(21 votes, average: 4.81 out of 5)
Loading...To this point in the thread I have been talking about Paul’s “religion” – specifically, what he thought was important in a person’s relationship with God. He expressed his views in a variety of ways – I have talked about his judicial and his participationist understandings of salvation, and have made brief comments on yet other “models” that he used to express his view about the act of salvation that God had achieved through Christ. In all of these models, it was the death and resurrection of Jesus that was of paramount importance. It was that, nothing else, that brought about salvation.
And what did Jesus himself think?
This is arguably the most important point to consider about early Christianity. Did the best known apostle of Christ proclaim the same, or very similar message, to Jesus himself? Or not? In my New Testament class every semester I have my students debate, in class, a resolution dealing with the issue: “Resolved: Paul and Jesus represented fundamentally different religions.”
Students are surprised by the topic. Until they do their research.
I will not devote a large series of posts to the question of what Jesus taught. For anyone who wantsa fuller scoop, see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. For here, I will simply give the outline, without giving the details or the evidence.
When you read our earliest Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – and apply to them the sensible historical criteria that historians of antiquity have devised for looking at such things, it is quite clear that Jesus’ overarching message was that
This issue is fundamentally important for understanding Christianity. If you want to read more, join the blog. Every penny of your small membership fee goes to charities helping those in need. Click here for membership options
Bart,
Do you think there is any information in the Talmud that has any explanatory power with regard to the Jesus of Christianity and/or early Christianity?
I’ve been reading some on the Talmud and watching talks by Rabbis like Tovia Singer and other Rabbis on alleged (disputed) passages in the Talmud that may or may not be referring to the Jesus of Christianity. The dating is off a century or so either way but there do seem to be some surface similarities and the Rabbis themselves seem somewhat confused/conflicted as to if these passages were indeed a type of reaction to the harsh negative language directed toward Jews in some parts of the NT or were referring to completely different people named Jesus.
Do you have any opinions on this?
TY!
The Ealmud itself is about four centuries removed from the NT, and I don’t think its authors had any independent information about Jesus, just traditions that had been circulated (and altered) over the years. But there are definitely passages that refer to Jesus. You might take a look at Peter Shaffer’s book, Jesus in the Talmud. He is a real expert.
is the mishnah late? You said that mark 7 is not accurate because mark 7 says that jews have a custom in which they wash their hands before meals including dishes and cutlery:
they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands,[a] thus observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it;[b] and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.[c]) 5 So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live[d] according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
you said that this custom cannot be historical because all jews dont do this. Your data is based on later writings, how can we establish that jews in jesus time didnt do what mark ascribes to them?
The custom that all Jews were to wash their hands come from later Rabbinic sources; it was not a custom attested in earlier sources. The Mishnah is usually dated to around 200 CE or so; I’m arguing *against* the use of such sources for knowing what was happening in Jesus’ day.
So what are the earlier sources based on ? mishnah?
They are rabbinic, but I don’t know the actual references.
Is “Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue” (Classic Reprint, Ellis B. Usher) useful?
Recently I’ve been reading some Amy-Jill Levine and “After Jesus, Before Christianity” and have been wondering what Jewish non-followers of Jesus have thought over the years (when they weren’t being attacked by alleged followers)….
Thanks so much!!
I’m afraid I don’t know it. My sense is that most Jews who did not follow Jesus thought that those who did were either seriously misled or a bit out of the minds.
Do you think Josephus rose from the dead, a mass suicide, and was adopted as a son of Rome, the ruling power at that time? He is said to have led the suicide but did not commit suicide. Instead, he went to the other side, Rome, and takes the emperor’s family name of Flavius.
No, he didn’t die in the mass suicide. They made a pact, he was one of the two left, but then rather tan killing himself he gave himself up to the Roman troops.
How do the beatitudes fit into this scheme? Moral guidance? (Be sure to take care of and nurture the poor, meek, hungry, thirsty, mourning, persecuted?) Or a way of identifying who will be “first” in the new kingdom?
They are assuring people who are suffering now that they will thrive once the kingdom arrives.
I assume Mark’s gospel is associated with Pauline christianity (e.g Mark 9 where the author adds his interpretation that Jesus declared all foods clean)?
Do you think Matthew’s gospel is a response to Pauline christianity? E.g Matthew 5 where Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law?
I have heard people try and reconcile Matthew and Paul by saying not abolishing but fulfilling the law doesnt imply continued Torah observance, and ‘these commands’ in Matthew refer to Jesus’ commands in the sermon on the mount. Any legs to this in your opinion or way off?
Thanks
I don’t know if Mark is connected with Pauline Christianity or not; the comment in Mark 9 is very interesting, but it’s not clear that Paul thought Jews did not need to keep kosher. THere certainly are interesting similarities though. Whether that means Mark acdtually knew Paul’s letters is an interesting question. And Matthew certainly does seem to be countering a Pauline view of the law. I’d say it is hard to reconcile the two.. Matthew doesn’t only say that the law had to be fulfilled by Jesus, but that his followers had to keep it. NOtice what he says to them in ch. 23 — they are to do all the PHarisees say!
“This coming of the Son of Man was imminent. It was going to happen right away. It would be within Jesus’ own generation. His disciples would see it.”
One thing that seems similar between Jesus and Paul is that it was going to happen while they were alive. This type of thinking has continued by what I would say is a minority 2,000 years later.
1. What made John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul think that it was going to happen within their life time?
2. Since they all had just a few followers, was it just a minority that thought a great change would happen in their life time in the first century?
3. In the first century, did the people who did not believe that this change was happening soon think that those who did were kooks? Or just silly hopeful people?
1. It was teh widespread view among Jewish apocalypticists; things had gotten so bad that God would not allow it to coninue much longer; 2. Most of the early Christians thought this (as did apocalyptic Jews); 3. It’s hard to say. Possily just misstaken or misguided.
Urgency is the key to why people would have followed an unknown from Nazareth. I imagine it is the same with all leaders of new religious movements (NRM) (a much better term than “cult”). Once Jesus was arrested and executed members would have figured that they had misunderstood. The message I heard as a member (1973-1983) of a NRM, the church founded by Korean, Sun Myung Moon, was about God’s Kingdom arriving imminently and that its “king” would be the new messiah, Moon himself. In that kingdom, all humans would be family, so members lived as brothers and sisters. The Kingdom would come in 1981 and preparing the way were Moon’s mass rallies in first 21, then 32 cities, culminating in a 1976 rally at Washington Monument. We members were joyfully anticipatory. But as deadlines passed, the message changed (oh, the first date was a symbolic one – actualization comes later, etc.). Moon and others modified the message as things didn’t go as planned. I was a leader in the group and had had enough when Moon was put in jail for tax evasion. The group continues with its current understanding of what is to come.
A Moony!!! Wow that is amazing. Just like the JW’s—have to edit their books because the dates pass. I feel so bad for the Waco Texas people knowing things were imminent and everything played out exactly as they were taught. But we are human and so gullible. I heard one evolutionary biologist say “It’s better to be gullible….” and believe the warnings.
Do you have faith now?
No. I have been an atheist pretty much since I left the group in 1983. Realization that my spiritual beliefs were leading nowhere and caused me to hate myself for being gay led me to rethink my earlier college studies in anthropology and look at advances in genetics and other sciences. I could find no reason humans are not just fancy apes in a continuum of hominid species. I wanted faith at age 18 for various reasons and was taken in by the idea of the Second Coming being realized by Moon according to the group’s theology. The conversion was quick and extreme but time wore it out.
Having my own disciple experience, I try to imagine Jesus with his converts. One impetus they had in continuing to believe, rather than revert to traditional Judaism, is that their world changed with Jesus’s death before they had enough time to really doubt and go elsewhere.
My personal experience is that it is easier to find continuing justification for sincerely held beliefs than to admit error.
You know the christian teaching is that we are born sinners and in history some have really felt that like Martin Luther–I heard he would sleep on the hard floor as penance and the despair it led to. Being gay of course you can’t get away from the sin topic. It interesting that one of the first foreign converts in the NT is the Ethiopian Eunich. Don’t know if he was gay—probably not trans–but God was able to speak to something in him.
You know perhaps the ONLY thing that separates humans from animals is religion. Shrink Johnathan Haidt said humans are the only species that cooperate in large groups of non-related individuals and he says it’s because of how religion evolved with us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYsx6WArKY
You might enjoy Franz de Waal’s book, “Our Inner Ape.”
It puzzled me as to why it is claimed that only through Christ could one be reconciled to God and the coming kingdom when John the Baptist was baptizing for the remission of sins for this atonement already. When John baptized, something supernatural had to happen to forgive the persons sin (judicial) and then remain a participant in the kingdom (participatory). It seems that there was no functional add to that supernatural process of atonement by the death of Jesus. Jews already promoted gentile conversion. The only thing in my mind that would be a differentiator to exalt Jesus at that time would be an expectation of all the earthy things that a Jewish messiah was to represent (a physical Jewish king, a conquering warrior of Maccabean mold, etc.). That not having happened just means that the mode of salvation changed is all. Jesus did not introduce the only way to God. I think we see witness of this *problem* for Christianity brewing by the time the gospel of John was written as to de-emphasize Joh the Baptist’s importance as it competed with the new form of salvation. Thoughts?
My sense is that most Jews already belieed in forgiveness of sins (and atonement); once Christains came to think Jesus was both the chosen one of God and one who had been crucified, they had to explain it, and that’s hwo the idea of a human atonement then came in. Most Jews, of course, would have found it a ridiculous view.
This very point is one of the topics in this interview between a Jew and a Christian. really good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-ofKxfYqGw
“…was that…”
Where’s the rest of this post?
Ah, usually when a post gets cut off it means you need to check your renewal status. Click help and ask support.
Jesus seems to refer to himself as the son of man. (The son of man has nowhere to lay his head.) did this term mean different things at different times?
Definitely. Sometimes it coudl mean “mortal” and sometimes the “cosmic judge coming to overthrow the kingdsom of evil.” Some schoalrs have argued in it is a circumlocution for the first person pronoun (i.e., it means “me” or “I”). Search for “son of man” on the blog and you’ll see some posts on it.
I have the impression the Son of Man is something of a progression from human to exalted self-reference to (Matt8:10 “nowhere to lie his head”) , Matt 9.6: But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” –he then said to the paralytic–“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” …11.19 “the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’…
he asked his disciples, Matt 16:13 “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
16.14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist … or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Matt 17.9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead.”
Thank you for doing this series, this has been something I struggled with for years when I was leaving the Church. I’ve always felt that if you were to ask Paul and Jesus “how do I enter the kingdom of heaven?” you would get two different answers, and that the Modern American church is much more aligned with Paul’s view and doesn’t focus much on Jesus’ views as you’ve laid them out in this post. I’ve asked this to two different pastors during my “questioning the church” time and neither of them gave me an answer which was disappointing. But to your point, it typically catches them off guard and isn’t something they’ve considered (at least I didn’t when I was a believer).
Dr bart i just see about jesus prophecy about end Days that Said all of THe this Will happen in “THIS GENERATION” how can wE be sure that THe “generation” means actually people that live in that time and not another interpretation Like Christians do or someone Said it was Israel and some other stuff , is THe meaning really can be stretch Like that ?
It doesn’t make any sense in its context for it to mean something like “the race of Jews” — since his point is that one needs to be alert because it could come at any time; if he means the it will come before there are no more Jews on earth, what would be the point? Presumably there will always be Jews….
This makes Jesus a false prophet?
Do you think Jesus simultaneously taught contradictory messages? I’ve seen in the gospels everything you’re talking about here. But…
Sometimes (like you said), Jesus teaches that there’s going to be a kingdom of God on earth. But sometimes he teaches what seems to be an everlasting afterlife, such as in the sheep and the goats passage.
Usually Jesus teaches “works salvation.” But on occasion, he says something like Matthew 26:28. I don’t see how those are compatible. Why would one need forgiveness, if one could enter the kingdom of God by doing good works or by being a good person?
Some of the teachings of JEsus, of course, are not things he really said. And others actually make better sense if you realize he’s talking about a future kingdom on earth for the saved and destruction for sinners. That’s the point of the sheep and the goats (not heaven and hell).
The judgment and punishment that Jesus talked – mentioned early in this blog – sounded similar to the message of the book of Revelation – until you started talking about the love themes in Jesus’ message!
Not a lot of love in Revelation….
“How To Get (And Stay) On Jew-Daddy God’s Good Side:
By Adopting A Progressive Liberal Interpretation Of Hebrew Mosaic Law, And How Those Laws Are Enforced, And How Your Final Days (in this system of things) Are Lived.
So That You Can be a Good (enough) Jew
Before Jew-Daddy Kills Everyone Who Isn’t … Sometime During The Current Literal Generation’s Literal Earthly Lifetime”.
Dr bart since all old testament version either Masoratic , septuagint or samaritan are different ,and have error tahts mean NEW testament book couldnt be match or stand together with all three of them because Masoratic so different with NT passage and septuagint today also have many error and different story in itself , then surely christianity cannot stand any more by believing their book is innerant , perfect and unchanging , because No Matter what torah They use, ITS still fail , is it true ?
I don’t think one can say the Bible is inerrant, no. But of course Christianity is not about belief in theh Biblee. It is about belief in Christ. Big difference.
Some things that stood out.
1. The unresolved contradiction
of promoting progressive liberal values
as a means of pleasing a hardcore conservative Totalitarian “God”.
2. The Christian-text writers didn’t understand (or pretended not to understand) the Hebrew textual history and meanings.
3. The embarrassing fact that the Christian-text writers had the “Jesus” character vouching for “Moses” as a real person who wrote the Torah.
4. “Jesus” character was not trying to create “Christianity”.
5. Matthew 5:28 accidentally identifies Jesus as a sinner.
(Writer) believed that a person need-not actually commit sinful acts in order to be guilty of sin. Simply-wanting-a-sinful-thing (even for a moment) was enough.
6. Every story and every concept within the stories were adaptations of older pagan stories and pagan concepts.
Even the “morals” were borrowed from other/older cultures.
7. One of the very few things the early Christians accurately kept, was:
Modeling their entire religious narrative on the principals and relationship dynamics of:
A Super-Parent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder
relating to
their children;
– whom better-not-outgrow that toxic relationship “or else” … eternal discard, defamation, and everlasting physical harm (death, at the very least);
-which the flying monkeys OF that Super-Parent refer to as: the ultimate form of “love”.
Mr. Ehrman, how do modern-day apologists account for the failure of Jesus to predict correctly the time of Judgment Day? I mean, I know the traditional line of thought (one day for God, a thousand for man, God gave us extra time to save more and the like), but is there any new, inspired argument in regard to this matter? Or maybe they’ve come up with some clever way around the problem?
They often say that he was not referring to the end coming in his time but in ours.
That screams 1) false notion of god and false theology and 2) false apocalypticism and false prophet. How much of that did not happen? 100% did not happen.
Is it a nice example of humanity’s highest aspirations? Probably.
Is it a mixture of hope and opium, hopium? Yes.
Look forward to the day when God rights all that is wrong with this world.
Keep looking and when you do not see (and you will not see), keep hoping.
“God is going to fix it. Jesus is going to fix it.”
Yes, we want problems solved, we want broken things fixed.
It is immoral (a sin) to get people addicted to falsehoods.
And keep corruption out of the fixing processes.
= = =
I read this post thinking I would find a rock, a boulder, solid ground.
Nothing related to apocalyptic prophecy is of value and cannot be the heart of Jesus’ message.
To speak of the heart of Jesus’ message is to speak of content that can retain its value.
Blessed are those who mourn for they should be comforted.
Humans can do that.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness for they are Heaven owners.
Humans can see that.
QUESTION: Yes Bart? Not unfulfilled prophecy but classic sayings?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I struggle with your premise that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. I know I’m biased, but it seems to depend on scanty evidence. I’m reading the Apocalyptic Jesus: a Debate with Dale Allison, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and Stephen Patterson (who was one of my professors at Eden). Is there something else I can read to understand your position better?
It’s a view that Allison strongly agrees with. I was asked to write an essay for that book too (possibly before Allison was asked? or maybe it was a similar book); I turned it down because the editor had set it up to have THREE scholars who didn’t think Jesus was an apocalypticist and only ONE who did, even though within the world of scholarship far more — a very strong majority — hold the apocalyptic view. I thought the book would lend credance to the idea that most scholars thought otherwise just by the contributors chosen, and so turned it down. The apocalyptic view can be found in the writings of Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, E. P. Sanders and so on. You might start with Dale’s book Jesus Millenarian Prophet.
Having just begun reading Boyd’s “Cynic Sage or Son of God?” (1995). I was also going to inquire as to the degree of sway the late Jesus Seminar’s non-apocalyptic view of the “Historical Jesus” currently holds.
Not much at all, so far as I can tell, except for those still in that group.
mwbaugh,
You struggle with the idea Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet?
Please explain in light of
1) scholars take away Jesus’ ability to be a prophet about the Tribulation (Destruction of the Temple and Armies Surrounding Jerusalem) by dating the gospels after that Tribulation happened.
2) Apocalypse is Tribulation followed by Judgment and Glorious Kingdom ruled by the Son of Man. With your position, Jesus was not a failed apocalyptic prophet, give evidence and line of reasoning that there was a judgment and glorious kingdom that immediately followed upon the Temple destruction tribulation.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Where’s the rest of the post??
Usually readers who get only part of it have not renewed their membership; click on Help and ask Support.
Every couple of weeks I get only the first half of your post. Each time, it’s because I,ve been logged out for some reason. When I log back in, the whole post is there.
If other people also keep themselves logged in to simplify access to each day’s posts, that could be the reason they are unexpectedly getting only the first half. They just need to log back in.
Lapsed membership is another possible reason, of course.
Ah, right. Yup, you can’t get the posts without being signed in. So that may be the problem others are having.
Beyond how utterly miserable the world might have been, from the point of view of the poor Jewish masses, during the lifetime of Jesus; one can’t help but wonder what could possibly convince Jesus and other contemporaneous Jewish apocalyptic sect leaders of the imminence of the kingdom of God brought by a cosmic judge of the earth and galvanize them into a preaching spree.
Do you agree that wild re-interpretations of the failed apocalyptic prediction in the Book of Daniel (which itself was an idiosyncratic attempt at reinterpreting the failed apocalyptic prediction in the Book of Jeremiah) is what ultimately produced the apocalyptic fervor from which Jesus and other messianic claimants sprang during the 1st century of the Common Era?
No, I dn’t think that’s the *cause* (one would then have to answer what the cause of Daniel’s predictions was). The fervor began about 200 years before Jesus, as Jewish thinkers came to think that the forces of evil were in control but that God simply wasn’t going to put up with it any longer. Jesus’ followers inherited this from the broader Jeiwsh tradition at the time.
What about the Catholic explanation that Jesus wasn’t predicting the imminent end of the world in the Olivet Discourse, and was only referring to events leading up to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70?
They also claim that Josephus was an eyewitness of the events, and reported that God gave great signs in the heavens to show that the temple would soon be destroyed. These included a star that resembled a sword hanging over the city, unexplained light shining around the temple and its altar, chariots, and soldiers fighting in the clouds, and heavenly voices saying “we are departing” from the temple (Jewish War 6:3:5[288-310]). The same signs are mentioned by the Roman historian Tacitus (Histories 5:13).
It’s hard for me to see that this is what Jesus was talking about, since his main message was that the kingdom of God was soon to appear and all who suffer now would be exalted then. That simply didn’t happen, and the Gospel authors knew it.
Any other Christian explanations for Jesus not coming back?
Lots of them! 1. He delayed to give people more of a chance to repent; 2. He meant “soon” in the divine sense, not according to a human calendar; 3. He didn’t mean “soon” for his own generation; 4. He DID come soon when the Holy Spirit arrived for Pentecost; etc. etc.
I’ve heard it said (no memory of who) that the “proper” translation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 is that even slaves who have the opportunity to be free should nevertheless remain slaves, because the coming kingdom was so imminent that they should not even bother changing their status. And that this understanding of the verse makes the most sense given the context/surrounding verses.
But I’ve seen essentially no translation that renders the verse this way.
Is there any truth in this? Thanks.
Yes, given 7:17-20 that does appear to be what it means.
The beatitudes of Luke in Sermon on the level ground are even more clear, especially when followed by the Woes at the end. Luke’s are more problematic as a guide to happiness unless you absolutely believed in a cosmic reckoning in favour of the poor, eta. Otherwise believers would wait for the general resurrection, cold comfort if one is hungry while listening to Jesus teaching.
Can the expression “Son of Man” be just a poetic (and biologically correct) way of saying “Man”?
Or “Boy”? Also, can “Son of Man” be confused with “Son of Adam” (as in Adam and Eve)?
Do you mean “human”? Or do you mean “male”? It does seem to mean “human” in the book of Ezekiel.
What do think Jesus’ relationship was to John the Baptist? Do you think that Jesus was a follower of John? I wonder if Jesus was and when John was executed he felt a calling to carry on John’s work albeit with his own take on the coming kingdom of god.
Yes, I’d say he was certainly a follower — that’s why he got baptised by him. But it appears that he then struck out on his own, probably before John was arrested. Possibly he had a slightly different message or, maybe even more likely, he wanted to continue the work elsewhere, up in Galilee.
Josephus on John the Baptist, Antiquities [18.118]:
“…many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise)”
Had Iran’s Shah Reza Pahlaví read Josephus he would certainly have killed Jomeini …
Perhaps Jesus was a John follower… one that started the rebellion Herod feared, so the Romans did with Jesus what Herod did with John… after all they were both REBELS.
Professor Ehrman,
I get what you are saying about Jesus’ teachings on the kingdom of God and the need to keep the law. But what does one do with his sayings from John? Do you think most of them were not truly his words? Evangelicals (I was a fervent one for decades) camp out in John and virtually ignore Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They like all the “believe” verses in John (e.g. John 3:16) because those align with their theology.
So, did Jesus contradict himself in John, or did others put those words in his mouth? I realize John was written much later, and perhaps that explains most of it? Thank you!
Yes, I think JOhn represents a later theological understanding of Jesus and the need to believe in him which does not represent what Jesus himself actually said (or thought).
Dr. Ehrman,
A church member of mine reacted to my sermon yesterday (Feb. 13) on the Beatitudes in Luke’s account. Quoting David Buttrick (Speaking Jesus: Homiletic Theology and the Sermon on the Mount), I suggested that in Luke the beatitudes are apocalyptic promises for a reversal of fortunes based on the coming of a new social order, or the kingdom of God (p. 64). My member said that that’s not what Cynthia Bourgeault wrote in her book “Wisdom Jesus: Transforming Heart and Mind.” I haven’t read the book but I googled whatever description I could read about it. Bourgeault seemed to claim that Jesus was basically a wisdom teacher, rather than an apocalyptic prophet.
I would appreciate if you could comment on this. Thank you.
Henry Pascual, Pastor
First Congregational UCC
Corning, NY
I haven’t read her book, but yes, that’s a view of Jesus that’s been popular in some circles, especially those connected with the Jesus Seminar, for the past 20-30 years. It’s not the most widely held view, though; the apocalyptic understanding has considerably more support among scholars generally.
Hi Bart,
I would like to ask your views on an opinion I recently encountered.
I heard it claimed that Jesus’ prediction of an imminent ‘coming of the Son of Man’ is something Mark put into Jesus’ mouth, and not something that Jesus himself said.
The claim was that Paul came up with the idea of an imminent return of Jesus, and Mark borrowed it from Paul and put it in Jesus’ mouth. If this is correct, we can absolve Jesus of making a false prophecy.
What do you think of this explanation?
I don’t think it works. The odd and important thing about the imminent arrival of the son of man in Mark is that in *those* son of many sayings (see, Mark 8:38, e.g) there is no suggestion that Jesus is talking about himself. If Mark were to invent them and put them on his lips, he would have made the matter clear: these are self-referential! Moreover, he woldn’t have gotten them from Paul because Paul never uses the phrase “son of man” — not once!
Great insight and comment!
Alan Watts talked about Jesus’ esoteric teachings (mostly in the Gospel of John) – which seemed to grow in Paul’s awareness, though hardly noticed and even more rarely discussed as the Church developed over the centuries (apart from some Christian mystics). In numerous places in Paul’s letters, he talks about “Christ in you”, “Christ in me”, asks the Corinthians to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith, “Does Christ live in you? (2 Cor. 13:5). Though the Gospel of John was written long after Paul had been martyred one cannot help but see the similarities with Jesus’ sayings in John, “I am the branch and you are the vine” (the branch is the vine in branch form) and especially Jesus’ prayer: “…that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us…” There seems to be a strong link at this level between Jesus and Paul. Other links are indeed tenuous. Question to you Dr. Ehrman: might the Gospel of John have drawn its inspiration from Paul’s mystical undertanding of Jesus and not from the Jesus of the other Gospels?
It’s certainly possible, and older scholarship did tend to see Pauline influence on the fourth Gospel. That’s not a widely held view among scholars today, though, mainly because the principal teachings of Paul are not in John and those of John are not like Paul. So there are indeed broadbased similarities (being “in Christ” e.g.), but it may be that these are there because they were widely held — not just by Paul, e.g.
This is a terrific summary of Jesus’ core message, and I’m really looking forward to what you say about Paul.
I believe it was Albert Schweitzer who argued that the ethical teachings of Jesus should be considered “interim ethics”, that is, not ethics we would follow today as they only applied in the context of apocalyptic imminence. Selling all one’s possessions and giving them to the poor, abandoning families and homes, refraining from marriage and raising children, etc.
Paul seems to convey a similar instruction (suggestion?) to the unmarried in Corinth, but I do not detect some of the more radical ethics of Jesus in Paul’s teaching. He urges almsgiving, but only a fraction of income, not everything. He instructs families on how to live together orderly and in peace, rather than urging the husbands to abandon their wives and children and follow him.
I have two questions:
1. Do you agree with Schweitzer that Jesus expected the end within a few months, and his ethical teaching was radicalised for that time frame?
2. When the end did not come so soon, did Paul water down the more radical ethics of Jesus (assuming he knew them) to prepare his churches for a longer wait?
1. I don’t knonw about a few months, but certainly within his generation, and yes, that is the important context for understanding his ethical teachings; 2. No, I think Paul too expected the end to come soon and that too radically affected his ethics (as in 1 Corinthians 7, as he himself indicates)
Speaking of the Son of Man, if you have some huge blocks of time on your hands :-), a couple Orthodox priests over at Ancientfaith.com have been doing a deep dive into origins of the Son of Man with lots of references to Ezekiel, Daniel, 1st Enoch, and 2nd Temple Judaism. Here’s a link to one of the episodes:
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/who_is_this_son_of_man
As you probably know, there are very large books by fine scholars dealing with the issue from numerous perspectives….
Yes, thanks! Surprisingly, you were referenced twice in the episode as “friend of the show” 🙂 but with a bit of straw manning in at least one of the references. But yes, I’m at a point where I can see where doctrinal biases are likely trumping otherwise useful information. It’s been interesting to compare and contrast with what I’m learning here.
I was wondering where you come down on the recent debates over the traditional criteria of authenticity for identifying the historical teachings and actions of Jesus. I’m reading Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne’s 2012 book “Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity” and it reinforces doubts I’ve harbored about some of the criteria (particularly Double Dissimilarity). I know you’ve endorsed the use of the criteria in your books but wondered how you see these challenges to the criteria approach.
I”ve never accepted double dissimilarity as logical, usable, or necessary myself. My view though is that it is very easy indeed to debunk methods of inquiry without putting anything in their place. Also, I think the criteria are really simply stating what historians and, say, criminal investigators and lawyers use to establish what happened in the past. Do you have lots of independent witnesses who basically agree? How do their biases affect their testimony? Are there other established factors that make their testimony implausible or even impossible? It’s simply how we decide if things happened based on the evidence. The problem is that scholars have reified the criteria and set them apart as weird features of biblical scholarship; the peole who have *promoted* them are the ones mainly to blame, but then the detractors then have easier targets…
I do not see it in that literal way.
There are a huge number of examples of ancient christian texts that refer to the kingdom as a more inner, spiritual concept, both in the New Testament itself, and also in Christian literature, later framed Gnostics, and for example within the Christians who considered the Gospel of Thomas. as a legitimate text. These gives symbolic, hard to understand, almost flexible views of the Kingdom, very hard to identify and in some verses, it is already here but we don’t know it (for example Gospel of Thomas 113/Luke 17:20-21) etc.
Excellent post as usual Dr Ehrman….
1. As per Jesus in NT, would the coming Kingdom of God going to be a particular geographical place ?( I mean like an Asteroid landing on pacific ocean and thats where that Kingdom would be created with its Rulers and assistant rulers and all? Or is it going to be in Jerusalem?)
2. As per Jesus in NT, would entry into this KOG is entry into heaven or heaven would be a later on perk?
3. How Jesus’s Kingdom of God is different from 1st Century Jewish belief of Messiah coming down and creating a just kingdom?
4. Is the Kingdom of God going to be a Torah-compliant(sabbath ,circumcision, kosher meat, kippa, mezuzah etc)
(Apologies for the 4th question as I know your strict Trinitarian rule of 3-questions-at -one-time-only….)
Actually, my trinitarian rule is two questions. 🙂 I’m a binitarian…. 1. Probably Jerusalem; 2. Jesus in the earliest Gospels doessn’t speak of going to heaven but of entering the kingdom of God on earth. Only in later Gospels (esp. John) does he appear to speak of heaven, and there he doesn’t speak of the comining kingdom of God.
In the NT Gospel it is reported Jesus said the Kingdom of God is to arrive soon and will happen during the generation of the apostles. The idea that it will arrive soon is only the opinion of a certain group of Jews (Luke 19:11) including Paul who believed the coming of the universal Messiah will happen in their era. Evidently they based their analysis in the 70 Weeks Prophecy in which the 70th Week countdown for the coming of the universal Messiah is taken as only 7 years, or is equal to only 70 years. There is another Gospel that emerged in the 15th century CE called the Gospel of Barnabas having Jesus said the universal Messiah (Son of Man) will arrive not in 7 or 70 years but in 700 years timeframe. I see it fulfilled in Muhammad as the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God ( that had defeated and expelled the Romans from the Levant) as Islam. Did you try looking at the existing Latin gospel of Barnabas? I seen it as a copy of the latin translation of the Nazarene Gospel translated into Latin by Jerome? What is your view?
It’s almost certainly a medieval forgery, and it has no relatino to the Gospel of the Nazarenes mentioned by Jerome (of which you can see a translation — of the surviving fragments — in my book The Other Gospels.)
Dr Ehrman
Could you confirm whether I have correctly understood that (as far as we can tell)
Jesus did not think of himself as a prophet teaching a new message,
but rather as a Jewish teacher trying to revitalize the true and urgent covenant of Judaism with Jehovah?
I’d say it’s hard to tell. His message was very similar to that of John the Baptist, whom he had followed, and other preachers of repentance. It’s hard to know if he thought he had a special revelation or was propagating views of others in trying to promote the cause.
Jesus never thinks he has a new message he just makes it deeper Mt 5:43 love your enemies. Mt5:28 if you look with lust you have committed the crime. Jhn 18:36 if my kingdom were of this world….Luke 17:21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Of course Jesus can’t preach about his death and resurrection because it hasn’t happened. But Paul can.
So was the kingdom about to appear? That is Paul’s message! He meets the resurrected Jesus!! Of course the message sounds waaaaaay different. But its the same. All of Romans 8 is the kingdom of God in you—the spirit. When a jew heard “kingdom of God” they thought “kingdom of Israel” Paul blew the doors off the definition of “Kingdom”. Paul was so far beyond that little piece of dirt called Israel and that small kingdom thinking.
Hi Bart,
Given what you said in some of the comments above about the relation between the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus – and that the latter may have even been directly continuing that of the former – and given that John seemed to have been quite well known (at least in the sense that he apparently attracted the attention of Herod Antipas), why do you think it was Jesus and not John who gave rise to a fast-growing new religion (even though, as you point out, that was not his intention)? What do you think distinguished one from the other? Is it just historical contingency or do you think there were key differences?
I think it was for a very simple reason, although it’s hard to understand the reason for the reason. The reason is that some of Jesus’ followers claimed he was raised from the dead.
Bart
How does apocalypticism fit into Judaism? It seems an awkward fit to me…. Like saying that Mormons are Christians
I guess it’d be more like saying capitalists are Americans? The problem there is that a lot of capitalists are other nationalities. Republicans are Americans? It’s one way of being an AMerican?