There is no reason to suppose, as Ehrman does, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. Paul says “20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Cor 15:20).” Paul is identifying that Jesus was the first fruits of the general resurrection of souls at the end of days, so the end times were imminent. Paul or one of the other first Christians could have learned this firstfruits business from something they thought was Jesus through hallucinations. And, Mark could have learned this apocalyptic stuff from Paul, and simply invented the apocalyptic material in his gospel. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose, as Ehrman does, that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.
What do others think?
I am trying to even understand john76’s reasoning, circular or otherwise. “Paul… could have learned the firstfruits business from something they thought was Jesus through hallucinations”???? A could-have provides evidence? Not in the way I reason. The conclusion that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet comes from record of Jesus’s sayings (accurately recorded or not). What other evidence do we have? “Could-haves” and assumed parallels from other historic figures (a shot at Steefen’s thought process) do not count as evidence.
And, there is no reason to think Jesus ever met John the Baptist. The Baptist pericope is often deemed historical by the criterion of embarrassment. For example, Ehrman says that Jesus Christ being baptized by a mere mortal was embarrassing, so it must have happened. But this, along with other passages, could just have represented humility (which may also lead to exaltation) to Mark. Philippians 2:5-11, for instance, supports a humbled, then exalted, Jesus. And some have disputed the historicity of the Baptist motif as theologically recapitulating the Elijah/Elisha dynamic of Elijah bequeathing a double portion of his power to Elisha, making Elisha his successor and his superior. Paul never mentions John the Baptist, and there is no reason to think Jesus ever met him. It could be a Markan invention.
@john76, and at which point you can use such reasoning to suppose that nothing in any ancient document ever occurred because there is no current witness to it, and even that doesnt prove anything because witnesses are unreliable at best. And any text which has others recording the same event could have just known of the source text and wrote their own version of the account. And if that account has extra or different detail then it was added from imagination, and if it doesnt and lacks detail then the text they had was incomplete. And I could go on.
There is no credible reason to suppose that Jesus DID NOT meet and was baptized by Yohannan ben zachariah ha cohen. As far as the embarrassment argument, it would only be “embarrassing” to those in the 2nd and 3rd centuries who were asserting Jesus as God, something Jesus did not do, and none of his disciples either, much to the contrary actually. It was LOGICAL for Jesus to be baptized by john after all he was a priest, and as Jesus said it must be done to fullfill all righteous, and well it was his cousin after all. There are many many many cases of the elder being lesser than the young, infact it is one of THE MAIN topics in the scriptures.
your quote “20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Cor 15:20).” is slightly askew, Jesus wasnt the only one risen that day, and it should be said Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, to make the first fruits of them that slept. You have to understand what day it was that he was resurrected and why he told the women not to touch him.
But was he an apocalyptic prophet believeing that the end was near? No not at all. The kingdom being within your grasp through repentance doesnt mean the end is coming, the reference that all these thing must soon come , many will come and say I am he, the time is at hand, Do not go after them. he goes on about nation against nation etc. Jesus had no thinking that the End was coming. This is what happens when someone who doesnt understand faith make comments on it. Christ came to teach repentance and a return to the law, which is near and within grasp , the Kingdom of God is a spiritual thing not limited to latter date, but it can be walked in at this very moment.
But was he an apocalyptic prophet believeing that the end was near? No not at all. The kingdom being within your grasp through repentance doesnt mean the end is coming, the reference that all these thing must soon come , many will come and say I am he, the time is at hand, Do not go after them.
The Kingdom being within your grasp through repentance obviously doesn’t imply that the end is near – unless your idea of the kingdom is a kingdom on earth established through rapture… Luke 21:32 ‘Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.’ was undoubtedly in reference to the apocalypse. Luke was written at a time when this prophecy was still a theoretical possibility (a generation had not yet passed since the death of Jesus). Christians now usually understand the Kingdom of God to mean something else, namely a separate place which supposedly is operational as we speak. This was, however not Jesus’ own understanding; according to him he would raise the dead upon the establishment of God’s Kingdom, whereupon he raises the dead to judge them at some future date (see Luke 21 to see when).
RWheeler- In regards to someone commenting about faith without understanding it….. can you truly understand the faith of another when it is about deeply held belief undiluted by contrary evidence. It is after all called blind faith, not thoroughly researched faith, allowing us to dismiss anything outside the parameters of our own guidelines for truth. If not, we would not have to concern ourselves with pseuto-pauline writings or faith based agendas.
He was apocalyptic. He Himself brought an end to The Law. It was fulfilled in Him!
He paid the price for our sins through the shedding of His blood, giving us new lives as the redeemed. The purpose of the Law was to show us it didn’t work. It pointed out we need Him.
For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh; 4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
John reluctantly baptized the “Lamb of God” at His request. John’s mission was to announce His coming Whose straps of shoes he was unworthy to untie.
He was apocalyptic. He Himself brought an end to The Law. It was fulfilled in Him!
This Paul’s view. The writers of the gospels disagreed.
Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Mark 10: 17-21
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
I would further add that based on the Book of Acts, the apostles and Jesus’ family also had no idea that Mosaic Law was abrogated by Jesus during his ministry. The conversion of Cornelius in chapter 10 shows that Peter did not have any understanding that he should not continue to follow the Law. God himself had to intervene to convince Peter who was shocked by the news – he never heard it from Jesus himself. Chapter 15 – the “Jerusalem Council” – also shows that Jesus’ teachings did not provide clarity on the continuing relevance of the Law or on the possible inclusion of Gentiles in the movement. The understanding that the Law does not apply to non-Jews arose after Jesus’ death. Jesus didn’t tell any Jews to stop observing Torah, and he didn’t tell any Gentiles to start observing Torah.
Another Bot hunt. Another resurrected dead old thread.
At my current level of ignorance I would go so far as to say if the ‘apocalyptic prophet’ interpretation of Jesus is wrong then we can say absolutely nothing about Jesus. What else could it mean that John the Baptist is depicted as an apocalypticist? (Except in Josephus who is known for suppressing this impulse in his narratives.) Paul’s authentic writings are thoroughly apocalyptic. Interestingly one characteristic of the Pauline forgeries is that they begin to back away from his position. Of the gospels only John, the latest, backs away. The “Q” material, whether or not it existed as a separate text, is suffused with apocalypticism.
Rather more interesting to me is the admittedly minority suggestion that Jesus might have been a firebrand like John and that the “love and mercy” stuff is secondary to the tradition. I’m not saying I hold this position but, like the possibility of a lost ending to Mark, it’s an interesting idea that’s fun to hold up now and then to ponder.
Mark was an apocalypse. A revealing of the truth. No monsters but an old Judean canard, a Jesus.
Jerusalem had just fallen. Why?
Jesus had come to tell the people, to warn them to live right. Just like Jeremiah did. Then he was arrested. Just like Jeremiah. However, this time the messenger, Jesus, was killed. his message, his warning, had fallen on deaf ears. The women at the tomb were to scared to tell the others. The Judeans had sealed their own fate. Isaiah is quoted in the passage of having ears and not seeing, having eyes and not seeing, but Jeremiah says it as well, I am pretty sure.
Jeremiah warned of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. So using Jeremiah to model (lightly) Jesus made sense.
Jesus a fictional character in Mark warns people of impending doom. the end of time. A Serious political transition. We call that an apocalypse and that is fine. But apocalypse also means a revelation especially about demonic warfare, using powerful symbols to tell the main message.
People also forget that the Roman Empire was in flux as well. The Judean War started under Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudians. the empire endures 4 emperors in one year. The same man is key to solving both crises, Vespasian. That is Mark’s hero that some people would live to see. Order restored.
Jeremiah similarly calls Nebuchadnezzar the servant of the LORD, Isaiah calls Cyrus the anointed one, and Daniel 10, 11 makes clear that the angel of the Lord is directing world events.
Yes.
The apocalypse:revealing was a revolutionary idea for the forgiveness of sin according to the current customs. Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and others get into big legal trouble with the Sanhedrin for causing people to apostate away from obeying the Law of Moses as it was then currently practiced.
Law: Law of Moses. Disputable what exactly was the original law because the Prophets contain a few verses that suggest the original Law of Moses was monkey with over time by the scribes and Levites.
Order: the legal system and hierarchy of the Temple Priesthood that oversaw the sacrifices and interpretation of the Law and Prophets.
The *Fulfillment* of the Law and Prophets.
THE LAW.
Never-ending bloating up of legal philosophy; The sacrificial requirements of the Law of Moses and the Prophecies were fulfilled by the Crucifixion and Resurrection. (Jesus came not to abolish the Law and Prophets but to fulfill.)
The *Abolishment* of the Second Temple created a need for a new Order.
The Abolishment of the Law and Prophets was fulfilled during the Jewish Roman wars 40 years or so after the Fulfillment of the Law and Prophets.
THE PROPHETS.
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LAW AND ORDER.
Jesus did not say he was going to Abolish. The Apocalyptic prophecy was that the Second Temple would be destroyed and the Sanhedrin would be victorious in the war. That was the exact opposite of the OT Prophecy, hence it was a Apocalypse: a new revelation, a revealing of something unknown. All that the Priesthood would know is what the Tanakh said and they were expecting a supernatural military victory and the return of King David.
Abolishment was accomplished by the Roman military during the Jewish Roman Wars.
THE ORDER.
After the Abolishment the Rabbis had not much choice but to once again reinterpret the Law and Prophets to suit a lifestyle without the Second Temple,
OR convert to Christianity, Paganism, and eventually Islam.
All three were changed.
1) THE LAW.
2)THE PROPHETS.
3) THE ORDER.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)