I have a theory about that. First of all I accept that the best way to understand Jesus is as an apocalyptic prophet. Prof Ehrman has repeatedly said he did not invent this interpretation but he did write a great ** you do not have permission to see this link ** about it. The best so far I think in explicating the position.
My view is that attempts to interpret the historical Jesus as other than an apocalypticist are attempts to make him and his message relevant to the modern world. The truth is we can’t really relate to a first century figure that preached what the historical Jesus did. Even believers today don’t really think like the historical Jesus did. Frankly if a person like Jesus appeared on the scene today the vast majority of folks would not be at all tempted to worship him; they would think he was kind of a nut.
But a wisdom teacher we can relate to. A wise teacher of eternal truths or a sage is someone we can make contact with. Jesus the political or social reformer we can identify with. But a first century Jewish apocalyptic prophet is weird and strange and the more we place the historical Jesus in his own time and place the further from us he moves. I think behind all these non-apocalyptic views of Jesus is the simple desire to make Jesus relevant.
Omar6741 said
Why is there a debate between scholars over whether Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher or a teacher of wisdom? Couldn’t he have been both?Thanks!
He could have been both but if a preacher preaches a coming apocalypse and it doesn’t happen, then how seriously should he be taken as a teacher of wisdom?
It only works, it seems to me, if you conclude that the apocalypse is yet to come which is, of course, how Christianity chooses to deal with the issue.
screwtape said
He could have been both but if a preacher preaches a coming apocalypse and it doesn’t happen, then how seriously should he be taken as a teacher of wisdom?
It only works, it seems to me, if you conclude that the apocalypse is yet to come which is, of course, how Christianity chooses to deal with the issue.
Hate to say it, but it sounds like people are judging the Wisdom position without knowing its specifics. I think Greg Matthews has some understanding of the wisdom position. It is not just about whether Jesus was passing out words of wisdom. there is a specific first century framework behind the description.
The question makes me think of the wisdom books in the Bible, a genre of writing.
Almost all we have on Jesus is in the four gospels which is a biographical genre.
While the wisdom books are attributed to important characters like Solomon, they do not portray him walking around lecturing. In the gospels it seems Jesus is portrayed as a walking, talking wisdom book.
FocusMyView said
The question makes me think of the wisdom books in the Bible, a genre of writing.
Almost all we have on Jesus is in the four gospels which is a biographical genre.
While the wisdom books are attributed to important characters like Solomon, they do not portray him walking around lecturing. In the gospels it seems Jesus is portrayed as a walking, talking wisdom book.
Sure, but the claim is not that Jesus was walking around dispensing pearls of wisdom, whether he was wise or whether he was quoting Solomon. This is about whether he held a specific world view other than apocalypticism. Deciding that question is tied to understanding the view in question.
Just a few minutes poking around on the internet gvies the following from Wikipedia
The Seminar holds a number of premises or “** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Seminar holds a number of premises or “** you do not have permission to see this link **
Yeah I prefer wisdom and social justice to apocalyptic fervor too but unfortunately Jesus did not. The Jesus Seminar, as well intentioned as it undoubtedly is, suffers from terminal anachronism.
Stephen said
The Seminar holds a number of premises or “** you do not have permission to see this link **
Yeah I prefer wisdom and social justice to apocalyptic fervor too but unfortunately Jesus did not. The Jesus Seminar, as well intentioned as it undoubtedly is, suffers from terminal anachronism.
While I often find your posts to be spot on, for some reason, when it comes to the JS, youre arguments amount to bashing their reputation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and the mere fact that they achieved a consensus on a given point, doesn’t mean it is wrong. The point I was trying to make here is that the distinction between the two positions is not that Jesus was going around dispensing pearls of wisdom. I highly doubt that a first century “wisdom teacher was all about “social justice”; a redundancy, if ever there was one.
The first problem is knowing exactly what a first century sapient eschatology would look like and whether it shared features with Apocalypticism. I don’t think dismissing it out of hand, makes sense.
Sorry to be adding to an old thread! I think the wisdom teacher view comes from the layering of Q. In what has been determined to be the oldest layer of Q ( and I have no idea how that was determined) the sayings are all wisdom sayings with no attribution to Jesus. Next were the apocalyptic sayings some attributed to Jesus and some not. I don’t remember what the last layer is but I think that may be where John the Baptist becomes the herald of Jesus and some scholars think he was originally the speaker then demoted to the herald of Jesus. Some also suggest that the Son of Man was originally someone other than Jesus but later made to be be the Son of Man which is why Mark has some sayings of Jesus that sound like Jesus is speaking of someone else. All the Son of Man sayings are from Q as are the wisdom sayings. I’m fascinated about these ideas!
spiker wrote
I don’t think dismissing it out of hand, makes sense.
Well I’m not dismissing anything “out of hand”. It’s just that after many years considering this problem I have come to the conclusion that the apocalyptic Jesus is the best interpretation of the historical data. Since the Jesus Seminar began with the assumption that Jesus was not an apocalypticist it naturally follows that I reject their conclusions.
Pattylt the Q material is suffused with apocalypticism.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)