I have a question about the times when Jesus tells his followers that the generation will not pass before they have witnessed the ‘end times’. Obviously Jesus thought these times were coming soon – within perhaps 30 years. Is there any speculation as to why the writers of the gospels would have left those parts in when it would’ve been obvious in their time that the end hadn’t come? Doesn’t that make Jesus look foolish, to show how wrong he was? It may be that the earliest gospels were written about 30 years after the death of Jesus and so they still imagined this end coming? But Bart’s book Misquoting Jesus points out that the manuscripts were constantly changed over the centuries, and sometimes for ‘political’ reasons – the writers wanted them to reflect their religious biases. So why would that embarrassing quote remain intact?
We can only speculate, of course, but it would be reasonable to presume that this information was part of what the apostles had been preaching for years earlier, and repeated by their followers, so it was probably already common knowledge. Thus, as Stephen suggests, leaving it out would be noticed. I might also note that it is a sufficiently vague statement that some leeway might be granted, just as people who predicted the end of the world in 1838, 1843, 2000 or any other number of dates. Each group that heard the message might have thought it meant them.
Philb said
I have a question about the times when Jesus tells his followers that the generation will not pass before they have witnessed the ‘end times’. Obviously Jesus thought these times were coming soon – within perhaps 30 years. Is there any speculation as to why the writers of the gospels would have left those parts in when it would’ve been obvious in their time that the end hadn’t come? Doesn’t that make Jesus look foolish, to show how wrong he was? It may be that the earliest gospels were written about 30 years after the death of Jesus and so they still imagined this end coming? But Bart’s book Misquoting Jesus points out that the manuscripts were constantly changed over the centuries, and sometimes for ‘political’ reasons – the writers wanted them to reflect their religious biases. So why would that embarrassing quote remain intact?
This is a good question. Dr. Ehrman’s suggestion in his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, and his Great Courses+ lecture series, The Historical Jesus, is that the authors reinterpreted such statements to refer to their own generation.
I haven’t done in-depth study on what scholars have said about these statements. The authorities in my former religious tradition believed, ironically, that it referred to their generation! That is, the generation of people since Israel was reconstituted as a state in 1948.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)