(13 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...Did Jesus (wrongly) preach that the end of the age and history as we know it was to come in his own time? It’s one of the hottest topics in NT studies. I’m pleased here to include a guest post by Platinum member Rizwan Ahmed on the question, in which he argues that my views do not rest on solid evidence. What do you think?
As you know, Platinum members can submit posts to other Platinum members, and after a few get posted the Platinums can vote on which one gets posted to the whole blog. It’s a real perk of Platinum membership — along with others (most important: a quarterly webinar with me, for Platinums only). Check out the benefits and the membership requirements for that level and think about joining: Register – The Bart Ehrman Blog
For now: here’s Rizwan’s challenging post.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Luke 21:9 seems to place a ‘not-imminent’, post-temple destruction milestone label on the apocalypse and creates an adjustment to the ‘imminent’ label seen in Mark and a delay buffer for Matthew 24:24. This causes me to consider this ‘world end’ from a slightly different perspective, where this ‘end’ is not of physical human-kind as much as a spiritual metaphor for Jesus’ teachings repaving the one ‘true path’ to God and the destruction representing the necessary (and apparently a recurrent) ‘violent’ course/culture change for the jews. Individually, each of the disciples of Jesus (and future disciples) could reach this ‘new world’ at different times. Obviously, the overwhelming historical and surrounding evidence supporting a physically destructive and violent end is hard to ignore, especially if we consider heaven as being designed to come down to earth – but if we instead consider heaven as a spiritual form/location instead of a physical location, these various apocalyptic statements are workable. Death equaling an absence of ‘living’ spirit… Just brain-storming here…
My thoughts exactly!!!
“Why bother trying to improve society if it was all going to end soon anyway?” Exactly. Jesus was trying to prepare people for the end, not society. So, if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek, because God will soon establish His just kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor, because you won’t need wealth in the imminent kingdom. Slavery? No need to preach against it because there will be no slavery soon in God’s kingdom. I think Jesus’ teachings are best understood and make the most sense in an apocalyptic context. But don’t fret: there are always ways to explain away failed prophecies, like in 2 Peter 3 which tries to explain that God has been moved to patience which is why the end hasn’t come yet as people had been led to believe.
Yeah these are good points. I would say though that the idea of giving away and detaching oneself from material possessions wasn’t a new or unique idea. Bhuddists, Pythagoreans, Cynics, and to some extent Stoics all had similar ideas. None of them advocated for this because they thought the world was about to end any minute. In modern times, we have seen people like Harold Camping, Charles Russles, William Miller and others telling their followers to give up all of their possessions because of their prediction that the world would end soon and so we project this idea back onto Jesus. I don’t think it’s fair to project back these ideas back onto a Jewish preacher living in a very different world at a very different time.
The point I was making in my post was that we don’t appear to have any solid textual evidence that connects the idea back to Jesus. Our sources are all tainted with post-Resurrection Christian ideas and none of the verses where Jesus explicitly says this pass the three criterion used determine if a particular saying goes back to Jesus.
Muslims and Jews just absolutely warring it out for space in the Platinum Holy Land LOL
(JK I enjoy by co-faith posts as well as Dankohs)
It’s not just the direct words attributed to Jesus; his actions and recommendations show he expected the end of the current world and the coming of the kingdom of God. His advice to “sell all you have and give it to the poor” only makes sense in a context in which money will soon no longer mean anything. Similarly, his recommendations to abstain from sex require an underlying belief that there will be no next generation.
The problems that you raise in your final paragraph are exactly the problems Christians faced ever since they realized the world wasn’t ending as predicted. They had to follow Jesus’s commands, but those commands don’t work in a world that continues to exist. This shows up in Christians’ continuing ambivalence over sex, for example.
Further, the failure of Jesus’s prediction to come true on schedule even bothered the gospels, which gradually shaded his prediction. Similarly, the other parts of the NT, especially 2 Peter, tried to deal with this dilemma. It also drives the recurring speculation that the end is coming any minute now.
It doesn’t “only make sense” in that context. If anything, it makes less sense. Why so much emphasis on the wellbeing of the poor, when they are blessed and soon to inherit the Kingdom? Why not “abandon everything and wait with me in a cave”? You honestly don’t think a person could insist his followers give everything to the poor simply because it was what they believed to be the ideal way of life? There’s plenty of evidence that says otherwise.
Would anyone honestly be that surprised to find Jesus wasn’t apocalyptic at all? I think the evidence points that way but it’s not some kind of confirmed fact like I see a lot of people saying. The apocalypticism could easily have been a later accretion.
When Jesus says, sell all you have, that only makes sense if wealth and possessions will soon no longer matter. There are many exhortations in Scripture to help the poor; only Jesus insists that everyone has to join them.
That just isn’t true, though, which is why other scholars have located Jesus in a Cynic-type tradition. As I said, there are other ways Jesus could have presented this idea if it was truly dependent on apocalyptic thought. Instead he does it in a way that specifically *doesn’t* suggest these things, universally, no longer matter.
“How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:23). There was no middle class in those days; you were either rich or poor. Jesus’s observation is not practical for a world that lives on (despite the inequalities of wealth, wealth does keep things moving).
This is the whole tenor of his message as reported in the gospels. “But Jesus said to him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.'” (Matt. 8:22). Let the dead rot above ground? Only if it’s not going to matter soon.
Then there are the direct quotes of Jesus saying things like some of those then living would see the kingdom. You can argue, as the diarist does, that the evangelists put all these words in Jesus’s mouth, but that strikes me as special pleading. At the very least, is shows that those who heard Jesus directly, and those who first passed his message on, believed that he was predicting the imminent end of the world. There is no reason to think he didn’t – other than the world didn’t end as predicted, and this discrepancy needs to be explained.
So, again, you’re saying there’s “no way” to do something, unless you’re doing something I am not doing. The only thing this demonstrates is that your position isn’t nearly as strong as you think it is. I have no idea how you can accuse a random person of “special pleading” when you know literally nothing about their methodology.
If anything, it sounds like you have a dogmatic attachment to the idea that Jesus was a failed apocalypticist. It’s pretty amusing to me to see someone accuse Burton Mack of special pleading because he couldn’t handle Jesus being wrong about something.
”
It doesn’t “only make sense” in that context. If anything, it makes less sense. Why so much emphasis on the wellbeing of the poor, when they are blessed and soon to inherit the Kingdom? Why not “abandon everything and wait with me in a cave”? ”
how is there so much emphasis on the well being of the poor when poor have left everything including family members ?
28 Peter began to say to him, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the good news[g] 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”
this only make sense if a big reward is coming very soon.
Well, yes, if you take the apocalyptic quotes attributed to Jesus as historical, he is obviously going to look apocalyptic.
Good points Dankoh. I find the verses you point to as stronger evidence that Jesus believed he would live to see the end than direct quotes of him saying that for reasons pointed out in my post. However, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk case. First, we don’t really know if Jesus actually said any of this for reasons pointed out below. Second, even if Jesus did advocate for a very austere lifestyle, he wouldn’t have been the first or last person to say that. Other groups predating him did the same. Buddhists, Cynics, Pythagoreans, all had the same idea and none of them thought the world was about to end. You don’t have to believe the world is about to end in order to advocate for giving up material wealth.
Maybe you can point out to me where Jesus tells people to abstain from sex, I don’t recall any such verse. According to Paul (1 Corinthians 9:5), Jesus’ disciples and brothers were married so clearly they weren’t giving up female relations or even living a completely ascetic life that the Gospels would have us believe.
There’s no such thing as a “slam dunk” in this business, nor even “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in most cases; the best we can do is “preponderance of the evidence,” subject to interpretation. And we don’t know if Jesus ever said any of the quotes attributed to him. My interpretation is that he probably did say much of those things, since the gospels are generally consistent in that regard, and also it is close to what the Qumran community and others in 1st cent Judaea were predicting about the end of the world. It’s also reasonably close to the attitudes of the Qumran community and the Greek Stoics about sex, again with some differences.
Jesus doesn’t insist that his followers abstain from sex, but he doesn’t seem to mind if they do. There’s that line in Matthew: “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matt. 18:12). Another line in Matthew says “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Matt. 22:30). (cont’d)
(cont’d) Both passages, especially the first, show a lack of concern for a next generation, which would be consistent with an expectation that the world is coming to end soon and thus no need for a next generation. The Essenes, who may have influenced Jesus through John the Baptist, or who may have coincidentally reflected a similar way of thinking (it’s speculative but, I think, not implausible), may have insisted on total celibacy for their leaders (Josephus thinks so), and they did definitely insist that sex be strictly for procreation; having sex while the woman was pregnant or after menopause would get the couple kicked out of the Qumran community.
There are a couple of places, not just 1 Cor. 9:5, which mention some of the disciples were married. But I find this curious note in the NRSV on that verse: the Greek says “a sister as wife” – ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα. I’m not in any sense a Greek scholar, so maybe someone who is (Bart?) can speak about this. In all events, the passages in the gospels and in Paul’s letters very quickly led to the idea that lifetime virginity was the highest ideal. See, e.g., the Apocalypse of Paul.
Jesus also paralleled that: “and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuchs_for_the_Kingdom_of_Heaven
I’ve done that but waiting on God, where was the promised Holy Spirit?
I went out to a distant land to preach & gave all & nothing. Are we to die in despair?
According to Andrew Murray whom I as closely tried to follow his instruction for living in God. Pray for rulers, repent for nations & people. I know China was not blessed as USA was by God.
I can take responsibility for national sins, but I refuse to get involved with American Church sin as
Wiersbe quotes a fellow preacher as a parishioner is repenting … don’t get me involved in your sin!
Well, technically, based on Mark 2:20; 13:10; 14:7-8, the Markan Jesus is teaching that there will be a gap between Jesus and the end of all things. The Markan Jesus is preaching that the end would come within the lifetime of his followers (Mk 9:1), not necessarily his own lifetime. Luke downplays imminency even further with a gap of “the times of the Gentiles,” and in John, an imminent futuristic end is virtually absent. So if we work backwards from John to Luke to Mark to the historical Jesus, it’s reasonable to think Jesus was preaching an imminent end within his lifetime. And that would make sense. Usually an urgent apocalyptic preacher would not proclaim, Repent for the kingdom of heaven is coming in 40 years.
Great post. Wanted to clarify one part. When you say “Was it because of something Jesus said? Interestingly, it had nothing to do with Jesus’ teachings.” and then a little bit further say “It is worth noting that this belief was not unique to Paul but likely originated with earlier Christians, possibly including Jesus’ own disciples.”, are you stating that it likely originated from his disciples’ own thoughts, or that they likely did hear some of it from Jesus?
That it probably originated with the earliest followers of Jesus, such as some (all?) of his disciples. They had some sort of visions/experiences that convinced them that Jesus was alive. How was he alive still even though he was killed? Because God had resurrected him. If God had raised Jesus, it must mean the rest of the dead would be raised too very soon. Meaning the end was at hand. Because of this, I would expect to find the earliest Christians propagating stories where Jesus also predicted the end. It’s hard to say though, perhaps Jesus DID also teach this, but I don’t think we have a solid textual traditional that can for sure link the idea with him.
It’s insanity trying figure out what was really said, or if any of the text is true besides the basic information. when comes mark teaching of jesus it don’t agree with long game narrative of biblical messages kinda pointless if it’s the end and only through Jesus we can saved, there would been no Bible messages then. Was mark confusing jesus death with the end of times. But maybe it’s truly what mark thought but maybe not what Jesus meant. I’m a atheist so it’s hard for me to believe most of the narrative of the Bible at least in the literal way, beside we should all do better. I do believe jesus was real human. The very basic premise of we need be saved by god from god is little hard to understand, I don’t get the drama, can’t god just forgive us, save all the trouble and suffering now. I can go deep into the rabbit hole, if god is all knowing then god would have known before he made Adam and Eve that they would eat the fruit disobeying him but blame us. it’s like a insanity guilt trip.
Thank you for a good post!
I like to use the Gospel of Thomas as a lens, since it ALSO represents views /conceptual frameworks at the time of Jesus. I would say that the sayings in Mark and other canonical gospels about the imminent end might be less about predicting a specific future event and more about conveying deeper spiritual truths.
These references might shed some lights which might argue against a literal understanding of the canonical verses.:
The Kingdom is described both internal and present:
* Saying 3: “Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.”
* Saying 20 tells about the Kingdom as a mustard seed, the smallest of all seed.
* Saying 22 tells about a qualitative state which qualifies for entering the “Kingdom”
* Saying 113 “”When will the kingdom come?” “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘here it is’ or ‘there it is.’ Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it
Interpretation rather literal understanding:
* Saying 1: “Whoever discovers the interpretations of these sayings will not taste death.”
This might suggest that the sayings need to be interpreted and are not always literal.
Transformation in an apocalyptical framework:
* Saying 51: “ when will the new world come?” He said to them, “What you are looking forward to has come, but you don’t know it.”
• Saying 3 “kingdom is within you and it is outside you.”
It seems to me that this emphasis on personal transformation rather than external apocalyptic events. The “end” could be a personal end of ignorance, illusion, or spiritual blindness.
Use of time might seem paradoxical
* Saying 18: “,,Tell us, how will our end come?’ Jesus said, ‘Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? For where the beginning is, the end will be. Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning; he will know the end and will not taste death.’”
Here it seems that expressions is not linear, but more intertwined with all moments of existence
Yes, great points!
What evidence do we have that apocalyptic prophets of Jesus’ era preached that the end would happen in the lives of future generations, rather than in their listeners’ lifetimes? Whether or not we have solid evidence that Jesus said the kingdom would come during his or his audience’s lifetimes, other quotations attributed to Jesus said that the end was near. I’m guessing that such messages from apocalyptic preachers implied the end would come within the listeners’ lifetimes, whether or not that was always stated. Does this fit with the evidence about Jesus and other apocalypticists of that era?
The apocalyptic prophets mentioned by Josephus speak of the end coming while they were alive; so does John the Baptist; and later Paul, who probably held that view before his converstoin to jesus.
Another possibility is that Jesus thought of himself as the “Jewish Messiah” but spoke in apocalyptic terms. This would be similar to the Qumran community’s attitude, in which both both a Davidic messiah and a priestly messiah were expected, while the final battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness was characterized in apocalyptic terms. Jesus thinking of himself as the Jewish Messiah also explains why his disciples would ask “will you now restore the kingdom to Israel?” even after the resurrection, and it obviously meets the criterion of dissimilarity as well. In this scenario the reason for the apocalyptic language would be 1) to keep the ‘messianic secret’ in order to avoid arrest as a threat to Rome and 2) perhaps because of Jesus being influenced by the apocalyptic teachings of the time – Book of Enoch, Essenes, etc.
Against your claim that only Mark attributed a belief that the end-times was immanent to Jesus, here’s three Q-derived passages that I think do likewise:
Luke 14:16-17 (Matthew 22:4) – “Someone gave a great dinner and invited many. At the time for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is ready now.” [Jesus says the dinner, representing the kingdom, is “ready now”.]
Luke 12:54-56 (Matthew 16:3) – “When you see a cloud rising in the west, you immediately say, ‘It is going to rain,’ and so it happens. […] You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?” [Jesus suggests something significant will happen in “the present time”]
Luke 11:49-51 (Matthew 23:34-36) – “[…]So that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah[…]. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation.” [Why would all past sins be charged specifically against “this generation”, unless the judgment were coming in their time?]
Thank you for pointing these out. My post was making two points. First, that we don’t have reliable explicit claims from Jesus about the imminent end. Second, that since we don’t find such sayings and that the earliest Christians believed the world would end within their lifetime due to their understanding of the meaning of Jesus resurrection, we can’t simply accept these kinds of sayings found in the Gospels as being the literal words of Jesus. If we don’t come already thinking that Jesus was preaching this, then these verses can be interpreted in other ways.
Luke 14:16-17 : Jesus gave examples like this to give a sense of urgency to his message.
Luke 12:54-56 : Reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Luke 11:49 : This is a passage that’s putting blame of Jesus’ murder on the Jewish leadership.
Fascinating analysis. Looking forward to hearing Bart’s rebuttal.
I agree, it would be very interesting to read Bart’s opinions.
Jesus referred to the prophet Daniel and the abomination of desolation when he spoke about the upcoming times.According to Daniel,the end of the world was supposed to come shortly (“seventy sevens”). after the death of Antiochus IV
Yes, this is again coming from Mark 13:14 and is carried over into both Luke and Matthew because the passage is a clear reference to the destruction of the Temple that happened in 70 CE. That’s an event that Luke and Matthew knew actually did come true, and so did Mark assuming he was writing after, or during the Roman siege of Jerusalem.
In Matthew 10:23, it seems that these words are not present in Mark.
Yes good point. I forgot to include this in my post. Most of that passage is taken directly from Mark 13:9-13, Luke also has it in Luke 21:12-19. This is an interesting case though because it’s a bit backwards from what you would expect if Jesus had actually said this. The earlier passage is definitely in Mark, with Luke following him. If Christians were trying to downplay what Jesus had actually said, you would’ve expected the earliest account to have included it and the latter two taking it out. Instead, Matthew inherited Mark and added in an extra verse here. Then of course there is the question of the Son of Man verses which makes this even more complicated. I would argue that this appears to be another example of a Christian author adding words on an existing tradition based on his own views of the imminent end.
Great post! I don’t think Paul himself would have differentiated the resurrection of Jesus from the teaching of Jesus in the same way though. From Paul’s perspective, the resurrection could be in itself a teaching of Jesus who appeared to him and the apostles. He says that Jesus appeared to him earlier in the same chapter (1 Corinthians 15:8). So I don’t think we can use Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:20 to say that Paul’s belief was based on the resurrection rather than Jesus’s teachings, because there’s no dichotomy here. The resurrection can be a teaching of Jesus within the context of the chapter. So if the resurrection is a teaching of Jesus, demonstrated by Jesus appearing to Paul, and the imminent apocalypse is a consequence of the resurrection, then Paul may also understand this apocalypticism as a teaching of Jesus.
These are just my thoughts after reading 1 Cor 15 for the first time in years, and am open to the possibility that Paul would not include the resurrection as part of Jesus’s teaching. Thanks for writing & sharing 🙂
Yes good point, but I think what’s important is not what Paul “could’ve” said but what he did actually say. I think 1 Corinthians 15:20 is pretty clear that Paul’s (and probably other Christians prior to him) that the imminent resurrection was based on their interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection. Had Paul simply said something to the effect of “now the resurrection is close at hand because what the Lord said”, that would’ve been a different story.
If Jesus was apocalyptic doesn’t that make all the other gospel of Jesus a pure fabrication?
If Jesus wasn’t apocalyptic, don’t that mean we can’t trust anything about gospel of Jesus?
The door can’t both be open and closed at same time.
As with anything found within the Gospels and the rest of the early Christian writings, we can’t accept or reject any particular verse or idea wholesale.
Hi Bart! This is off topic. I have a question about the genre of apocalypses. Not necessarily Revelation but the category in general. I’m curious how were they were used in antiquity. Were they a recruiting tool? Who is reading these? You mentioned there are many, even Adam has one! Were they popular? Is someone reading them to an audience like a Saturday movie matinee or a bishop reading it to scare the flock from fleeing the religion? Would a “bookseller” generally have a few on hand? I’m just trying to get a sense of their usage in their time. Thanks!
We don’t have a lot of information about who was hearing them or in what context. But it’s usually thought that they were written for believing communities (either Jewish or Christian) in order to explain why the horrible things happening were not unexpected but all part of the plan, and that in the end God would triumph over all the foul craziness going on. They were certainly popular enough to be preserved, some of them. In the Christian tradition, the A[pocalypse of Peter nearly made it into the NT, and the Apocalypst of John did. The Shepherd of Hermas, another candidate, was also widely used in the early centuries and considered canonical my some Christians.
An excellent book on this topic is “Jesus — Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,” by Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press, 1999.
Yes indeed. I referenced that book at the beginning of the post.
From a historical view, there is some doubt about whether Jesus preached an imminent end. From the perspective that the Bible is inerrant, however, there is more evidence that he did expect the end any minute now.
How do conservative Christians who embrace inerrancy deal with this problem? After all, either Jesus was wrong or the Bible is wrong, a Hobson’s choice.
Some say he didn’t mean his generation but ours; or that generatoin doesn’t mean a time period but a race of people (the jews); or that God decided to give us all more time to repent; or…. or yup, one can come up with one’s own explanation!
This is whole problem I have with the NT, nothing really means what it says unless Christian’s agree with it or twist into something else. It’s very hard for normal people to know what the truth is. Religion has been forced on world for 2000 yr, by war, power, birth location and the family we are raised in. Just like the beliefs of China, Russia, North Korea, nazis, Japan’s old empire. Why is it so hard for some humans to change their thinking even with evidence?
Just little side bar funny though:
Elon and others want to colonize mars, moon and other planets, so no where in Bible does talk about kingdom of god on other planets, so is this a loophole from judgement day lol.
Bart, in Mark 13:30, is it written ‘generation’ or ‘race’ in Greek? Also, I wanted to ask about the parable of the sheep and goats, at the end, is it ‘eternal punishment’ or ‘eternal torment’? I read that in Greek, it means ‘eternal punishment,’ and you also write about it in your book. But in Russian translations, this word is often translated as ‘torment,’ suggesting that the Greek word can mean both punishment and torment simultaneously.
If you see how the world is used elsewhere in the Gospels, it is definitely “generation” (as in a length of time determined by lifespan).
The punishment is first called “eternal fire” and then at the end “eternal punishment.”
Thank you for the response, I apologize for the silly question, but what was meant by “world” in other Gospels, can you provide an example? I apologize once again, I just really want to understand.
It was a typo. I meant “word” not “world.” I was talking about the “word” translated “generation” -the Greek word “genea” It occurs three times in Matthew 1:17, for example.
Thank you, now I understand.Why do you think they didn’t just remove the line about ‘generation’ from the Gospels, even though there were still several centuries to go before the ecumenical council, and they already understood that the prophecy didn’t come true, but they didn’t remove these lines from the text?
I’m not sure who you mean by “they”? There was never any systematic, top-down decision to get rid of passages/verses/words in the NT; it was simply an ad hoc decision by this or that scribe.
If I may interject, based on what I think I’ve learned from Bart’s scholarship with regarding to making sense of the Bible given the text and the historical context.
All the synoptic gospels have Jesus saying “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
The first manuscripts are dated to the second century. Bible Manuscripts Wikipedia. The earliest gospel, Mark, was written about 70 C.E. Mark Wikipedia. Paul died about 65 C.E. Paul Wikipedia.
Thus, when the scribe wrote the first NT manuscripts, all persons alive when Jesus supposedly spoke these words had died. When “Mark” wrote the words attributed to Jesus, Paul had already died.
Therefore, it’s not so much as to “why didn’t a scribe remove these words because they didn’t make sense.” Rather, why did even “Mark” write these words when Jesus’ “generation” would nearing the average life expectancy of modern times.
I mean, why did the individuals who compiled the canon choose to include the Gospels that contain unfulfilled prophecies? Wouldn’t it have been more logical to include only the Gospel of John.
In Matthew 17:21, does it refer to ‘the kind of demons’ rather than ‘generation’? How do translators differentiate between ‘kind’ and ‘generation’ in the Bible? Is it possible to argue that in Matthew 24:34, it pertains to the human race rather than a specific generation? Nonetheless, translators have translated it as ‘generation’; what criteria did they rely upon for this choice?
I agree with PDF. Either Jesus was wrong or the Bible is wrong and either way evangelical Christianities are screwed. This only magnifies the problem of why Christians can’t claim a doctrine of biblical preservation. It just seems pointless for any deity to record its commands in a vessel it doesn’t preserve, but lets degrade. Is this deity not purportedly omnipotent and omniscient?
Rizwan, thank you for the post!
Important note: “apocalyptic” did not necessarily mean the end of the entire world to first-century Palestinian Jews. Jesus was apocalyptic in the sense of predicting God’s defeat of the Romans via a messiah. “Apocalypse” meant a political transition as much as it did a revealing of God’s plan / kingdom to the Jewish people.
The best evidence we have of Jesus being “apocalyptic” / political via his advocating for the historical defeat of the Romans is that the Romans crucified him. They would have no reason to do this without him saying politically apocalyptic things that they considered treasonous.
You don’t need his sayings in the Gospels to determine this. The only attestation you need (though your points about attestation make sense—I see the argument) is that the Romans felt strongly enough about Jesus’s claims of apocalyptic overthrow of them that they killed him for his views. They wouldn’t have killed him for another reason. If he was just a bringer of timeless cosmic knowledge (loving your neighbor, etc.) and not a political figure, he would have lived out his natural life as Flavius Jesus—pro-Roman through and through—in the same way Josephus did.
Yes indeed. Perhaps he did have some political ambitions. Or maybe that’s just what the Temple authorities told the Romans when they handed him over. Wish we knew.
Your post really made me reconsider not only Bart’s position on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet but also my own unique perspective. You have made very persuasive point that we don’t necessarily know when Jesus thought the end would come.
If Jesus did not necessarily think that then end would come during his lifetime, when you think that Jesus thought it would come? In other words, how did Jesus really think that things would transpire?
The perspective that Jesus thought the end would come during his lifetime makes sense, especially in light of other sayings attributed to Jesus. That Jesus’ apocalyptic message involved a veiled warning. Namely, that, at some point during his life, the “Son of Man” would come with a cosmic army and install Jesus as the Messiah, King of the Jews to rule over God’s Kingdom here on earth. When that day comes, it behooves you to be prepared and woe to Jesus’ enemies.
As for the “Son of Man” sayings, that’s a topic in and of itself so it’s hard to summarize in a post here. I think what we can be fairly certain about is that Jesus did preach an apocalyptic message and that his followers were also obviously apocalyptic. What I think is possible, and that we can see happening in the Gospels, is that after his death, they came to think that the end that Jesus spoke of was at hand. Since they had this idea, they would have certainly looked back to Daniel and taken its ideas and language when they propagated their own ideas. In short, I don’t think we can be sure that the Son of Man sayings of Jesus actually go back to him.
So when did Jesus think this apocalypse would happen? It’s possible he didn’t know or claim to know. I think Mark 13:33 is an example of this. Perhaps he just wanted people to focus on doing what’s right and being mindful of God instead of obsessing about predicting when the end will come.
I think it’s possible that Jesus did think that the coming judgement would happen within his lifetime, but I also think it’s possible that he didn’t. The point that I was trying to make was that since all of our sources, even the earliest ones, are tainted with post-resurrection Christian ideas, we can’t really know for sure. The big question is, why did Christians believe the world was about to end? Was it something that Jesus himself said? Our earliest source, Paul, indicates that this wasn’t the reason. So then the question arises, were early Christians making up sayings where Jesus says that they will witness the end? To that I pointed to Mark 14:62 to show that they were inventing such sayings. I didn’t mention it in the post but I think Matthew 10:23 is another such example. Matthew inherited that passage from Mark 13:9-13 (Luke followed him Luke 21:12-19) but Matthew adds in an extra saying here predicting an imminent end. So here we most likely have another example of a Christian author adding a saying which didn’t exist in his source.
(AdminView is having issues, so I put the rest of the response in a second message)
As for the “Son of Man” sayings, that’s a topic in and of itself so it’s hard to summarize in a post here. I think what we can be fairly certain about is that Jesus did preach an apocalyptic message and that his followers were also obviously apocalyptic. What I think is possible, and that we can see happening in the Gospels, is that after his death, they came to think that the end that Jesus spoke of was at hand. Since they had this idea, they would have certainly looked back to Daniel and taken its ideas and language when they propagated their own ideas. In short, I don’t think we can be sure that the Son of Man sayings of Jesus actually go back to him.
So when did Jesus think this apocalypse would happen? It’s possible he didn’t know or claim to know. I think Mark 13:33 is an example of this. Perhaps he just wanted people to focus on doing what’s right and being mindful of God instead of obsessing about predicting when the end will come.
I guess I was hoping for more a defense of your position. Similar to other Christians who left the faith, for me, the first step was the realization that many things the clergy had told me just didn’t make sense. For example, under many of the different scenarios of what Jesus believed about himself, the Agony in the Garden doesn’t make sense to me. The God of the Universe/Messiah would fear torture and death? Really? I understand that Christians say its to show that he was human. But we have modern cases of humans voluntarily enduring torture worse than Jesus suffered.
So, while I thought you made a persuasive argument, I expected you had answers for some of the other puzzle pieces. If Jesus didn’t think the end would come during his lifetime, do then some of the predictions of his death make sense? Did he just think that his death was inconsequential because when God’s cosmic army arrived, he would still be installed the Messiah. For me, answers to these questions, would give your perspective depth and credence. I tend to churn even my fleeting thoughts over in barrel to see if they make sense.
If Jesus didn’t believe the end was nigh, what to make of the predictions of his death? We can’t be certain if he actually made these. Dr. Ehrman suggests that early Christians may have invented these predictions. I think his last words as recorded by Mark are probably accurate. In this scenario, Jesus died thinking he had been abandoned by God and had no idea why. Though perhaps it’s another literary device Mark used by referring to Psalm 22:1. Unfortunately there are too many unknowns to know.
As for his Messianic claims, I find the evidence strong enough to think that he did make these. This is also why he was probably not expecting to die. What kind of messiah was he envisioning himself to be? I don’t know. Perhaps a kingly one, or maybe a priestly one (which perhaps the Temple authorities viewed as blasphemous/threatening), or a prophetic messiah like the Qumran scrolls speak of. It’s hard to say.
Personally, as a Muslim, I think Jesus was in a state of bewilderment as he was crucified but God raised him up in spirit so that he wouldn’t die a long and terrible death on there. That his disciples were given some kind of visions which convinced them that he was still alive and that as time went on and the story spread, it became more embellished to where he had a bodily resurrection. That his predictions about the coming judgement went from “no one knows but the Father” to “any day now”. But that’s just based on faith and my own interpretation of the evidence. Since our sources are so difficult to gauge and so hotly debated, it makes sense that there are many opinions on just about everything dealing with the historical Jesus. In the end, I don’t think there is any one correct answer to the questions you pose.
As far as why Christians thought the end was nigh, in my mind that seems pretty straightforward, based on what I’ve learned from Bart’s scholarship. The Jews were God chosen people and, as the Old Testament describes, God would intervene on behalf of the Jews. Unfortunately for the Jewish clergy, the history of the Jews didn’t necessarily jive with this theology. Thus, Jewish apocalypticism began to gain popularity. John the Baptist preached repentance, because the end is near. If Jesus truly thought he was soon to be installed as the Messiah, King of the Jews, after some cosmic battle, I think that would have appealed to many Jews who resented the Romans and had become impatient with the Jewish religious leaders.
As far as Jesus not knowing when things would go down, I think he was a man with a plan. If he truly thought he was the Messiah to be installed after God’s cosmic army laid waste to the Jew’s enemies, I think he had a pretty good idea when that would happen.
The challenge in categorizing John the Baptist as an apocalyptic prophet who foresaw the imminent end lies in the scarcity of reliable sources supporting such a conclusion. The primary sources available are Christian writings, authored by individuals with apocalyptic beliefs themselves, and scant information from Josephus, who doesn’t explicitly label John as an apocalypticist. Notably, Josephus had reservations about Messianism and apocalypticism, viewing them as contributing factors to the Jewish revolt and the fall of Jerusalem. However, in the case of John, he offers a more favorable depiction.
So these are our two and only sources. How much can we really take from them? In my judgement, not a whole lot.
I think you are missing my point.
See Bart’s blog post of August 17, 2020.
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-jesus-apocalyptic-teachings-were-changed-even-in-the-nt/
If “Jewish apocalypticism was widespread in Jesus’ day” its as if Jews were ripe for someone like Jesus. Contrary to Bart’s perspective, if I understand him correctly, that it was the belief in Jesus’ resurrection that “made” Jesus’ fame, I think that it was Jesus’ conflating the belief in the Jewish Messiah and Daniel’s prophecy of the “son of man.”
The temporal separation of the coming of the Jewish Messiah and the coming of the son of man, would have been less appealing, than Jesus’s message that he was the Jewish Messiah and the son of man would come soon to install him as such. If I had been in first century Palestine, I would have bought a Jesus apocalypticism lottery ticket.
Bart argues that Jesus’ association with apocalyptic figures like John the Baptist and the emergence of an apocalyptic Jewish sect from his ministry suggest Jesus himself was apocalyptic. He distinguishes two types of Son of Man sayings: one where Jesus refers to another figure and one where he identifies as the figure. Bart believes the former, where Jesus expects the figure’s imminent arrival, are authentic. However, this argument has flaws. Firstly, we lack substantial information about John the Baptist’s beliefs. Secondly, Paul’s apocalyptic views among the earliest Christians were unrelated to Jesus’ words, challenging the connection. If Jesus’ followers initiated the Son of Man sayings, the idea of an imminent figure’s arrival aligns with Dr. Ehrman’s theory of early views changing to a delayed one. After Jesus’ resurrection, they declared him the “son of God,” (Romans 1:4) and started anticipating the start of resurrection. They also identified Jesus as the one in Psalm 110:1, further linking him to the Son of Man in Daniel. Hence, these sayings might be based on post-resurrection beliefs, not Jesus’ original teachings.
I don’t think Jesus necessarily gained fame because he preached an apocalyptic message. That was nothing new. Jesus gained popularity because he was known to be a healer and wonder worker (regardless of if he actually performed any miracles). Further, His interpretation of the Jewish law and his message of repentance was attractive to his audience. We know from Josephus, that John was also very popular, and it was for this same reason. John offered a way to repentance and connecting with God that was different and more attractive to people than the alternatives that were around at the time (priestly cult, Pharisaic mandates, seclusion from society like the Qumran community, etc.). So in many regards, Jesus wasn’t different from other charismatic preachers of his day (John, Honi the Circle Drawer, various Rabbis, etc.). The only reason Jesus movement continued to grow after his death was because of the resurrection claims by his followers, and the ideas they formulated and propagated based on this experience. That Jesus was “the son of God”, that he would soon return and conquer his enemies, that the end was near, etc..
There have been apocalyptic prophets preaching ‘the end is nigh!’ on the streets for well over 2000 years. Don’t they ALL say ‘Hurry up and repent – or Hurry up and join us.’ Why would any of them – Jesus included – say ‘Join my movement, but no hurry, you can do it later’?? Doesn’t make sense. The ONLY reason we talk about this (IMHO) is because every single one of them have been proven wrong. THEREFORE the date HAS TO BE pushed out til “LATER.”
Well as a counter example, Islam is a very apocalyptic religion. The Quran talks about the final judgement on just about every page. However, neither Muhammad nor the Quran actually said it was for coming NOW. “It might, it might now, no one knows”. Similar to Mark 13:32, “No one knows but God” is the basic premise. My point is that yes there are absolutely cases of apocalyptic prophets who did not preach the end of the world within their lifetime but were nevertheless able to gather a lot of followers. The founder of one of the biggest religions was just that.
Zarathustra would be another example, though with him the sources are limited.
In my opinion, the Parable of the Mustard Seed provides strong support for the hypothesis that Jesus did not believe that end would come in his life time.
Mark- “How shall we picture the kingdom of God(KOG), or by what parable shall we present it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so that the birds of the air can come & nest in its branches”
He suggests the coming of KOG is A PROCESS, not an EVENT, eventually over time it overtakes & provides shelter. It is independently attested. The concept is reinforced at other places, like Parable of the Leaven.
Lets take Sun-rising- It is a process that gradually unfolds over time for sun to appear high at noon.
Saying “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the KOG has come with power.” could refer to sunrise, & not sun high at noon
Am I missing something?
Seems like a valid way to interpret that.
The most interesting aspect of Parable of the Mustard Seed , is that it provides a very specific explanation in response to a specific question, & the concept enshrined in the parable is repeated elsewhere.