Loading...One other aspect of Jesus’ teaching is important to emphasize before continuing on to consider his understanding of the afterlife. That is the thoroughly apocalyptic character of his views.
I have discussed Jewish apocalypticism a number of times on the blog—including some months ago on the current thread. I don’t want to repeat all that here in the same form, but I do want to summarize what the view is and discuss its underlying assumptions.
In a small nutshell, apocalypticists believed that this world was being controlled by evil forces responsible for this terrible mess of things (corrupt governments; natural disasters; persecution of the righteous), but that God, who was ultimately sovereign, was soon to intervene in the course of human affairs, overthrow the forces of evil, and establish a utopian kingdom here on earth.
To Read the rest of this post you need to belong to the blog. Belonging is easy and relatively cheap — less than 50 cents a week! And every cent goes to help those in need. You get tons for your money and the world is a happier place. So JOIN!!!
You addressed the books of Maccabees in an earlier post. What are some of the other sources used to establish this basic understanding of apocalypse and the afterlife?
Mainly the Jewish apocalypses, such as 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra.
Hi Bart,
Do you think there was a common source or influence over the apocalyptic views of John the Baptist and Jesus?
They both seem to have used similar language over the coming judgement and its imminence.
I’m curious if you think the Essenes and / or the book of Daniel had much influence over their message?
It’s usually thought that Jesus was John’s disciple/follower and got much of his message from him. Where he got it is harder to say.
James Tabor makes a good case for claiming 4Q521, an Essene fragment recovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls, was quoted back to John the Baptist’s followers when they were sent to Jesus asking if he was the one to come.
https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/archaeology-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/the-signs-of-the-messiah-4q521/
It’s one of the rare narrative sections of Q, so appears to be very early. I think you’re right that Jesus was a follower of John and listened to his teaching. If Tabor is right about 4Q521, and the evidence and arguments seem to stack up, would you agree that the Essenes are a likely source or influence for Jesus’ apocalyptic message?
No, I don’t think so. Apocalyptic thought was widely shared among Jews at the time, and nothing ties Jesus to the Essene communities (while several things show how very different he was from them)
Yes, I don’t think Jesus had direct involvement with the Essene community, but most Dead Sea Scroll scholars think that John the Baptist did.
Tabor’s argument is that 4Q521 shows that both Jesus and JBap were familiar with this Messianic Apocalypse, as demonstrated when Jesus cited it back to JBap’s disciples when they made their enquiry.
What seems most likely to me is that this was a saying that JBap used during this teaching about the coming Messiah, which Jesus subsequently heard and learnt from.
My argument is that there was a line from the Essene community to JBap to Jesus – that Jesus had second-hand knowledge of Essene Messianic predictions and that he confirmed that this one was (almost) true about him.
I say almost because of one aspect was not fulfilled – the prediction the Messiah would free the captives. Jesus left out this part when he repeated it back to JBap’s disciples, which would explain why he then goes on to say “Blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.” (Lk 7:23) In other words – “No offence John, but I’m not springing you from jail.”
I don’t think there’s any compelling evidence that John was involved with the Essene community. His mission was very, very different from theirs. Just because he and they were apocalypticists is not very persuasive as an argument, I would say.
Yes, I agree that the means of completing their missions were very, very different, but they shared the same mission goals and when JBap was questioned by ‘the priests and Levites from Jerusalem’ over who he was, he responded: “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’” (Jn 1:23)
The Essene Community Rule cites the same Isaiah passage when identifying their mission and purpose: “And when these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of unjust men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of Him; as it is written: ‘Prepare in the wilderness the way of…make it straight in the desert a path for our God’” (1QS – The Community Rule)
This isn’t the only evidence, but it’s one of the strongest parallels of purpose and mission between JBap and the Essenes. Furthermore, scholarly opinion seems to have settled with a 3:1 majority in favour of JBap being either influenced or associated with the Essene community:
Scholars who accept JBap was either influenced or associated with the Essene community:
1. R Eisler
2. Otto Betz
3. Jean Steinmann
4. Yigal Yadin
5. John Allegro
6. Barbara Thiering
7. Charles Fritsch
8. Millar Burrows
9. David Flusser
10. Kurt Schubert
11. Michael Grant
12. Joseph Fitzmyer
13. Magen Broshi
14. Jozef Milik
15. Geza Vermes
16. Robert Feathers
17. Jean Danieleo
18. Jack Finnegan
19. Daniel Schwartz
20. Raymond Brown
21. R Harrison
22. Charles Scobie
23. John Robinson
24. Oscar Cullmann
25. Robert Webb
26. William Brownlee
27. George Brooke
28. Lucretta Mowry
29. James VanderKam
Scholars who reject John the Baptist was influenced or associated with the Essene community:
1. H Rowley
2. Frank Cross
3. Pierre Benoit
4. Cyrus Gordon
5. Edmund Sutcliffe
6. John Pryke
7. Joan Taylor
8. James Charlesworth
9. Carsten Thiede
10. Ian McDonald
It seems to me that there are good reasons for believing that JBap had an Essene past, or was at least influenced by their teaching.
Basically, Jesus did not believe in an afterlife. The Son of Man was supposed to bring in the new kingdom, and I’m guessing he never thought any human being would ever see God. Only the angels could see God which were still higher than humans?
When he chose his disciples, he was literally choosing them to be rulers for the new kingdom. What I don’t understand is why Judas chose to alert the authorities because it wasn’t as though Jesus was planning on taking over through insurrection. Maybe Judas thought he was crazy and needed to be turned in.
Or maybe Judas thought Jesus had become too wrapped up in the idea of a glorious destiny for *himself*. (I think it would have been possible to believe in the coming “Kingdom” without believing in any kind of “Messiah*.)
Your comment has settled a question I’ve had on this topic. I couldn’t reconcile the idea of the coming kingdom with the afterlife. As for Judas, traditionally he got 30 pieces of silver…That may have been a fortune at that time, and he simply wanted the money. Always assuming, of course, that this happened at all.
An admitted athiest pontificating on belief ????? what are you not smoking?
Maduros, as a rule.
Interesting tangent (to me): if Creation were to be returned to its pristine state, and all things created were good, then in this thinking did they believe the fallen angels would return to an unfallen state?
Some possible did? Later some Christians thought so.
Yeah, this an interesting contrast with the Greeks and the Indians, who did believe that the material world was inferior and must be “transcended”. I find it interesting that the Indo-European cultures — such as the Greeks and the Indians — did see the body as contemptible, while Semitic cultures seemed to see the body as almost sacred (note that the Talmudists didn’t think that a dead body was tumah because it was disgusting but because it was holy, not unlike how handling the Torah makes one tumah, not because the Torah is contemptible, but because it’s holy). I’m reminded of the difference between how Zoroasterians (an Indo-Iranian religion) and Jews and Muslims (Semitic religions) treat the bodies of their dead. While Jews and Muslims respectfully wash, enshroud and entomb the dead within 24 hours, the Zoroasterians, in stark contrast, literally leave their dead out to rot and be eaten by vultures (google Tower of Silence, but be warned, do not view the images while eating). In a similar vain, the Hindus are in the habit of sending their dead down the Ganges river, where the Indian authorities are constantly fishing out the bloated, putrifying corpses. Meanwhile, in Semitic cultures, almost nothing can be more shameful than having a relative’s corpse be left outside to rot and be eaten by animals (cf. Jezebel). I think these distinctions in how these cultures view the body at death translate to how they view the body in life, which is why you’ll often see mortification practiced by Hindus, Buddhists and, by extension some Christians, but not so much by Jews and Muslims (with the possible exception Tatbir performed by some Shia).
I remember *starting* to read a very long, presumably well-researched novel about the history of Brazil. It told about an indigenous people who *ate* all their dead; that was believed to be the only *decent* way of treating human remains. Typically, the remains were shared by everyone in the tribe. But those of a deceased *infant* were eaten only by its parents.
I suppose you could say that having winnowed out the wheat from the chaff, and presuming that in a world of immortal bodies where family is no longer preeminent there will be no more reproduction, there would be no new fall of man, because these are the people who resisted evil, resisted temptation, who have passed the final test.
Damn, I just synopsized Stephen King’s The Stand.
Now there’s a man who reads his bible.
😉
Yes, I used to use The Stand in my class on Apocalypse Now and Then (which I haven’t taught in many years)
Christian Horror would be an interesting focus for a dissertation. The writings of Stephen King might serve as the archetype for that genre. Actually, Dante might be the archetype, but King is certainly the leader in contemporary Christian Horror.
He made it a bit more plausible, and of course he gave Evil Incarnate the edge because book sales.
I’m very peeved at him for rewriting it and updating all the cultural references, though. Does this mean we don’t get the chapter where one of the minions of Flagg disparages Howard the Duck? He truly is the George Lucas of prose.
I remember reading one interview with him where he talked about how much he loved reading the bible, loved what was in it–said he didn’t read it for the flowery language, but for the content. Which he could pilfer to his heart’s content, and never once a plagiarism lawsuit. God’s not the suing kind, I suppose. 😉
What book would you reccomend on The Enlightenment Era? I am at a fundamentalist college where it’s not being taught and I want to expand my horizons. Looking for something that explains the religious/political environment before and during, and the evolution of democratic priciples and freedom of thought afterwards?
I’m afraid I don’t have a good recommendation: maybe someone else on the blog does?
Possibly the best window onto Enlightenment thinking about religion and politics is Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason. You can find a free PDF here –> http://klymkowskylab.colorado.edu/Readings/Thomas%20Paine%20-%20The%20Age%20of%20Reason.pdf
The Discoverers by Daniel J. Boorstin. It covers more than the Enlightenment, but it will give you much of what you are seeking. If you would like my copy, I am hereby giving Bart permission to give you my email address (if Bart is willing) so we can work out shipping arrangements. Just let him know if you want it. AEK
I have also been looking at these issues . Several things occurred to me . One is ..There is a way that seems right to man and that way leads to death . Do not eat every “fruit” that someone hands you . It may appear to be good but may have at it’s core a seed of rebellion . For all of the good democracy has wrought …how has it prepared us for a sovereign God and a Kingdom ? Are we as a people very submissive ? Are we closer to God and more in the image of His Son ? Or we a people obsessed with our rights ? If it is true that a third of the angels were enticed away by Satan , I can not help but wonder if he did not promise them that they could be their own gods and do whatever they liked …in other words , Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness .
Totally different, but I think most present-day believers in “Heaven” expect to be living *there* in “improved” versions of their current bodies.
That’s what *I’M* hopin’!
As I say to my friends – I haven’t met anyone who was sure they were going to Heaven that I wanted to share Heaven with…
Speaking of the afterlife, there are certain similar passages that become difficult to reconcile when taken literally. For example,”outer darkness” is mentioned 3 times in the Book of Matthew (8:12, 22:13, and 25:30). I think most Christians believe this refers to hell as it also comes with weeping and gnashing of teeth. I also believe most Christians would agree that *fire and brimstone* refers to hell as we read in the Book of Revelation; “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).
The oddity comes into play because you can’t have outer darkness and fire and brimstone in the same location. Fire and brimstone glows and gives off light.
Dr Ehrman,
I am not familiar with this idea that the ‘soul’ is totally dependent on the body. and can think of a instances that imply the contrary.
Samuel’s ‘soul’ appearing to Saul
Moses’ and Elijah’s ‘souls’ appearing to Jesus James and John
the ‘souls’ of many saints appearing to those in Jerusalem after Jesus death.
I guess you can hold that in all those instances the appearances entailed Samuel’s, Elijah’s Moses’ and other saints’ physical bodies, but I have always understood it to be only their ‘souls’. Did Moses physical body rise from the grave in 33 C.E. cross the Jordan river and appear on top of the mountain of transfiguration for about 1/2 hour, then only after Peter’s suggestion to build a tent for it, return back to the same grave?
Jesus’ words in Matt 10:28 about not being afraid of those who kill the ‘body’ but cant kill the ‘soul’ likewise imply the possible existence of the soul independent of the body.
All the paradoxes spoken by Jesus, ‘dead burying the dead’, ‘losing your life and saving it’ ONLY make sense, as far as I can figure, if in these paradoxes one reference to ‘death’ and one reference to ‘life’ refer to life/death of the body and the other refers to the life/death of the soul. In these paradoxes Jesus is speaking to living humans composed of both body and soul, so it may not imply they can exist independently, but only that one part of the entire human may be alive (for instance the body) and yet at the same moment the other part of that human is dead (the soul).
Which scripture and in particular which words by Jesus lead you to the conclusion that the soul cant exist independent of the body?
One major point is that Samuel’s soul did *not* appear to Saul. Samuel himself did. He was an old man wearing a robe! The division of the person into soul and body is Greek; it’s not in the Hebrew Bible.
FWIW
at site
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/463972/jewish/Death-of-King-Saul.htm
it states
“Presently the ‘spirit’ [not body] of Samuel appeared and informed Saul that the battle with the Philistines would . . .”
I see no indiction that Samuel’s decomposing body which had been previously buried in Ramah temporarily walked or was somehow transported to Endor for this important interview, not withstanding the appearance was an old guy in a robe.
also I am not clear on the logic of
> But inherently the physical world – and the physical body — is good,
> which means it will be restored rather than escaped.
things can be good and after they have served their intended purpose be thrown away.
I have heard that God’s design of the relationship between the physical body and the soul is the same as between the placenta and the fetus. i.e. at birth the placenta has served its purpose so it is thrown away and the fetus continues its existence as a child. Similarly at death the physical body has served its purpose so is thrown away but the soul continues its existence in relationship to God.
Many mammals (including humans) eat the placenta after giving birth, so as not to waste all the good nutrients it contains. Likewise, Mother Earth, whence our bodies came, consumes and recycles us.
On the soul as a function of the body, rather than a separate entity, there is more literature in the field of neuroscience than you can shake a shoe at.
The placenta/fetus analogy is an excellent one, but is more applicable to the Christian institution, which has served its purpose and must now be discarded; or, at the least, transcended. All of this relates back to Luke’s difference in thematic structure regarding Jesus’ atoning death, compared to Matthew and Mark. Luke is the Gospel that pertains to this timeline juncture of the end-time awakening, as we transition into the Kingdom Age. The time of Christianity, founded upon blood atonement tenets, is done.
Here is what I am gathering about Jesus’ view…tell me if I’m wrong.
–There was a ‘Kingdom of God/Heaven’, that would occur on earth, and last forever, beginning very shortly after the death of Jesus.
–At that time, everyone who died in the past would be resurrected, with a perfect body.
–Fortunes would be reversed–if I was downtrodden in this life, I would be exalted in this Kingdom.
–I could also be exalted in this future Kingdom by following the Law, helping others…(in this life)
–‘Bad’ people, or the powerful/rich get to live forever, but in a humiliated state?
My sense is that he thought those not entering the kingdom would be annihilated. But I’ll get to that eventually.
In an interview, with whom I cannot now recall, Pope Francis opined that instead of being consigned to Hell, the unrepentant sinner’s soul would be annihilated. Naturally, this added to the fury of Traditionalist Catholics.
On the contrary, Jesus probably taught that all this was going to happen while he was still alive! That’s why when he died before the Kingdom arrived his followers were shocked and surprised and stunned and all other sorts of s-words. After Jesus’ death, his followers had only two options: A) believe Jesus was not what they thought he was, or B) believe Jesus was still somehow right about everything, and the followers merely missed a clue or something. For those who chose option A, they simply left the movement. For those who chose option B, they had to somehow rationalize and re-invented what they believed so as to fit the new narrative. Christianity, in essence, is what the option B followers developed in order to explain away why Jesus died before the Kingdom arrived rather than the Kingdom coming while Jesus was still alive. That’s why the New Testament devotes so much ink to explaining WHY Jesus died. Because any reasonable person who isn’t already invested in the belief that Jesus was right (i.e. those people who were already naturally inclined to doubt Jesus) would automatically conclude that Jesus’ death was proof positive that he was a phoney. The entire Christian message is, therefore, based on one premise: Jesus couldn’t possibly have been wrong, so there must be a reason why he seemed to have been both right and wrong.
This kind of reminds me of what it’s like talking to someone who believes in “fate”. For the person who belives in fate, everything happens for a reason. So I have to ask such a person, does that mean that there is literally no such thing as randomness? And that usually stumps them for a few minutes. If they say, yes, there is no such thing as a random event, I ask then why does assuming randomness in the universe, for example, in statistics, allows us to make astonishingly accurate predictions, while if no events were ever random, then nothing would be predictable. At that point they will have to admit that some things are just random. I then ask them how they are able to distinguish random events from events that aren’t random (i.e. the events that “happened for a reason”). Since the vast majority of people have never really given thought to such a question, they usually don’t have an answer. Invariably, they turn to the tried and true claim that it’s all “a matter of faith”. The first Christians weren’t reasoned into their beliefs about Jesus. They already believed his message was true, and when it turned out to not be true, they simply reasoned their way to affirming true that which was already demonstrated to be false.
Most religion is like this.
Possibly they all chose A initially, then when someone had a vision of Jesus, some of them changed to B.
I suspect people avoid mentioning anything to do with religion around you by now.
Just the other day I went to my family’s Chabad shul for Simchat Torah, and if you’re familiar at all with Chabad you know that the Chabadniks imbide a prodigious amount of alcohol on such occasions. Since I’m not one to turn down free booze I’ll admit I got thoroughly plastered. By the end of the night I found myself sitting next to the Rabbi in an intense dialogue with a Chabadnik across from me named Yitzy (who also happens to be the only man I know with a longer beard than mine). I can’t say I remember every detail of our converstion, but let’s say it was heated enough that the Rabbi left the table, the rest of the table was staring straight at me, and my cousin had to pull me away in fear that I would terribly embarrass him. Needless to say, I embarrassed him nonetheless, but, alas, that is the usual outcome. I still don’t know why my family bothers to invite me to such events.
And did Jesus die after the Resurrection ? If not, then I guess He is right . It did happen while He is alive. The early Christians who lived in community and with joy shared their belongings with any in need immediately after Pentecost did see the Kingdom . Love IS the Kingdom . Can you not see ?
Where would one find the background material for the fall of the angels leading to a decaying world in the bible? Ive always heard christians refer to the fall of man but not so much to the fallen angels.
It was a very common Jewish tradition. You can read one clear statement of it in teh book of 1 Enoch.
There is really no good hermeneutic ground to claim Jesus was an apocalyptic thinker. Paul says Jesus was the “First fruits (1 Corinthians 15:23).” of the general resurrection of souls at the end of day, but all this means is that Jesus was being interpreted by some after his death in an apocalyptic way, which would speak to Paul’s apocalyptic ideology, not necessarily Jesus’. As for the Gospel of Mark, the apocalyptic presentation of Jesus there may just reflect Mark’s desire to invent material to present Jesus as greater than John the Baptist and his apocalyptic message, in the same way Matthew invents material to make Jesus appear as The New Moses. Or Mark may have just been providing a narrative framework for the apocalyptic message he found in Paul’s letters. As for later gospels, those writers may just have been transmitting and inventing apocalyptic material based on what they had heard in their communities and in their travels – or from Mark. In short, there is no ground on which to stand and call the historical Jesus an apocalyptic prophet as Dr. Ehrman does.
And is there any reason to suppose Jesus’ apocalyptic message simply from Q, when the apocalyptic message there may simply reflect familiarity with Paul, or just an apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus spreading around after Jesus died?
Nothing suggests that Q knew Paul. The problem is that Jesus was a disciple of John, who was an apocalypticist; so the apocalyptic ideas didn’t begin *after* Jesus; they were the ones he embraced at the start of his ministry (if not earlier)
There is no reason to think Jesus was a disciple of John just because Mark says so. Mark may have just been namedropping a well known spiritual leader like the apocalyptic John the Baptist to show that Jesus was greater than John, just like Elijah bequeathed a double portion of his power to Elisha, recognizing him as his successor and superior. After all, as I said, Matthew invented much material to argue Jesus was the new and greater Moses. You can’t just conclude from the fact that a known personage makes an appearance in the gospels that the historical Jesus had any connection to them. Consider the case of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. No, at most we can conclude that a particular writer was an apocalyptic thinker, not that their subject Jesus was apocalyptic.
Yes, I don’t know any scholars who think that Jesus must have been John’s disciple just because Mark says so.
Bart said below: “Yes, I don’t know any scholars who think that Jesus must have been John’s disciple just because Mark says so.”
It is possible that Jesus knew John the Baptist, but there is no reason to think that it’s probable. Mark might have just been inventing a pericope that showed Jesus was greater than John the Baptist, the way Matthew invented material to show Jesus was greater than Moses. There is (possibly) a heavy lining of haggadic Midrash in the gospel of Mark. Mark says “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; as it is written in the prophets.” Mark immediately interprets John the Baptist as a forerunner of the Messiah (a la Elijah in II Kings 1:8). Mark then clothes John similar to Elijah (Mark 1:6. II Kings 1:8.) He then says John ate locusts and wild honey,the food of the wilderness in which Elijah lived (and so on and so on). Perhaps the baptism of Jesus by John is meant to reflect 2 Kings 2 near the Jordan where Elijah bequeathed a double portion of his power to Elisha, making Elisha his successor and superior. Maybe later writers misunderstood this as a historical event, and because it was already understood that way in their communities and so couldn’t deny it, they included it as an embarrassing event that had to be explained away. Just because later writers were embarrassed by it doesn’t mean Mark was, or even that Mark ever meant for the pericope to be taken literally.
The reason for connecting Jesus with John is not just that Mark says so; it’s because it is *independently* attested by stories in Mark, Q, M, John, and Acts. That kind of widespread independent attestation has to be taken very seriously.
Bart said: “The reason for connecting Jesus with John is not just that Mark says so; it’s because it is *independently* attested by stories in Mark, Q, M, John, and Acts. That kind of widespread independent attestation has to be taken very seriously.”
A growing number of scholars deny the Q hypothesis, such as Austin Farrer, Michael Goulder, and Mark Goodacre. Also, there is no reason to think John was unfamiliar with previous writers, if only from traditions that were passed down to his community. Acts is not independent attestation, since Luke read Mark. The “M” source is purely hypothetical, and doesn’t reflect the fact that maybe it wasn’t really a source, just the gospel writer’s creativity. We can’t assume material unique to a writer reflects a separate souce. They may just have been inventing things. Maybe Matthew simply adopted and elaborated on the Baptizer stuff from Mark, and Luke read Matthew.
I’m not sure I would think of Farrer, Goulder, and Goodacre as a “growing number of scholars.” Check out their dates! Goulder was a student of Farrer and Goodacre was a student of Goulder, so really we’re talking one scholar each over three generations. I don’t know how many people Mark Goodacre has convinced, but I would be interested in knowing!
Oops, spelling mistake in my last post. It should have said “source,” not “souce.” Sorry!
Dr. Ehrman said:
“I’m not sure I would think of Farrer, Goulder, and Goodacre as a “growing number of scholars.” Check out their dates! Goulder was a student of Farrer and Goodacre was a student of Goulder, so really we’re talking one scholar each over three generations. I don’t know how many people Mark Goodacre has convinced, but I would be interested in knowing!”
Regarding Q, Luke says he had gathered and investigated the writings about Jesus and his followers that were available at that time:
“1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1)”
In order to assert Q against Matthew as a source for Luke, you would have to explain why Matthew’s gospel wouldn’t have been available for Luke, since Matthew’s gospel is exactly the type of thing Luke was looking for to do his research?
And the Wikipedia article on Q says:
“How could a major and respected source, used in two canonical gospels, disappear? If Q did exist, it would have been highly treasured in the early Church. It remains a mystery how such an important document, which was the foundation for two canonical Gospels, could be lost. An even greater mystery is why the extensive Church catalogs compiled by Eusebius and Nicephorus would omit such an important work yet include such non-canonical accounts as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas. The existence of a treasured sayings document in circulation going unmentioned by early Church Fathers remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.”
How could a major and respected source disappear?!? Ha!!! Oh *boy* I wish major and respected sources hadn’t disappeared! (Whoever wrote that bit on Wikipedia doesn’t know a lot about ancient literature!)
This raises a tangential question I’ve never asked myself. Was Paul famous outside the churches he founded and corresponded with? I don’t mean in non-Christian circles, but was he as well known in the Christian world as James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, for instance? I’m assuming James and Peter were the two most famous Christians of their day. Maybe they weren’t.
Well, he was in Rome, anyway. We don’t have info on the other churches.
I’m not sure you’ve read the actual arguments for Jesus’ being an apocalypticist — but I’d be interested in your response, since they are pretty compelling, I think.
Great explanation… interesting how this apocalyptic view of life after this life which seems a fundamental belief of Jesus and his earliest followers was later (and relatively quickly) forgotten, reinvented or reinterpreted into something very different.
The idea of a coming kingdom is still around. Every time we recite the Lord’s Prayer and say “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” However, there are two versions floating around 1) kingdom on earth and 2) kingdom of heaven. I think of the great missionary song, We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations: Part of the chorus reads “…and God’s great kingdom shall come on earth, the kingdom of love and light. But, it’s common to be reminded at a funeral service that the dearly departed is even now in the heavenly kingdom. Then there is that favorite of praise bands that alludes to the 2nd coming. Though it is poor theology, it seems to be based on Paul’s idea that the dead in Christ will rise first and then those that are alive wii be caught up and together their bodies wll be transformed. “There’s going to be a meeting in the air in the sweet sweet bye and bye. How I long to meet you over there in the land beyond the sky. Such singing you will hear never heard by mortal ear, t’will be glorious I do declare for God’s own son will be the leading one in that meeting in the air.” I am confused. Did the early church have a doctrine on this? Is there a kingdom coming and will it be on earth or in heaven? Or do some authors say one thing and some another?
Yes, that’s the problem with “the early church”: there wasn’t *one* view of much of anything….
Here’ one the praise bands can’t touch — it’s from an early 20th century Pentecostal song my father’s cousin, a Pentecostal preacher, sang for my brothers and me about 1962:
One of these nights about twelve o’clock,
This ol’ world’s gonna reel and rock.
Sinners will tremble and cry with pain
And the Lord will come and get us in His aeroplane…. (J.S. McConnell, 1928)
One of my fascinations with Pentecostal hymnody is the incorporation of new technology into their images of the divine: “Telephone to Glory,” “Jesus is comin’ in his Aeroplane,” “Get in touch with God — turn your Radio on!” Are any of the contemporary Christian writers that culturally relevant?
I had forgotten about “Telehone to Glory”, and your mention of it made me remember “Llfe is Like a Mountain Railway.”
Seeing the repeating, “divine template” behind our existence is paramount to having a better understanding of this issue. We have already seen that with:
Christ walked as a man > Christ killed and entombed > Christ resurrects and ascends
Light in the world temporarily > Age of darkness > Light returns in power
Kingdom Truth preached > Age of Christianity interruption > Kingdom Truth restored/Kingdom revealed
As we see, there are different levels of application of this template, and these levels even reach as high as the span of events from Genesis to Revelation. The Bible itself IS this very template.
This must begin with the absolute necessity of understanding the delineation between the Elohim of Genesis 1, and Yahweh, who is not introduced until Genesis 2:4. To begin making sense of the grand plan, it MUST be accepted that Yahweh is NOT the supreme God, or Prime Creator. He is the God of this lower, corrupted from of existence – and the Bible tells us so! Notice the crucial difference between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 wherein Yahweh is named in Scripture for the first time. (Emphasis added below.)
“In the beginning, God [the Elohim with no name] created THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.” (Genesis 1:1)
“This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made THE EARTH AND THE HEAVENS.” (Genesis 2:4)
This “flip-flop” is not an accident or a meaningless change; it is a DIVINE CLUE. The heavens and the earth is the divine order of creation; that is the original creation by the Elohim in Genesis 1, where all was GOOD. But when Yahweh comes along in Genesis 2, the first thing we are told about him is that he FLIPPED the divine order of creation to the earth and the heavens. Here, the flesh rules over the spirit. But upon the revelation of the true Kingdom, divine order will be restored. We see this restoration in Revelation 21:1:
“I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth have passed away.”
Do you see how this self-replicating template expands as far as the beginning to the end?
Kingdom Truth preached > Age of darkness > Kingdom Truth restored/Kingdom revealed
Perfect Creation > Creation corrupted > Creation restored in a HIGHER FORM
Heavens and earth > Earth and heavens > New heavens and new earth
Having the eyes to see this solves MANY paradoxes that have baffled brilliant minds for ages. This completes the divine circle and brings the end back to the beginning. This is also why, by divine orchestration, it wasn’t until the current generation that the Gospel of Thomas was discovered – because that book’s riddles pertain to this very time; the time of the end wherein many will be transformed alive without tasting death!
Jesus says: “Have you then deciphered the beginning, that you ask about the end? For where the beginning is, there shall be the end. Blessed is the man who reaches the beginning; he will know the end, and will not taste death.” (Thomas 18)
I’ve always admired how the Gospel of Thomas points towards non-duality as the key to salvation (the two must be made one). I also agree that the unnameable is what is truly transcendent. The God that can be named(or conceptualized) is not the true (original source of all) God.
Yes, correct on all fronts! And not only has Abrahamic-oriented religion named God, but culturalized him as well. When assessing the Old Testament honestly, “Yahweh” is truly the most accurate example of a “racist.”
As for duality, let us not forget who introduced the duality of good and evil – the creator of that very “tree,” once again, Yahweh. (All in Genesis 1 was created “good,” and the whole of creation was VERY good. So, where did evil come from?) It is also under Yahweh’s administration that the duality of life and death was introduced. Bible studiers must realize the necessity of emphasizing the DIFFERENCES between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2/3, instead of trying to harmonize it all.
Man is entombed in Yahweh’s matrix and must break free. This is the unknown collective message of Scripture, hidden throughout the ages. When the religious masses begin to collectively awaken to this and stop feeding this entity all of their own innate divine power, the stronghold is broken and man overcomes death and returns to his divine home. But, as long as “Yahweh” continues to be worshipped as the true God, his rules are in force:
“To dust you shall return.”
This belief in everlasting, perfect bodies in a perfectly organized society on earth would imply the abolishment of sex and childbearing, right?
For Jesus, yes.
Jesus is said to have really loved children. Do you think he was assuming they would never grow up in his Kingdom?
I don’t know.
Would humans still reproduce in this state of Wonderfulness? If so, would these children age? And to what point, since death would no longer be an issue. On another note, I fail to understand the desirability of Eternity. My mind cannot grasp the concept of Eternity, but it sounds awful. Most especially surrounded by these insufferably Good people. I mean no Sin? None? I’m no libertine but a little Sin adds spice to life. A long, healthy, limited life, interspersed with the occasional sprinkling of harmless Sin, that sounds like the ticket. An Eternity spent in Goodness sounds like something a child would dream up.
For Jesus, no: there was no sex or reproduction after the resurrection.
So in this soon to come ‘Kingdom of God’ did Jesus’ followers believe there was going to be free will? Seems like a big chance for Yahweh to take with his prized creation since the Bible indicates the ‘free will’ track record for humanity is 0 for 2.
First, Adam and Eve chose evil and then after the flood, humanity chose evil again.
What are the chances a ‘free will’ humanity will stay on the righteous path in the coming Kingdom of God?
If Yahweh is depending on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to keep his children on the straight and narrow in his new kingdom he may want to reconsider since it’s not working to well at this point.
Of course, ancient people didn’t talk about “free will” as a human personality trait or a philosophical position.
If there was a fall from a perfect heaven once by the angels, whose to say that after a few hundred thousand years of bordem…I mean bliss, a rebellion doesn’t happen again since we will still retain free will.
I should think the church fathers didn’t take long to start thinking through the implications of the restorationist view of apocalypticism. One obvious problem is that, when we die, our bodies become “food for worms.” If our bodies are to be literally resurrected, what becomes of the poor worms? Are there any discussions in the early church literature (or Jewish commentaries on Jewish apocalypticism) of how all humans can be raised without destroying all the life that has fed on our corpses?
Yes, indeed, starting in the second century. And what about cannibals? Whose raised body will contain the parts of which bodies?
Everlasting life gets tedjous, don’t it!
So there was a lot of apocalyptic buzz in the air during the time of Jesus? If so, what, if anything, is unique in Jesus’ apocalyptic thought? Also, was apocalyptic thought more prevalent in different strata of 1st century CE Jewish society?
I’m not sure there was anything *completely* different in Jesus’ thought — a lot of it replicated what others said. One difference is that htese others were not thought to have been raised from the dead.
again
>would be brought back into their bodies; these bodies would
> be made perfect and immortal.
so you equate ‘perfect’ with ‘[physically] immortal’?
I think you will need to justify that, either logically or at the least show that to be a proposition held by Jesus.
You can see Paul’s discussion of it in 1 Corinthians 15, e.g.
I’ve always been told that Jews never interpreted the Adam and Eve story as “original sin”. Is that correct? What and who is the earliest writing where the story seems to be interpreted as an original sin story. Do we have any writings that seem to interpret it differently and if so, how early?
That’s right. The idea of “original sin” as it developed was first expressed by the 5th c. Augustine.
I believe it was Augustine who formulated the Church concept of “limbo”, a state between Heaven and Hell to which the souls of unbaptized infants spent eternity….A not unpleasant state, they had done nothing sinful, but still not being in the presence of the Beatific Vision. I think it was only in the last few years that the Church quietly abandoned this tenet. I shudder to think of the numbers of devout parents of deceased babies who tortured themselves over the dispositions of their childrens’ souls over the course of centuries.
But isn’t that implied though, by the idea of the Fall, from which mankind has yet to rise up? Or is that a Christian reinterpretation of the original narrative? Is there an essential difference between the Christian view of sin and redemption vs. that held by Jews of 1st century Palestine? I’ve never read anything that satisfactorily answers this question, but maybe I haven’t delved into the right literature yet – or asked the right scholar….so I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
No, it’s not implied actually — it just seems to be when we are accustomed to read them that way. Throughout history Jews have never done so, and before Augustine Christians did not either.
So, I am seeing better now what you mean when you say that Jesus did not believe in heaven: In the first three Gospels, Jesus is described as talking about a kingdom coming to earth and the fourth Gospel is probably not that historical.
Which Jewish apocalyptic sources talk about falling angels causing the horrible things in the world?
1 Enoch, e.g.
Do you have any comment on Is 65 17-20?
i.e. in the new heaven and new earth the typical lifetime will be 100 years?
no hint at immortality
It says that dying at 100 will be considered “young.” And yes, absolutely, 3 Isaiah does not imagine “immortality” for those in the new heavens and earth.
additionally Is 65 17-20
in new heaven and earth, there will still be births (contrary to speculation above regarding sex/reproduction); however no children will die in first few days of their lives.
Hello. I appreciate your work.
I read somewhere here that you were a Dispensationalist when you were a Christian fundamentalist.
Does this mean you subscribed to the “360-day year” as a means of reckoning time, with regards to Daniel 9?
Now that you no longer believe, do you find anything mysterious about the Daniel 9 “prophecy” of Jesus, or is it just cherry-picking/selective translation? Which translation (of Daniel 9) is the most reliable, in your view?
Thanks
Great question: I actually can’t remember about how I deal with the days in the year with respect to Daniel 9! Generally I trust the NRSV translation of the Hebrew Bible.
I have looked at very old English translations of Daniel 9 (from before the 15th century CE) and this Messianic style of translation seems to have been present back then.
I have been wondering when the endeavor to make Daniel 9 Messianic began, even though most scholars agree that Daniel 9 (and many other chapters in Daniel) refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ persecution of the Jews in the 2nd century BCE.
Perhaps Messianic interpretations (particulary of the term “an anointed prince” in Daniel 9) began with Christians within a couple of centuries after Jesus’ crucifixion, even if all the “math” and “prophetic years” hadn’t been quite worked out by then.
This would likely be consistent with other Messianic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, put forward by early Christians (such of Isaiah 53 – completely taken out of context by Messianic interpreters).
The apocalyptic Jesus concerns me a lot as I spent every Thursday evening in my childhood learning about Armageddon that would come in 1975 because that was what my mother and her nice Jehovas witnesses friends said. And I believed them until 1972 when at the age of 19, I left everything that had to do with religion.
But now 45 years after, I find it thrilling to discuss the apocalypse as a historical phenomenon and here the question of dissimilarity comes in.
What intrigues me is that, if the gospels were written and afterwards copied when Jesus and his disciples were dead…. Why did they not omit the promise that Jesus would come back during the lifetime of “this generation”? After all, everyone who read this would know that this promise failed.
For me, it is an indication that the oral traditions about what Jesus had said were so strong that the copiers did not dare to omit or alter it, not until the authors of John (after alla they speak of themselves as a group in the text) did it by presenting a more vague promise.
PS. You can imagine what importance the word “generation” has for 1 millions us citizens who are JW, they believed that the generation that experienced the year 1914 would not die out before the Apocalypse and now when they have in fact died out, the JW leadership has come up with the theory of overlapping generations meaning that those now living who have known people who experienced 1914 will not die before the real apocalypse comes.
Luke does modify these statements a bit; John gets rid of them; the Gospel of Thomas has Jesus preach against them.
And yes, the history of setting and changing dates goes all teh way back. But its modern manifestations are the most interesitng in some ways. (Cf. the Millerites in the 19th c.)
Bart,
I ran across an interesting quote in the Jesus Seminar “The Five Gospels”, in Luke 17:20-21. The Pharisees are asking Jesus when the Kingdom will come. His response is “… God’s [Kingdom] is right there in your presences”. The Jesus Seminar ranks the phrase as probably said by Jesus. The NIV version reads “… [the Kingdom] is in your midst”.
The passage is similar to Gospel of Thomas phrases that indicate Jesus teaches the “Kingdom” as being right here in our midst (but people don’t see it).
The “Five Gospels” additionally attribute none of the apocalyptic biblical passages as being from Jesus. Examples are Luke 26-27, “People will faint from terror … And they will see the son of Adam coming on clouds with great power ….”, also Mark 13:8 “For nation will rise up against nation, and empire against empire; there will be earthquakes everywhere, there will be famines. These things mark the beginning of the final agonies”, and Mark 13:24-26, and Mark 13:30-31.
I don’t see how a doomsday scenario can mix with the present-moment awareness teaching as in the above Luke passage. If the Kingdom is right in front of us (but we don’t see it) then there can be no future coming Kingdom except as we perceive and focus our awareness. Can the two apparently exclusive and opposing ideas be reconciled?
Did the Pharisees subscribe to the same “end times” scenario with restoration of the Garden of Eden and resurrection of the dead and transformation to immortal bodies? Were they looking to see if Jesus subscribed to same ideas or were they merely testing him to trip him up?
Thanks for your time.
Yes, I don’t think there’s any *way* those verses go back to Jesus. They accord perfectly well with Luke’s own theology and are not independently attested. As to the Pharisees: we simplyi don’t have detailed information about their views at the time.
Bart,
To be clear, you’re saying Luke 17:20-21 “… [the Kingdom] is in your midst,” doesn’t go back to Jesus?
And the apocalyptic sayings Mark 13:8 “People will faint from terror … And they will see the son of Adam coming on clouds with great power ….”, and Luke 26-27, Mark 13:8, 13:24-26,13:30-31. — These too don’t go back to Jesus? Or do I misunderstand you? Do you attribute any (or all or some) of the apocalyptic sayings to Jesus?
Thanks
THat’s right — Luke 17:20-21, in my view, is not something Jesus said. But the apocalyptic discourses in the Gsopels, in my view, do go back to him.
Bart,
No spiritual Master will make public predictions of the world ending, much less be wrong about it, nor would he get into trouble with the authorities and be executed, or would he be turning over the tables of moneychangers doing important and legitimate temple business in a marketplace area, which historians generally say is what led to his arrest and execution. These are the qualities of a deluded man who believes he’s far more important a figure than he really is.
I don’t believe Jesus was the deluded nut, although I can understand why some would think so
.
The apocalyptic mission, as has been noted, appears cyclically in history. It is easy to understand and has elements of truth underlying it (we will all die and experience a very personal end-times). It’s also a useful tool for motivating people to join a church and find salvation. My mentioned 17:20-21 phrase which is similar to several Gospel of Thomas phrases, is the kind of message a Master would teach.
I respect that you’ve come to different conclusions as to what Jesus taught, and I respect that you’ve used trusted historical methods for arriving there. Let me suggest a possibility that the doomsday message shows up in many sources precisely because it is so popular in history, having a familiar and inviting theme, whereas the present moment awareness message of Luke shows up in few sources because the “orthodox” fathers didn’t understand it and probably rightly knew that the general population wouldn’t understand it either, and regardless, the message doesn’t lend good support or need for organizing a big monolithic church.
I’m wondering if you could comment on my suggestion that trusted historic research methods may not be working in this particular case because of a built-in bias against a spiritual message not easily understood, and a similar bias in favor of a proven Perry Mason cookie cutter style idea.
Thanks Bart. It is really good that you come down to the level of us minions and talk directly with us. Not many recognized people will do that outside of perhaps an occasional one-time appearance on a blog. I’m sure more than a few of your subscribers feel the same.
I”m not sure why you say that spritiual masters never make specific doomsday predictions. Haven’t they done that time after time after time throughout history?
I think you’ve, yourself, proven that no spiritual Master has ever made a doomsday predication (except if you put the term “Master” in quotes), because no doomsday has yet come. Even a lowly “prophet” has to be right 100% of the time or he loses the title.
A Master is a person having elevated spiritual wisdom-knowledge. This knowledge takes us into areas of the mind. We create our own reality via our thoughts, imaginations, and our actions in the present moment. A “Master” teaching of doomsday is feeding negative thoughts into his poor pupil’s mind. It’s a dastardly thing to do. No genuine Master will do this. He will instead teach of finding freedom from physical entrapment and of peace and harmony by way of right thoughts and right actions. The storylines we live out are products of our own minds, individually and collectively. This is what a Master teaches.
But a Master might use doomsday ideas for communicating the elevated message to his pupils, it being of their language, something they can understand, and perhaps Jesus might have done this and his words later distorted.
It is also possible that there could be a “doomsday”, but it would be something of mass hallucination, experienced in full-blown three-dimensional reality out of the minds of people signed on to and believing the same thing.
I suggest running fast away from anyone telling of any impending doomsday.
Dr. Ehrman,
in The Rise And Fall Of The Afterlife, Jan Bremmer writes:
“Jesus had concentrated on the new aion which he seems to have reserved for his generation but not for future resurrected ones, destined instead to see the Son of Man returning upon the clouds to judge mankind.”
What’s the difference between his generation and the future resurrected ones, if everyone is resurrected?
“Jesus professed a faith in the resurrection but not, presumably, in the restoration of the old body, since the resurrected would be ‘like angels’ (Matthew – 22.23-33; Mark 12.18-27; Luke 20.2740).”
I know you think that Jesus believed in a bodily resurrection because he was apocaliptyc, and for me you’ve right, but why Bremmer concludes by writing “This belief then seems to conform to those currents in contemporary Judaism which rejected bodily resurrection” ?
I ask you that because you’ve cited this book in a former post about resurrection and Zoroastrianism, so I wondered what’s the difference of thinking between you and Bremmer.
Thank you very much!
Michele Fornelli
I think he’s saying that Jesus focused on the people living at his time that he was talking to. I disagree with Bremer about “rejected bodily resurrection.” Jesus clearly believed in resurrectoin.
Maybe I’ve understood, thinking that the eschatology would be accomplished within his generation, thing that you have already pointed out several times, Bremmer says that Jesus, talking about resurrection, referred to his contemporaries and to those who had already died ” ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ‘ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”, not thinking about future generations, which would not have existed since everything would have been accomplished “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened”. It’s right?
Thank you Dr. Ehrman!
Michele Fornelli
Hi Bart. Would you be able to recommend a book that summarises Jewish apocolyptism up to and including the 2nd temple period?
An authoritative account is John Collins The Apocalyptic Imagination. Or the collection of essays in the volume he edited, vol. 1 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism
Much appreciated – thanks.
Dr. Ehrman,
Let me first say how much I am enjoying your blog and interactions with my questions. I am a former fundamentalist Christian from the Churches of Christ (you debated a friend of mine, Kyle Butt, about a decade ago). I ended up changing my views and later became a “liberal/progressive” Christian (think Pete Enns, Rob Bell, Richard Rohr, etc.).
This pacified me for a while because I appreciated the inclusion and diversity. However, I continued down the path of realizing how much special pleading has to be made to maintain even “liberal” Christianity. I say all of that to say thank you so much for what you do because it has helped me pull back the curtain on Christianity (I now consider myself agnostic).
With that said, I am wondering if you have read or are familiar with the book “When the Son of Man Didn’t Come” by Christopher M Hays and C.A. Stine (and other contributors)? They maintain that Jesus did claim the end was near, but God changed his mind because predictive prophecy is conditional. It is some crazy special pleading and I was wondering if you have ever addressed it (or the arguments they use?)
No, I didn’t read it. I’d say it’s a kind of strange idea that we can decide what was going on in God’s mind. Especially if it allows us to believe other things we simply feel like we have to believe….
Dr. Ehrman,
Their main arguments boil down to alluding to some prophecies in the Jewish scriptures that were delayed or changed. Yet, they never state what conditions they believe supposedly changed to make god “change his mind” about the end of all things (they claim we don’t know; he just must have changed his mind since it didn’t happen).
They also argue that Paul was mistaken because he didn’t realize the conditions have changed. Thus, he, and most Christians, accepted the original prophecy as given without realizing god changed it. They do claim whoever wrote 2 Peter had been rightly inspired to “update the prophecy.”
It is quite exhausting. My response is that there are no reasons to believe this was a conditional prophecy. There is nothing that happened that would have changed the conditions. Moreover, 2 Pet. 3 doesn’t seem to be “updating” the prophecy but simply reiterating what Jesus himself had said (“be patient and don’t be deceived.”). 2 Pet. 3 only makes sense if it is generational (giving them more time to repent). If god is waiting on more people to repent and more people are born/fall into sin every day, then he will never come back.