Loading...It is a very big mistake to think that the “God of the Old Testament” is a different God from the “God of the New Testament” — even though that is a common view among Christians who want to insist that unlike the OT God of wrath, their God is a God of love. Not only does that smack of rather unsubtle anti-Judaism (that “harsh religion of a vengeful God” as opposed to “our God who loves each and every one of us and is merciful instead of judgmental”), it simply is not at all the view of the authors of the New Testament, let alone Jesus himself.
Jesus understood himself as a teacher of the Jewish Scriptures. He didn’t have another God. Moreover throughout the entire NT the OT is quoted, up and down the line, all over the place, in complete affirmation of its message. Jesus and his followers may have had their own interpretations of the OT (they had different interpretations even among themselves), but they would have been shocked and offended if anyone suggested their God was anything other than the God of the Jews who created the world, chose Israel to be his people, promised to be with them as their divine protector, guided them on their journey, and punished them when they went astray.
This God was indeed a God of wrath, not simply love. When people misbehaved, he punished them. Sometimes severely. Sometimes ruthlessly. We may not appreciate the picture, but you will find it both the both OT and NT.
BUT, having said that, the Bible is not internally consistent in HOW it portrays God’s anger and his judgment. This will be a major theme of my book on Revelation. I will be arguing that the view of God’s wrath in Revelation is NOT the view you find in Jesus. Both views are found throughout the Bible, but they are different views. To demonstrate this point I’m going to spend a few posts talking about different authors/passages of the Bible and their portrayals of God’s wrath.
We don’t know how old the oldest parts of the Bible are. Scholars have heated debates the oldest sections of the Pentateuch — 10th century BCE? 6th century BCE? (certainly not going back to Moses himself). But we do begin to get dated authors when we come to the prophets, the oldest of which is probably Amos Tekoa, who was writing in the 8th c. BCE, at a time when the nation of Israel (the northern part of the kingdom, with Judah in the south) was being threatened by the international military power of Assyria.
For Amos, the days of Israel were numbered. The reason: the leaders and elite of Israel had disobeyed God, not lived as he demanded, and not listened when he tried to warn them by bringing horrible suffering on them (drought, plague, famine, etc.). Because they were recalcitrant, God was going to wipe them off the map. Revelation – the last book of the NT – will pick up on many of these themes, so it is important to see how they play out in the earliest parts of the OT.
Here is how I discuss Amos in my textbook on the Bible (The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition 2017).
*******************************************
To make sense of the NT, you have to know something about the OT. The prophets of the OT are rarely read and even more rarely understood by readers today — but starting with Amos, they are compelling and intriguing. Want to learn more? Join the blog !<a href=”/register/”>Click here for membership options </a>
Hi Dr Ehrman!!
Just a question here surrounding user-friendliness: is it possible to add a search bar for audio posts as well? Often I prefer listening to posts while doing other chores etc. but I have to scroll through pages and pages before getting to posts that I haven’t listened to yet, or posts related to a certain topic that I’m looking for. Thank you!!
Thanks for the suggestion. I”ll pass it along to the person in charge of audio.
Thank you again for a (in a flow of) quality post(s) from this great blog !! I appreciate it very much!
The Jewish symbolism is truly horrible, and if one reads literally, the stories, it imagenary is far beyond
cruel .
In my opinion, we really can not read OT and especially part of the NT (like the Revelaton) literally. When I read it, I understand a lot of it in a spiritual, inner context, also the revelation that is a “soul ascension story” for me.
As for the Old Testament, especially Genesis and at least some of the Prophets and Wisdom books, I understand them as spiritual stories, and expressing spiritual patterns. I also have it in mind that these books/scrolls were often/partly written many centuries after the story tells about, of persons who partly lack historic records (legends) and of events which might be considered as legendary (even the Exodus as written). My perspective is more focused on the intention behind the text rather the imagieary and often colorful symbols used in the text. Therefore, the meaning of «wrath»/»wrath of the lamb» /»Gods wrath»/etc. are for me more related to an inner «consequences», related to change.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
What does the parable of the two sons mean in Matthew 28?
Thank you
I’m not sure what passage you are asking about (or what your question about it is)
Sorry, I meant Matthew 21! And that was a little ambiguous! Specifically I mean when Jesus says that many are called but few are chosen… what is he referring to here? And in the parable who does each son represent? Thanks!!
OK, we’re getting close. But think about it this way: if someone read your comment / question here: would they know what you were asking? If not then my answer wouldn’t make sense either. So, third time’s a charm. Explain which parable you’re asking about in which chapter of which book, and then we’ll bre good!
Do you know what, I’m absolutely mixing these parables up!! Sorry! Here we go:
Matt 21:28-32 Jesus likens the tax collectors and prostitutes to one son. Which son is that? And is the crowd correct in Jesus’ eyes in their response to which son has actually done his fathers will?
2. In Matt22:1-14
Jesus speaks about a wedding banquet. The final line is: many are called, but few are chosen. What does he mean? Chosen for what? this sounds contrary to salvation by following the law as Jews believed.
I hope that that made a bit more sense… at least the verses match this time!! Thank you so much for your patience!
Matt 21:28-32 is debated, but I”ve never fully seen why. THe one who *does* go even though he says he won’t is the one who “does” the will of his father. Matt 22:1-14 appears to be referring to the Jewish people who are “called” to be the people of God but many reject him and so they are not “chosen” for salvation.
Do you think it’s possible that the Book of Amos is actually older than the Book of Genesis? Might it be the very oldest book in the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures?
What I found most striking about Amos is that he seemed relatively unconcerned about the Israelites worshipping other gods. He was very different from most of the prophets in that regard. Might he have actually believed it was OK to worship other gods so long as you put the one most important God first? Or would that interpretation rely too heavily on an argument from silence?
GEnesis is usually understood to comprise three different sources from different periods, but there are degbates about what the oldest, the J source, was: 10th c.? 6th c.? MOst prefer something older, pre-exilic. THe entire book was put together after Amos, almost certainly I would say.
From what I understand, Job is the oldest book. I, of course, may well be wrong…
It’s a very difficult book to date because there aren’t references to any historical events or persons in it, so it is widely debated.
Mr. Ehrman, I have a kind of non related question that requires maybe too much speculation on your behalf (I know you don’t prefer these questions, but, for some reason, I really enjoy it when you go out and speculate 😂, and I feel it is deeply interesting philosophically as well): if you had somehow found a solution to the problem of suffering and remained a believer, how would you reconcile your faith with your recent(?) rejection of the idea of free will? Do you think you would be able to reconcile them? Or, if you still believed in God, you probably wouldn’t think of rejecting free will?
I’m sorry if it is an annoying question – I’m only asking you because I’ve been struggling with this idea (that free will is an illusion) for quite some time now on my own, and I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on that, especially in relation to God and faith in Him.
I”d probably say that I had God-given free will. As a materiaist, now, I don’t see how it can exist. But I can’t make sense of my consciousness without it. It’s an aspect of what philosopher DAvid Chalmers calls “the hard problem”
I find such amusing, as there questions interests me too.
We as humans are not fully aware of the human framework. Nobody knows how far humans really reaches out within the framework we can call «Self» Only part of it is conciouss, and probably most is unconcious,,and perhaps as also a collectively unconciousness.
The free will is a part of the Ego which is suborinated to the Conciouss mind, but probably not outside of it, like in the Unconciousness and the perhaps Collective unconcioussness part of one’s «Self». The Self probably also act upon the «Ego», which the so called «free will» probably can not change. In psycology you can’t ignore or supress these unconcious forces, because they will continue to come back and express themself.
So in respect of the content of this thread, the emerged «Ego» is related to the “Fall” and is is in my mind the 1.st beast in Revelation 13, which the dragon took his seat , and the structures purely based on this first beast, like the human organisations base don the Ego’s premisses is the second beast.
I’m still waiting for a definition of the term “free will” that (1) isn’t entirely faith-based, and (2) makes any sense. In the absence of such, I maintain that the issue is moot, but, if pressed, say there is no such thing. Is that close to your thinking?
I suppose to some extent, although that way of putting it seems more clear cut than the way I would put it. THe way I would put it is that I just don’t know because neither view makes sense to me and I don’t know of a good alternative.
“If these covenantal obligations are shirked, punishment will follow, and Israel has only itself to blame.”
Jesus also left no word unsaid to those who claimed to represent his Father:
Matthew 23:27-28 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you too, outwardly appear righteous to people, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
Christian leaders love pointing out Christ’s cleaning of the Temple but they forget that THEY claim to be the “temple” today.
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; LEAVE ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ (caps from translation)
If Christianty is dying its death lays at the feet of its leaders who did not simply do and teach as Christ taught.
Unrelated question.
Could you please tell me which commentaries on Galatians you think are the best for people who can read the ancient Greek text, and the best for people who can’t read the Greek?
I”d say J. Louis Martyn could work well with both groups. He was an amazing scholar, and the Anchor Bible commentaries have sections of explanation that do not require Greek.
Dr. Ehrman:
Just out of curiosity, what is the OLDEST Greek New Testament manuscript you have seen or held in your hands?
THe oldest! I was doing a BBC documentary some years ago and they filmed me in the John Rylands Library at the University of Manchester, examining the glass-enclosed P52 (earliest ms by consensus; possibly from the first half of the second century; part of the Gospel of John, the size of a credit card) for about 45 minutes!
Bart,
Online pics of P52 show wide top margins on both the front and back of the fragment.
Are these top margins on the fragment (codex or scroll) or do these manuscripts regularly have wide spaces between groups of lines?
If so, how can John 18:31-33 and the reverse side John 18:37-38 (with only 3 verses missing, 34-36) have the same open space above each?
It is almost as if someone wrote on one side of a blank fragment then turned it over and wrote on the other side leaving a few verses out as all fragments do.
Yes, I question everything. 🙂
Good questions. Yes, the margins are on the papyrus manuscript itself. The fragment is from a codex (since it is written on front and back; a scroll would be only one sided). It is sometimes surprising to us that scribes used margins of this size and space between lines — weren’t they trying to utilize as much of the page as they could since writing materials were expensive? — but, yes, they did do that. Papyrologists (experts in ancient papyri) can use a small fragment like this — the size of a credit card — to do exctly what you suggest: on the basis of the number of letters there must be on one line, they can decide how many lines must be on one page (to get from what is on the front to what is on the back) and thus calculate how many pages were originally in the manuscript. Just from a tiny fragment…
Thanks Bart.
Just a few more thoughts on this fragment.
Turning the page:
If the front of the fragment has the top margin on the page how can the other side also have the top margin on the page with only a few lines missing between both sides? Must be a very small book, top to bottom.
Mirror spaces:
And if the top margin is actually only a wide space between lines it is interesting that the opposite side has a space the same exact size and in the same position as the front side.
Just thinking out loud.
Thanks again.
There were more than a few lines. The manuscript of which it was a part would have had 18 lines on a page. If you want to see a full discussion, there is one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
Have you ever seen Codex Vaticanus up close?
Nope. But I’ve seen Sinaiticus, including the extra pages found in the 1970s, at St. CAtherine’s monastery on the Sinai.
I thought most people believe the gospel of John was written towards the end of the 1st century. Did you mean the first half of the second century for the writing of the fragment?
Yikes! Yup. Thanks. I better change that.
Prof,
‘ … possibly from the first half of the first century’
Did you mean ‘possibly from the first half of the second century’?
More than possibly! THanks.
Excuse me, I think you mean “the first half of the second century” instead of “the first half of the first century” 🙂
Most definitely!
Hi Bart, We know you were merely testing us to see if we are attentive. And four of us passed the test, LOL 🙂
I like to keep people alert.
Wait, you are saying that P52 is from a time before Paul wrote some of his letters? Don’t you mean the first half of the second century?
Yup! I”ve heard of early dating before, but that’s a bit extreme. 2nd c!
Thank you for providing so much interesting content here, Bart. (I mean this about the blog in general.) Not only is it fun to read and great for increasing Biblical literacy, but it’s an effective fund-raiser. Not many scholars find a way to channel their expertise into directly helping the needy, but you have. Thanks for doing it!
Reading this excellent post reminds me of a joke I once heard a Jewish American comedian tell (I’m not sure who it was – ?Mel Brooks maybe) that went something like this: A Rabbi is addressing God and he says: ‘Lord, I know we are your chosen people but looking back over the last 3000 years of our history, I have one favour to ask’. And God replies: ‘What’s that, my son?’ And the Rabbi says: ‘O Lord, please could you choose somebody else?’
😂
Thank you for this post Dr. Erhman. I always assumed the ancient Israelites had multiple gods (El, Yahwah, Baal, etc.) I understand some can be lesser gods, but was El below Yahwah, or was El replaced by Yahwah when Moses became the leader? Any clarity would be helpful. Thanks!
Historically many Israelites probably did worship various gods. THe biblical authors though insist that they are to worship only one God who goes by different names and designations (Yahweh, El, El-Shaddai, Adonai, etc.)
With the exception of Moab, all of the peoples Amos named were in trouble with God because of things they did to the Israelites. Moab’s punishment also seems excessive for the single crime it is accused of – burning the bones of the king of Edom. I can’t think of any Biblical law specifically prohibiting that, either. Do you have any explanation why Amos would single out that act?
While I see your point that Amos is expanding Yahweh’s writ to cover more than the Israelites, it seems to me that he is not being truly universalist yet, as Isaiah (first and explicitly second) will be.
Fascinating !
At least the prophets like Amos thought punishment was coming from God for some really awful things, like selling people for money and mistreating the poor and afflicted. I think most people would like some serious punishment for people like Hitler. The problem with the Christian message as it evolved is that people who simply do not come to the correct understanding of God’s message or perhaps find insufficient evidence for believing incredible ancient stories come under the same punishment as the Hitlers of the world. A peace-loving Buddhist comes under the same punishment as a Stalin or a Mao. But I don’t think that is exactly what Jesus taught, although He certainly spoke about judgment.
In the Jewish apocryphal book of The Life of Adam and Eve, Adam receives a prophecy that God will destroy humankind once with the water (deluge) and a second time with the fire (last judgement). It is said in the canonical gospels, that John baptised with the water but Jesus would baptise with the fire. In the gospel of Philip, it is said that anointing with oil meant the baptising by fire and it was the sacrament that gave christian sect their name (anointed ones). Paul wrote in his epistles that baptism was about symbolic death and resurrection (rebirth). Do you think it was intentional that the methods used in these purification sacraments where the same that God had used and would use to vanish the sinful people from the earth?
My sense is that fire and water were transcultural images of cleansing,and so came into “purification” texts with some regularity. But they certainly do show up a good bit in the Jewish and CHristian traditions.
Dear Bart,
for some context – if Amos was written about 800 b.c.E., can Israel be considered already monotheistic, or should we keep in mind this being still a primarily polytheistic society, in which YHWH might be the main deity of the pantheon?
And if so, is Amos then a text probably later redacted?
It was definitely redacted — the ending reflects a time after the punishment had happened and God promises now to restore them. BUt the text does not stress monotheism,the idea that there is only one God.
We read in classical literature, e.g. in the Illiad and Odyssey, of gods punishing mortals for various perceived slights or insults or other reasons. Are there any examples you are aware of of an ancient deity (Sumerian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, etc.) punishing their followers the way Yahweh collectively punishes those who displease him?
YEs, it was a common motif in antiquity that the reason for, say, a flood, or a famine, or epidemic was the wrath of a god, who then had to be appeased. It was a very widespread idea. BUT, in virtually every case it was not because people were mistreating each other, but because they were not properly worshiping the god, or ignoring him.
When speaking of dating the OT, why should we omit Genesis chapters 1 through 10, which some scholars say have clear correspondences with the Epic of Gilgamesh from most ancient Babylon, i.e. from the days before of the earliest Egyptian pyramids — from the dawn (and culture) of writing itself?
OH yes, these parallels are taken very much into account in dating the texts. If Genesis depends on Gilgamesh, then it had to come after Gilgamesh. Then again, Gilgamesh had many, many variations and Genesis could have been based on one of the most ancient instead of one later — so it does not provide definitive help, if you see what I mean.