verse a little.

While the word “inspired” is a standard English translation of the original Greek, it turns out that the author, who claims to be Paul but was actually a later author writing in Paul’s name, used a Greek word that was a little more obscure than the English word “inspired.” That word was theopneustos.

This word is an adjective which literally means “God-breathed” and occurs only once in the entire Bible. How is this different from the usual understanding of the verse? When some  Christians say that the biblical writings and/or writers were inspired by God, they seem to think it was either a process of dictation, with God telling them exactly what words to write, or that the biblical authors were somehow guided by God to write what they did. This idea certainly implies that Scripture is without error since God is assumed to be incapable of making mistakes.

However, “God-breathed” probably had a different meaning for the author of 2 Timothy. Recall the second creation story from Genesis 2:7 where Adam is created:

Adam was formed from lifeless earth, only coming to life when God formed him and filled him with his divine breath. This is likely what the author of 2 Timothy was referring to, the notion that God’s breath breathes life into something. For this reason, John Poirier, in his book The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture, argues that a better translation of theopneustos would be “life-giving.”

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Given this translation, could we still say that Scripture was error-free? Yes, but it may seem less mandatory given that the words themselves did not necessarily come from God but can nevertheless be filled with life in which the reader can partake.

Origen of Alexandria, a 3rd-century Christian philosopher, freely admitted that there were discrepancies in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, with details often contradicting each other. However, rather than argue that they could all be explained away, he discounted these differences which he believed had no great theological significance. 

As he writes in his Commentary on the Gospel According to John, "let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things."

Similarly, 4th-century bishop John Chrysostom wrote in his Homilies on Matthew that while there were errors of fact in the Gospels, they were not important:

However, it was foundational bishop and theologian Augustine of Hippo who seems to have laid the groundwork for the modern idea of biblical inerrancy. In a letter to Jerome, Augustine outlined his reasoning:

In other words, Augustine believed that if Christians admitted that there was even one error of any kind in the Bible, the whole book would cease to be authoritative. To see how this idea would catch on, we need to jump ahead to the rise of Protestantism and beyond.

Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin seem to have agreed with Origen and Chrysostom that discrepancies related to history in the Bible were common and completely unimportant. That is, they did not affect the theological matters on which they agreed the Bible had no errors.

However, with the rise of science and biblical criticism in the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible stories such as the biblical flood began to be seen by many as fables rather than facts. This would lead to a stern reaction by conservative Christians in the 20th century.

Modern Biblical Inerrancy

In 1978, at a meeting of 200 conservative evangelical leaders, a broad statement, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, was produced. Among many articles of affirmation and denial, the statement contains the following assertions:

In other words, the Bible is absolutely correct about everything it addresses, including matters of history. This, of course, disagreed with prevailing scholarly views on the Bible, which was, in many ways, the whole point. Unlike Origen, Chrysostom, Luther, and Calvin, the evangelical leaders who produced the statement wrote that errors of any kind in the Bible are literally impossible. I say literally, because this virtually did away with any notion of allegorical or metaphorical readings, which had been common in Christianity since ancient times.

In Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Norman Geisler and William Roach explain inerrancy as the notion that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching." Meanwhile, evangelical author Wayne Grudem in his book Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine adds that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact." But do we have those original manuscripts?

One thing that these two books and the Chicago Statement have in common is that they refer specifically to the original manuscripts of the Bible, the texts first inspired by God and written by their authors before being copied through the centuries. The problem, however, is that we don’t have a single original manuscript of any biblical book. 

We have, as you might expect, copies of copies of copies, ad infinitum. Biblical inerrantists, however, are comfortable with this, confident that the original meanings “in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.” This may or may not be entirely true, but it has become an important article of faith among those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

What larger effect can belief in the total inerrancy of the Bible have? One big example will suffice to show the impacts.

The Scopes Trial

In 1925, a Tennessee high school teacher named John T. Scopes was accused of violating a state law known as the Butler Act, which prohibited teaching evolution in schools because it contradicted the creation story in the Bible. Scopes had apparently defied the act purposely in order to mount a legal challenge against the Butler Act. He was defended in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The very public trial pitted modernist Christians, who claimed one could believe in science and evolution and still be a Christian and value the Bible, against fundamentalist Christians who insisted on the literal truth of every fact in the Bible, defending inerrancy. Keep in mind that the Butler Act, and thus the trial itself, could never have happened had not some Christians come to believe in the perfect inerrancy of the Bible on all matters.

Ultimately, since the law had already been passed and Scopes had knowingly violated it, the judge ruled against him, fining him $100. However, in his post-trial statement to the judge, Scopes said this:

This example simply goes to show that beliefs do real work in the world, for good or for ill. By the way, while many evangelicals and other conservative Christians still affirm biblical inerrancy, not every denomination does. Let’s take a look at other views on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Differing Christian Views on Biblical Inerrancy

The Catholic Church, for example, teaches that matters of history in the Bible need not be inerrant, although matters of theological significance are. For that reason, Pope Paul VI in his dogmatic constitution on divine revelation known as Dei Verbum, writes that although the Bible is without error in regard to its teachings on salvation, narrative histories and depictions of natural occurrences are not held to be inerrant, instead merely replicating the language and understanding ancient writers.

Similarly, in his book Credible Christianity: The Gospel in Contemporary Society, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore writes that since modern people can see evident errors in the Bible and since the biblical canon took so long to form and finally close, it seems unlikely that it could be without errors. Moreover, he notes that the various books of the Bible were not written to recount events but to “promote a higher truth — the relationship of one people and their God.”

Finally, in his book The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology without Weapons, Gary Dorrien says that the notion of biblical inerrancy can be seen as idolatry, worshipping the Bible above its supposed divine source. Instead, Dorrien recommends taking the Bible, mistakes and all, for what it is and keeping the focus on God.

Conclusion

Biblical Inerrancy is the doctrine which insists that the Bible is completely free from errors. However, it’s clear that throughout the history of Christianity, some errors have mattered more than others.

The verse from 2 Timothy which affirms that “all Scripture is inspired by God” is often seen as the basis for a concept of biblical inerrancy. How could God have made mistakes? However, the word usually translated as “inspired” literally means “God-breathed” and likely was meant to mean “life-giving.” If so, this idea says nothing about whether there can be errors of any kind in Scripture.

Some of the earliest Christian authors said that errors of history in the Bible, including major discrepancies between Gospel stories, were unimportant, the theological and spiritual material taking precedence. With the exception of Augustine of Hippo, this seems to have been the majority position until the modern era.

However, in the 20th century, conservative Christians began to assert, with ever-growing vehemence, that even the history and depictions of natural phenomena in the Bible had to be literally true. This ultimately produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, a document which is held sacred by many evangelicals and other conservative denominations.

Despite this position, many other Christian denominations do not insist on the inerrancy of the Bible, freely admitting contradictions and mistakes while still remaining faithful to its messages on salvation and other topics.

John in the Bible: Life, Death & Interesting Facts

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The Apostle John is traditionally known as one of Jesus’ original twelve disciples and a member of his inner circle. Yet, despite his high status among the apostles and his close relationship with Jesus, much about John remains shrouded in mystery — including whether he actually authored the Gospel that bears his name.

Who was John in the Bible? In this article, I’ll explore what the Bible says about John, how he came to be viewed as a foundational leader in the early church, and whether he could have written one of the theologically richest texts in the Christian canon.

Who Was John in the Bible?

In the New Testament, John is said to have been one of Jesus’ original disciples. He was both a disciple, a follower of a wise person, and an apostle, one who is sent, in that Jesus sent him to preach the gospel to the world.

His name, in his native Aramaic language, would have been Yochanan which means “Yahweh is gracious.” The Greek form, since Greek is the language of the New Testament, was Iōannēs. This was a common Jewish name in Jesus’ time, so this was not the only instance of a John in the Bible. There are several other prominent Johns in the New Testament besides the apostle, including John the Baptist, John Mark (Acts 12:12), and John of Patmos, who wrote the book of Revelation.

John the Apostle is first referred to, chronologically speaking, in Mark 3:17 where Jesus calls his original 12 disciples, who are said to include “James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder).” Unfortunately, we are never told why Jesus calls the brothers this, only that he did.

As we’ll see, in Matthew, Jesus first encounters John in the Bible by the sea of Galilee. Since most ancient people lived and died in one area, he was probably born and raised in Galilee, the same region where Jesus was from. He was probably also born around the turn of the 1st century CE, like Jesus, although he is traditionally said to have been the youngest apostle.

Matthew 4:21 gives us a bit more information about John in the Bible: “Going on from there, He [Jesus] saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets.” So John was apparently a fisherman, as were his brother and their father. It was the family business, so to speak. Luke 5:10 says that Simon Peter was their partner in the endeavor.

Alicia Batten writes that the life of a fisherman in Jesus’ time, a time when Israel was controlled economically by the Roman Empire, was no picnic.

Don’t get the wrong idea, though, from my use of the word “business” above. Fishermen were very poor, usually living hand to mouth, and therefore almost certainly uneducated. More on that later.

Oddly enough, the Gospel of John makes no explicit mention of John the Apostle, although it does mention unnamed “sons of Zebedee.” The Beloved Disciple, found only in the Gospel of John and traditionally assumed to be John, is never actually named.

We are also shown in the Synoptic Gospels that John in the Bible was one of the most prominent disciples, along with his brother James and Peter. How do we know this? Jesus sets these three apart for special experiences with him. In Mark 9:2-10, for example, Jesus specifically takes James, John, and Peter with him to the top of a mountain where his glory is revealed only to them, an episode known as the Transfiguration.

Similarly, in the Garden of Gethsemane before Jesus is arrested, Mark 14:33-34 says that he tells most of the disciples to sit and pray while he goes to another place to pray himself. However, he doesn’t go alone:

Even in his greatest anguish, Jesus wanted these three with him. Whether or not these incidents are historical, they indicate that John in the Bible was considered one of the most important apostles in the early Church.

Even Paul mentions the importance of these three in the Jerusalem church, saying this in Galatians 2:9:

Not only did Paul meet John the Apostle, but he recognized that John was one of the “acknowledged leaders” of the church (Galatians 2:2).

How did John die? Church tradition has long said that John was the only one of the 12 disciples who was not martyred. However, since we don’t have any historical information on him after Paul’s letter to the Galatians (written between the late 40s and early 50s CE), we really can’t know how or when he died. Nevertheless, if John in the Bible was around the same age as Jesus, he died sometime after the early 50s, making him at least 50 years old at his death.

Let’s summarize what we know so far: John the Apostle was the brother of James and the son of Zebedee, he was a fisherman living in Galilee when he met Jesus, who called him and his brother “Sons of Thunder,” although the Gospels never say why. Finally, he was one of the three most important leaders of the early church after Jesus’ death, acknowledged by Paul as such and by the Gospels as having been present at some of the most important moments of Jesus’ life.

Did John the Apostle Write the Gospel of John?

Church tradition has long held that John the Apostle was the author of the Gospel of John. Additionally, as I mentioned above, he has often been assumed to be the unnamed Beloved Disciple who is so favorably mentioned in the Gospel. But is this accurate? What evidence do we have to prove or disprove this theory?

There are several reasons for thinking that the Apostle John could not have written the Gospel of John. First, the Gospel of John, like the other three Gospels, was originally written anonymously, with the title added much later. How do we know this? In The Women's Bible Commentary, Carol Newsom notes that the oldest manuscripts we have of John contain no title or authorial information. Again, like the other Gospels, the author did not apparently care about claiming authorship. We’ll talk below about how later people ascribed the book to John.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Second, it is highly unlikely that a Galilean fisherman in Jesus’ time would have been literate. In her book Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, Catherine Hezser, who wrote the definitive study on the topic, concludes that Jewish literacy in Jesus’ time hovered around 3%. That is, only 3% of all Jews in Palestine could read and/or write in their own language of Aramaic. Who would those 3% have been? They would certainly have been the elite, the wealthiest citizens who could afford an education and who had the leisure time to learn. The vast majority of other Palestinian Jews lived as poor laborers, John the Apostle included. It is therefore highly unlikely that he would have had the necessary knowledge to write a book.

Given that, is it likely that St. John could have not only written a book but written it in Greek? While we have some Aramaic writings from Palestine in the time of Jesus, we have no Greek writings written by Palestinian Jews during Jesus’ lifetime. In fact, Bart Ehrman points out that we only have one set of writings in Greek by a Palestinian Jew, the historian Josephus, from the entire 1st century CE. Josephus was from that top 3% class and even he admits it was difficult for him to learn Greek.

Ehrman also points out that even if John had learned some functional Greek on later missionary journeys, this would surely not have been sufficient to write an entire book in Greek. Writing a book requires years of schooling and, as I pointed out, John probably had none. How then, did Christians come to believe that John the Apostle had written the fourth Gospel?

How an Anonymous Gospel Became The Gospel of St. John

In the Gospel of John, there are several references to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20). In John 21:24, the author writes this about this Beloved Disciple: “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.” Note that he doesn’t say that the disciple himself is the author of the book. Rather, the author says he used this disciple’s stories as source material, and that “we” — presumably the Christian community for whom the book was written — trust the word of this disciple.

But since the Beloved Disciple is never named, later Christians were forced to speculate about who he was. While the Gospel of John never even mentioned John the Apostle by name, the other Gospels and Paul did. As I pointed out earlier, John in the Bible was part of Jesus’ inner circle in the Gospels. Christians, knowing that Peter was not the Beloved Disciple since they were distinguished from each other in John’s Gospel, were left with either James or John as possibilities. However, they thought it probably wasn’t James because according to Acts 12:1-2, James was martyred quite early in the history of the church. Therefore, the Beloved Disciple must have been John.

The first Christian author to claim this was Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies, written around 185 CE (a little over a century after the Gospel of John was written). Scholars disagree about whether this Beloved Disciple was a real person or a real disciple of Jesus. According to Bart Ehrman, they also differ on whether the Beloved Disciple was the author of the Gospel of John, although Ehrman believes that he was not.

Whatever the case, John the Apostle was certainly a real person, and we can be reasonably sure that he did not write the Gospel of John.

Conclusion

There is very little we can say with absolute certainty about the Apostle John. He was probably a fisherman from rural Galilee and thus spoke Aramaic. As a poor fisherman, he would have received no formal education and would thus have been illiterate like 97% of the Jewish population of 1st-century Palestine. The Synoptic Gospels say that he, along with his brother James, became a disciple of Jesus and formed part of Jesus’ inner circle, along with his brother James and Peter. We can confirm this by Paul’s testimony about John in the Bible, which mentioned that these three parties were considered the “pillars” of the early church.

He has been assumed for many years to be the author of the document we know as the Gospel of John. However, there are good reasons for thinking that this is improbable. First, the book was actually written anonymously. Second, an Aramaic-speaking fisherman would have been illiterate even in his own language. Furthermore, even if he had been literate, he would not have been able to write a book in Greek, a language he probably didn’t know.

Despite this, more than a century after the book was written, Christians were ascribing the book to John the Apostle. They also identified him with the Beloved Disciple written about only in John. In these stories and speculations about him, John in the Bible lives on.

Best Biblical Greek Courses Online (Free & Premium)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Learning biblical Greek — otherwise known as Koine Greek — can be a difficult but rewarding process that opens up a deeper understanding of ancient texts, including the New Testament and other early Christian writings. Whether you’re a complete beginner or looking to expand your language skills, there are numerous online courses, apps, and resources to help you on your journey. Which are the best Biblical Greek courses, and why should you choose them?

In this guide, we’ll explore the top Koine Greek courses available today, highlighting their features, pros, cons, and what makes them unique. Whether you’re on a budget or willing to invest in a more structured program, you’ll find a course that suits your needs and learning style.

Best Biblical Greek Courses

Top Overall Online Course for Learning Koine Greek:

Conclusion

When I started graduate school, I was excited to learn biblical Greek and Hebrew. I wondered whether being able to read the original languages of the Bible would help me to understand it better and to contextualize its words.

This indeed turned out to be the case, although not always in ways that I expected. Additionally, reading the original languages will certainly give any earnest student a gateway into the ancient worlds from which biblical writings emerged. Knowing the  language is crucial for understanding culture, and understanding culture is essential if we are to grasp how and why biblical writings came to be.

Whether you are just dabbling in these languages or plan to go on to an academic career, I highly recommend checking out the options on this list of best biblical Greek courses, making use of one or more of these resources.

10 Times Archaeology Has Disagreed with the Biblical Narrative

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

For centuries, the Bible has been revered as a sacred text, guiding the beliefs of billions of people worldwide. Yet, as archaeology has advanced, many discoveries have challenged the historical accuracy of certain biblical narratives. The field of archaeology offers a lens through which we can scrutinize the events and figures described in the Bible, testing them against physical evidence from the past.

What can we determine regarding conflicting archeology and the Bible? In this article, I’ll explore ten instances where archaeological findings have contradicted or provided an alternative perspective to the biblical story, raising questions about the historical underpinnings of some of the most famous biblical tales. These archaeological revelations invite a reevaluation of how we interpret the ancient texts and their connection to history.

10 Examples of Conflicting Archeology and the Bible Narrative

#1 – History and identity of the Israelites

In the book of Joshua, the Israelites invade the land of Canaan, conquering the cities and then dividing the land between their own twelve tribes. However, archeologists have discovered a different story.

In Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, William Dever writes that the ancient settlements found in the land of Canaan show no sign of armed conflict. In addition, he says that large Canaanite towns such as Jericho show no evidence of having been destroyed contrary to depictions in the book of Joshua. Instead, Jonathan Laden writes that the Israelites were one group of Canaanites who gradually became their own social group.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

#2 – There was no mass exodus from Egypt

The book of Exodus begins with the Israelites enslaved in Egypt until God sends a charismatic prophet named Moses to liberate them. Is there evidence for this event?

In her commentary on Exodus, Carol Meyers notes that there is no archeological evidence, either for a large Israelite presence in Egypt or for a mass exodus. She writes that while there is some evidence for a small number of Canaanites living in Egypt, there is no indication that they left, which implies that they simply became assimilated Egyptians.

Furthermore, Stephen Russell argues in Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature that the stories of Exodus are the creation of the Jewish community both during and after exile, an origin story of sorts with little historical basis.

#3 – Jerusalem in the time of King David

In the books of Samuel and Kings, King David is portrayed as a powerful ruler over a vast and formidable territory. However, Israeli archeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman say the data doesn’t support this claim.

In their book The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Finkelstein and Silberman write that there is little evidence to indicate that Jerusalem, David’s capital city according to the Bible, was "more than a typical hill country village" during David and of Solomon’s time. Additionally, David’s region, Judah, was a lightly populated rural region until long after David and Solomon’s time.

#4 – Monotheism in ancient Israel

In point of fact, there are very few actual references to monotheism — the notion that only one god exists – in the Bible. Instead, most biblical texts espouse henotheism — the belief that while there are many gods, our god is the best. However, it is usually clear that Israel was supposed to be faithful to only one God.

However, in 1968, William Devers discovered an ancient inscription in an Israelite cemetery that forced him to question this assumption. The inscription said of the deceased man “blessed may he be by YHWH and his Asherah.” Asherah was a Canaanite mother goddess. However, archeologists continued to find more and more Hebrew inscriptions linking YHWH and Asherah, leading them to conclude that in early Judaism, Asherah was considered YHWH’s consort and therefore an important deity in her own right.

#5 – Camels in the time of the Patriarchs

The Jewish patriarchs, Abraham, his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob, are supposed to have lived in the 18th or 19th centuries BCE. However, at least one aspect of their existence as related in the book of Genesis has been refuted by archeology.

Genesis 12 and 24 both say that Abraham owned camels. However, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University say that according to carbon dating of the earliest camel bones found in Israel, camels were not introduced into Israel until about the 9th century BCE, approximately 1,000 years after the patriarchs were said to have lived. Ben-Yosef and Sapir-Hen say that the inconsistency “is direct proof that the [Biblical] text was compiled well after the events it describes.”

#6 – The creation of human beings

Another instance of conflicting archeology and the Bible version of events appears in Genesis 1 and 2. There, we see God creating human beings as fully formed adults called Adam and Eve. However, there is abundant evidence to prove that this was not the case.

Human fossil evidence, for example, shows the development of changes in human bodies and brains as well as the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. In other words, humans did not arrive fully formed but changed and evolved over millions of years.

#7 – A global flood

While the Genesis story of Noah’s ark, as well as many other stories from the Near East, say that a flood covered the entire earth, archeologists have failed to unearth any evidence of this. There were certainly catastrophic floods in the ancient world, as there are now, but they never covered the entire surface of the earth.

In his book The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood, geologist David Montgomery notes that “If you look at it as literally a global flood that covered the world's highest mountains, I'm sorry, there's just not enough water on Earth to do that.”

#8 – Erastus inscription at Corinth

In Romans 16:23, Paul sends these greetings to his Roman audience: “Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus greet you.” Then, archeologists unearthed an inscription on a paving stone in Corinth in 1929. It said “Erastus in return for his aedileship paved it at his own expense.” Was this the same Erastus mentioned by Paul?

Unfortunately, it wasn’t. Michael Flexsenhar III writes that this inscription was made much later in the 1st century after Paul’s death. This is not to say that Paul didn’t actually know someone named Erastus, just that the inscription was not referring to Paul’s Erastus.

#9 – Capernaum synagogue

In Mark 1:21-28, Jesus goes to the city of Capernaum where he teaches in the local synagogue. An ancient synagogue has been excavated in Capernaum in recent times. Was this the same synagogue?

Michael Flexsenhar III tells us that is another case of conflicting archeology and the Bible narrative causing a discrepancy that tells us this is an impossibility. It turns out that the synagogue unearthed in Capernaum was built centuries after the time of Jesus. Since no other synagogue has been discovered in Capernaum, we are left wondering whether the story is true or not.

#10 – How Jesus was crucified

Although none of the Gospel narratives of Jesus’ crucifixion (Matthew 27:27-44; Mark 15:16-32; Luke 23:26-43; John 19:16-37) tell us exactly what was used to affix Jesus to the cross, the Doubting Thomas scene in John 20:24-29 mentions “the mark of the nails in his feet.” So what was used to secure Jesus to the cross?

There is good textual evidence that victims of crucifixion may actually have been bound to  crosses with rope until the first Jewish revolt in 66 CE, long after Jesus’ death, according to Jeffrey P. Arroyo García. In addition, García notes that while most depictions of the crucifixion show nails going through the top of Jesus’ feet, a calcified heel bone of a crucifixion victim was found by archeologists in Israel. A nail was still stuck in the bone, but from the side rather than the top. So even when nails were used, they were likely driven into the side of the victim’s feet and nailed to the sides of the cross, a more stable position.

Conclusion

These instances of conflicting archeology and the Bible accounts show that the sacred text is full of exciting, thought-provoking, and baffling stories. There are heroes and villains, wars, and dramatic divine interventions. However, we must ask ourselves whether these stories are historical, in our modern sense of the term. Are they instead mythical, interesting but implausible stories about the origins of one’s people and faith which were common in the ancient Near East?

The answer seems to be both. There are certainly historical events recorded in the Bible, including war and exile, Jesus’ crucifixion, and a host of others. However, some of the historical wheat can be separated from the chaff through the discipline of archeology.

What archeological discoveries conflict with the Bible? There are quite a few that contradict the beloved biblical tales. The Israelites were merely a subset of the Canaanites, for example, not their conquerors. Additionally, there is no evidence that they were enslaved in Egypt en masse and then led out by a heroic figure. The list goes on and on.

Findings such as these, while they undoubtedly give us invaluable historical information, have to be reckoned with, whether one is a person of faith or a historian.

The Historical Paul: 10 Facts That Even Atheist Skeptics Agree On

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The historical Paul, as an apostle and one of the most influential figures in early Christianity, remains a subject of both reverence and intrigue. From his transformation from a fierce persecutor of Christians to a passionate proponent of Christ, Paul’s life is marked by significant personal and theological developments. His letters, which form a cornerstone of Christian doctrine, offer us a glimpse into his beliefs, struggles, and experiences. In this article, I’ll explore 10 fascinating facts about the historical Paul the Apostle.

Before I begin, though, I want to establish the parameters of the sources I’ll use for this article. James Tabor notes that for the vast majority of scholars, some biblical sources about the historical Paul are better than others. Tabor writes that scholars generally agree the most reliable sources are Paul’s own undisputed letters: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon. It is best, then, to use these authentic letters as sources about Paul in the Bible. This excludes the book of Acts, written long after Paul’s death, as well as disputed letters written in Paul’s name. Fortunately, however, there is plenty of information in the undisputed letters if you read carefully.

#1 – Paul was proud to be Jewish

In Philippians 3, Paul argues against a group of Christian teachers who have a different version of the gospel. In order to establish that his authority as an apostle is just as valid as that of the other teachers, he speaks of his own Jewish identity, for which he provides evidence in Philippians 3:4-6:

He does a similar thing, once more against those he calls false teachers, in 2 Corinthians 11:22:

Far from rejecting his identity as a Jew, Paul is clearly proud of it and sees it as an essential part of his credibility as a teacher.

#2 – He initially persecuted Christians

In Galatians 1:13, Paul writes:

Among the well-known facts about Paul the Apostle is that he was a persecutor of Christians. Unfortunately, Paul isn’t specific about what he did to the Church. The Greek verb he uses can mean pursuing or hunting (either animals or humans) but can also mean prosecuting in a legal sense.

The main point here, however, is that Paul says several times in his letters (see also Philippians 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 15:9) that he initially hated the Christian movement so much that he was attempting to destroy it.

#3 – The historical Paul believed he had seen the risen Jesus

Just a few years after the death of Jesus, Paul experienced some kind of vision in which he claimed to have seen him. This is one of the interesting facts about Paul the Apostle that appears several times in the Bible. Here’s what he says about it in Galatians 1:11-12:

In 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul makes it clear that this was a visual experience, asking his readers “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” This experience drove Paul for the rest of his life to convince communities to whom he preached of what he believed he had received in this vision.

In addition, Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 12:4 that this experience included auditory features in which he “was caught up into paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat.”

#4 – Paul had some kind of disability

In 2 Corinthians 12:7-9, Paul writes that his visions and revelations could easily have made him boastful had God not given him something to balance and humble him.

Paul never explicitly says what this disability is. However, we do know that he came to see it as necessary.

#5 – Paul was not married

In 1 Corinthians 7, in answer to a question from the Corinthian communities about sexual practices, Paul writes that since it is hard for many people to remain entirely celibate, it is best to get married. However, in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, he also writes about his own marital status as in this directive:

While he clearly does not condemn marriage in general, Paul himself is unmarried, at least during the time that he was writing these letters.

#6 – Paul had a disagreement with the original apostles

The first and second chapters of Galatians are Paul’s account of his past and his mission to his community in Galatia who are having doubts about his teachings. Apparently, other apostles have come in Paul’s absence and told the Galatians they must follow the Jewish Law, including being circumcised, in order to be part of the Jesus movement. Writing in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, H.D. Betz notes that Paul vehemently opposes this, telling the Galatians his story in order to show that his credibility is as good as that of the other apostles and even the original 12 apostles.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul boasts that he stood up to Peter, whom he calls by his original Aramaic name, Cephas, when Peter had apparently acted uncharitably toward Gentiles.

Of course, we only have Paul’s version of the incident here. We don’t know exactly what happened or what Peter’s response was. However, it is clear that Paul, a contentious person as evidenced by his letters, disagreed with some of the original 12 apostles.

#7- Paul went to Jerusalem only three times

Speaking of the original apostles, Paul tells the Galatians that he had only gone to visit the Jerusalem church after his visionary revelation, and that no one there knew him. The book of Acts, on the other hand, says he had studied as a young person in Jerusalem, but Paul never says this in his letters.

Instead, he says that three years after his revelation of Christ, he went to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for 15 days. He also says he didn’t meet the rest of the 12 apostles, but did meet James, the brother of Jesus.

Fourteen years after his revelation, according to Galatians 2, Paul visited Jerusalem again, where he met the apostles of the Jerusalem church and presented his gospel for their approval. According to Paul, they approved of his mission to the Gentiles.

Paul’s third Jerusalem visit is not recorded in his letters beyond his intent. In Romans 15:25-33, Paul writes that he is about to go to Jerusalem to deliver a collection taken from the communities he founded to the apostles. It is probably during this trip that he was arrested and brought to Rome.

#8 – Paul claims to have performed miracles

One of the surprising facts about Paul the Apostle is that he claims to have done miraculous things. In 2 Corinthians 12:11-13, as Paul is defending his apostleship against other teachers, he validates his apostleship this way:

Although Paul never tells us what these “signs and wonders” were, he claims some of the Corinthians witnessed them and that this confirms his apostolic status.

#9 – Paul supported himself through manual labor on his missionary journeys

In the earliest of Paul’s authentic letters, 1 Thessalonians, Paul writes to his beloved church in Thessaloniki that “You remember our labor and toil, brothers and sisters; we worked night and day so that we might not burden any of you while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God (1 Thes 2:9).” He makes other references to manual labor he did (1 Corinthians 4:12, 1 Corinthians 9:6, 12, 15) as well. He never explicitly says what kind of labor he performed, although Acts 18:3 claims he was a “tentmaker,” and this is certainly possible.

#10 – Paul was incarcerated in Rome in the early 60s CE

In Philippians 1:12-26, Paul writes that he is imprisoned. Many scholars believe he wrote this letter from Rome, although Ronald Hock writes in the HarperCollins Study Bible that he might also have been in Caesarea or Ephesus. This is what he says in verses 12-14:

The fact that Paul is interacting with the imperial guard (or praetorium, in the original writing), probably indicates that he was in Rome. Furthermore, Paul seems to indicate that his execution is a distinct possibility:

Paul indicates here that whether he lives or dies, God’s purposes will be served. Most scholars believed he was executed in Rome around 64 CE.

Conclusion

If we use only the authentic, undisputed letters of Paul as source material, we have a lot of gaps in his life story. In addition, human memory is notoriously inaccurate, making it difficult to determine exactly what happened in the life of the historical Paul. However, his letters are certainly the best evidence we have for Paul’s biographical details. What do they tell us?

Paul was a proud, zealous Jew, a Pharisee, in fact. This zealousness was focused into hatred for the nascent Jesus movement, which he must have seen as heretical to the traditions of his people. However, after a visionary experience of Christ, Paul became just as zealous about Jesus, traveling vast areas and preaching the gospel he said he had received.

We can confidently say, from his letters, that he was unmarried, had some sort of disability, and supported himself by manual labor on his journeys. In addition, he had a disagreement with Peter and other apostles, believing himself to be just as much an apostle as they were since he had experienced the risen Jesus.

Was Jesus a Rabbi?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The question of whether Jesus was a rabbi is more complex than it may first appear. It requires us to explore historical contexts and the evolving definitions of terms over time. While the title "rabbi" is often associated with Jewish teachers and religious leaders, its usage in the time of Jesus differs significantly from how we understand it today.

Was Jesus a rabbi? In this article, I’ll investigate the meaning and historical development of the term "rabbi." By analyzing the Gospels, I’ll explore why Jesus might have been addressed as "Rabbi" and consider whether this title accurately reflects his role in the Jewish society of his time. To do this, I’ll also look into the title's historical significance and how it relates to others ascribed to Jesus (for instance, was Jesus a rabbi or a carpenter?)

The Meaning of the Word Rabbi

The word “rabbi” is derived from the Hebrew word rav. In early uses of the word in the Hebrew Bible, it was simply a term of respect or honor. The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary notes that this sense of the word can be found in 2 Kings 18:17 and 2 Kings 25:8, where it’s used to mean something like “chief” or “officer” rather than its later meaning of “teacher.” In the Hebrew Bible, by the way, the term is not used to mean teacher, which is instead denoted by the Hebrew word mō·w·rāy.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

However, by the New Testament period, there had clearly been a shift from its original meaning, as it seems to have been used only to mean “teacher” in a religious sense. In the Gospels, Jesus is called “Rabbi” 15 times (for example, Mark 9:5; Mark 11:21; Mark 14:45; John 1:38) and is also addressed twice using the Aramaic equivalent “Rabbouni,” since Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his disciples (Mark 10:51; John 20:16). Interestingly, in Matthew, only Judas calls Jesus “Rabbi,” while the other disciples call him “Lord.” The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary notes that in the New Testament, only Matthew, Mark, and John use the term Rabbi.

It's also significant that in Jesus’ time, and even in contemporary Judaism, a rabbi has never been a priest. In the Second Temple period in which Jesus lived (539 BCE-70 CE), priests were responsible for the administration of the Temple, as well as the performance of sacrificial rites. The term “rabbi” is not found in literature from this period. For example, Hillel and Shammai, two early and foundational Jewish sages who lived in the late 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, were never called rabbis. So why was Jesus addressed with this term in three of the Gospels?

It's important to remember that although Jesus lived from approximately 6 BCE to 30 CE, Mark, our earliest Gospel, wasn’t written until 70 CE — around the time the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. This destruction of this holy building had a profound effect on Judaism. Without a Temple, there was no sacred space in which priests could perform sacrifices; sacrifices were only allowed to be performed in the Temple.

In the wake of this devastating change, rabbinic Judaism would change the focus of Judaism from the Temple and sacrifice to the study and interpretation of the Jewish Law exclusively. Thus, rabbis became the main spiritual authorities, focusing on the texts of the Hebrew Bible and writing voluminous commentaries on them in texts like the Mishna and the Talmud.

When Jesus is called “Rabbi” in the Gospels, it is a reflection of that post-destruction period in which the Gospel authors all lived and wrote. This is not to say that rabbis didn’t exist before this, but the term took on a new level of authority with the destruction of the Temple.

Was Jesus a Rabbi?

Given the above information, asking if Jesus was a rabbi is a bit more complicated than it seems. In fact, the answer comes down to both history and definitions.

What was a rabbi in Jesus’ time? In one sense, it is an anachronism to think of Jesus as a rabbi in the sense we generally mean today. Rabbis, starting in the post-Temple-destruction period and continuing today, have been highly trained and highly literate specialists in the interpretation of the texts of the Torah and its commentaries. Since only about 10% of all people in Jesus’ time could read, and since Jesus apparently came from a working class background (he is called a tekton — carpenter or craftsman — in Mark 6:3) it seems unlikely he would have been among the literate, despite the synagogue episode in which he reads in Luke 4:16-30.

In fact, as Rabbi Jack Abramowitz writes, “The title ‘rabbi’ really only started in the second generation of Tannaim [rabbinic sages from the late 1st and early 2nd century CE], so nobody in Jesus’ day was a ‘rabbi.’” This is an important point; in Jesus’ time, “rabbi” was not yet an official role within the religious establishment. Additionally, a rabbi, as we use the term today, also means someone on whom authority is bestowed by another rabbi. There is no sign of this process of ordination with Jesus.

Nevertheless, since the term rabbi denotes both “master” and “teacher” and since, as Rabbi Abramowitz notes, the term certainly did exist in Jesus’ time, it is valid to say that he was a rabbi of sorts. What was a rabbi in Jesus’ time? Since Jesus did teach some people in a religious context, he may have been addressed by them as “Rabbi.” By the way, John the Baptist is also called “Rabbi” in John 3:26. Like Jesus, he was a religious teacher and could therefore correctly be called a rabbi, albeit without the authority accorded to rabbis in later decades.

Finally, keep in mind that since the Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ actual lifetime, they reflected a different time in history when rabbis held much more authority than they had when he lived.

How Does the Term Rabbi Compare with Jesus’ Other Titles?

I’ve already acknowledged that the word rabbi in its earliest Hebrew Bible sense was simply a term of respect or honor. This is certainly appropriate as something Jesus’ disciples might have called him, although they definitely thought of him as their teacher as well. But how does the term rabbi accord with other terms ascribed to Jesus in the NT?

One of the words most often used to address Jesus in the Gospels is “Lord” (Greek: kyrios). In his book How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Bart Ehrman points out that we have a bit of a translation problem with this term. In Psalm 110:1, for example, most English Bible translations say this:

However, in Hebrew, the two “lords” in this passage are different words. The first is YHWH, the name of God which Jews traditionally do not pronounce because of its holiness. The second lord, however, is the Hebrew word “Adonai,” a word that is often used for God but can also be used, for example, as a term with which a slave addresses his or her master. Since we know that the term “rabbi” originated as a kind of honorific outside of a religious context, “Lord” makes sense as an honorific equivalent, although without the connotation of teacher.

What about the term “messiah,” another title used for Jesus in the NT? The word messiah (Hebrew: mashiach) literally means “anointed one.” In the Hebrew Bible, anointing someone — ritually pouring oil on their heads — signifies that God has given his favor to them in their role as priest or king. For some Jews in Jesus’ time, however, the term came to be used solely to mean someone who would come to save Israel from its oppressors.

So was this term an equivalent of “rabbi”? It was not, because the two terms existed in different domains. The messiah was meant to be a salvific hero, either in the original sense of a warrior king who would defeat Israel’s enemies, or in the later NT sense as a person who saves people from sin. In that second sense, a rabbi could be the messiah, but it certainly wasn’t necessary.

Jesus was also called “Son of Man” in the Gospels. This term, like the term “messiah,” was a reference to a salvific figure. It is found in Daniel 7:13-14, where it means a heavenly being who would be sent by God to lead Israel to victory over its enemies. The Son of Man in this sense was too celestial a being to be a mere teacher, as a rabbi would have been. While Jesus may have been both, there is no linguistic equivalency between the two terms.

Finally, since we’ve already mentioned Jesus being called by the Greek term tekton in Mark 6:3, how does this accord with the term rabbi? While tekton is almost always translated into English as “carpenter,” the Cambridge Greek Lexicon notes that while it could mean a builder with wood, it could also be someone who works with other building materials like stone or brick. So was Jesus a rabbi or a carpenter? In this case, Mark 6:3 is the perfect illustration of the difference between a rabbi and a builder in the eyes of a 1st-century audience.

In Mark 6, Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazareth and teaches in the synagogue, displaying remarkable wisdom and thus surprising the townspeople with whom he grew up. In Mark 6:2-3 we see their reaction:

Why were they so offended at Jesus’ wisdom and power? Because the role of teacher in a synagogue was a role of honor. Jesus was known to them as a builder, a carpenter or mason. This was certainly a respectable way to make a living, but not expected to be equivalent in wisdom or power to one who could teach with authority in the synagogue. In other words, the term “carpenter” would not have been considered the equal of the term rabbi.

Conclusion

Was Jesus a rabbi? As we’ve seen, the term rabbi in the sense we think of it today did not have the same authority in Jesus’ time. A rabbi in his time was a person who was an honored teacher, like a Pharisee. However, the Gospel accounts in which we find Jesus being called this were written in a later time.

For Jews, the term rabbi came to mean something more authoritative and religiously significant, primarily after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. Religious authority originally rested within the Temple, the place where God was said to dwell and where priests performed sacrifices. However, after the destruction of this Temple, Judaism moved almost exclusively toward a focus on the study and interpretation of the Jewish Law.

Given this, we could say that Jesus was a rabbi in that he taught and was honored by his followers. However, since rabbinic Judaism didn’t really begin until decades after Jesus’ death, the title is somewhat anachronistic. It is, however, equivalent in its honorific sense to other terms of respect common in Jesus’ time, including lord. It is not, however, equivalent to others, such as messiah and son of man, both of which denote a specific role not involved with teaching.