Stephen said
Colin wrote

You are using what I would describe as tactics of delegitimisation to rule out views that hold to an end that is nigh/soon and yet possibly 7000-144000 years later from consideration as ‘full’/’true’ Jewish apocalypticism. Give me a authoritative first century source which says ‘This is full Jewish apocalypticism: any view which espouses that the end will come in 40-70 years. Anyone who says the end is nigh and yet possibly 7000-144,000 years from now is not a true full Jewish apocalypticist. The one who teaches such things is a deceiver, false teacher, and a child whose mother and father is a snake.’ Ever heard of ‘no true Scotsman’?

***

Adding to my previous post … There is no such manual on what should or should not be considered full Jewish apocalypticism. There are just cases upon cases upon cases of Jewish apocalypticists (John the Baptist) and Jewish apocalyptic communities (the supposed Qumran community of Essenes). That Jesus held a thoroughly Jewish apocalyptic worldview doesn’t mean he held to an apocalyptic end within the lifetime of his followers regardless of misquotes of single verses regarding not tasting death and the generation not passing away. Yes Jesus said the ‘some of you standing with me won’t taste death until’ verses (referring to the Transfiguration) and ‘this generation won’t pass away’ verses (next to the ‘my words won’t pass away’ and ‘do not know the time about which such things are to occur by’ verses). These verses are found in the same early sources (they are not quotes only found in the Johannine gospel). As far as I can see, not passing away can be fully explained in the apocalyptic lens with the apocalyptic idea of the inescapability of the end judgement. No should think they can die and by doing that pass away (escape) from the judgement to come. No, they can’t pass away. All dead will be raised. None shall pass away (escape) from the judgement by dying.

 

You seem to be saying with an unacceptably high level of speculation that if we had a surviving gospel earlier than Mark we would find ‘some of you will not taste death’ verses and ‘this generation shall not pass away’ verses without the almost adjacent  ‘my words will not pass away’ and ‘no one knows’ and Transfiguration verses. We don’t have a written gospel earlier than Mark. We do of course have Paul’s letters (quite probably but not certainly earlier than Mark) which, in my view, teach the end is soon, yes, but in a way which does not involve Paul falsely predicting he would still be alive to see it fully come. I don’t come to the sources with ‘failed prediction’ or ‘true prediction’ coloured glasses. I can see Paul’s notion of we who remain as perfectly consistent and interchangeable with ‘those in Christ who remain’ (in Christ is very Pauline) made in a sense without Paul including himself. Of course Paul thought it was possible the end would come while he was alive. In my opinion, no follower of Jesus was or is justified in ruling that possibility out.

First of all you may wish to consider abandoning the practice of placing words in somebody else’s mouth and then accusing them of committing a logical fallacy based on those words. If you wish to be taken seriously, that is.  

I’m not conducting a graduate seminar on first century Jewish apocalypticism.  I’m perfectly aware that there were many first century Jews who were not apocalypticists.  However of the subset of Jews who were I’m talking specifically about the subset that included the founders of Christianity, i.e., Jesus and Paul.  I am perfectly willing to stipulate that no interpretation of Jesus can completely escape circularity.  But even on the basis of parsimony and explanatory power alone I think the understanding of Jesus as an apocalypticist is the correct one.  

You are right when you say that we don’t know all the variations possible within first century Jewish apocalypticism.  It’s perfectly possible that there were such that did not expect an imminent catastrophe*.  But we can only deal with the sources we have and I’m concerned with the specific Christian sources. 

What did our earliest Christian writer, Paul, actually say?

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17   “Then we who are alive, who are left…’ 

1 Corinthians 7:29   “..the appointed time has grown short…”

1 Corinthians 10:11  “These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come.” 

1 Corinthians 15:52  “…and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” 

Paul always distinguishes himself from the dead believers and clearly expects to be alive when Jesus returns.

In the early “Q” material shared by both Matthew (3:10) and Luke (3:9) John the Baptist is quoted as saying “…even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees…” 

So John, who came right before Jesus, expected an imminent end, and Paul who came right after, expected an imminent end, but Jesus didn’t?  So who misunderstood who?

 

*But can you provide a single example of a first century Jewish apocalyptic group who did not expect an imminent end?  Imminence seems to have gone with the mindset.  That’s not a rhetorical question.  

I’m not denying John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul held to imminence. You seem to be saying I am. Imminence means that the end could come at any time now. It comes with the response ‘Be prepared for it at any time now‘. ‘Any time now’ is literally any time (7 years, 40 years, 144 years, 1000 years, 7000 years, 144,000 years, et cetera).

I addressed 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. Paul certainly included himself in those who remain as a matter of possibility since he too is ‘in Christ’ (it was, for Paul, possible for Christ to come back while Paul was alive). In Paul’s view, it was possible for Christ to come back while he was still alive and he writes as a man who eagerly awaits the Lord’s return. Yes, the text does not say ‘in Christ’ but rather ‘we’ but Paul is clearly referring to believers in Christ (1 Thessalonians chapter 4 verses 1 and 2, for example, say that Paul is speaking to those who know the Lord Jesus and Paul’s instruction in the Lord).

I agree with verses from 1 Corinthians. It is my favourite book of the Bible actually. But the verses you quoted are not saying what you think it is saying.

Paul teaches in ** you do not have permission to see this link **, typically thought to be an earlier letter (perhaps even Paul’s first New Testament letter) than the first letter to the Corinthians:

‘We don’t need to write to you about the timing and dates, brothers and sisters. You know very well that the day of the Lord is going to come like a thief in the night. When they are saying, “There is peace and security,” at that time sudden destruction will attack them, like labor pains start with a pregnant woman, and they definitely won’t escape.’

Why doesn’t Paul feel the need to write about timing and dates? Because he has already told them that it will happen while he was still alive? That’s not what he says in the text here. Rather, Paul’s point here is that people don’t know when the end will happen but it will and it is inescapable. To show this he uses the example of thieves breaking into houses to steal. Thieves, when they break in and steal don’t typically advertise when they will break in and steal beforehand. They don’t write letters saying they will break into and steal from your house x days/weeks/months/years from now. It can happen at any time but Paul is not narrowing the time at all. Moreover, he was not talking about a thief with a human lifespan but the raised immortal Lord, and the day of the Lord. The immortal Lord is not limited to returning while Paul is alive. Is Paul limiting the time frame to duration of human pregnancy (around 9 months) when he uses the pregnant example of ‘labor pains’? Is Paul saying the end will come around 9 months from now but we won’t know exactly what day it will come around? No, I don’t think that Paul is definitively putting a time stamp on the apocalyptic end of 9 months. Imminence for Paul is simply that all people ‘won’t escape’ whether dead or alive. It is simply not about ‘timing and dates’, and for Paul it is not important to discuss ‘timing and dates’. Paul didn’t know. We don’t know. The right response is ‘I don’t know when the end will be but I am prepared for it at any time because at any time (it could come even after we have fell asleep, aft) it could come’.

Paul certainly knew the good news of Jesus was to go out to the ends of the earth, and operated with that in mind. He was an apostle carrying the message of first importance to all Gentiles. It appears that Paul knows about Spain. But do you really think Paul thought there was no world beyond the Roman Empire? Or that the thought by the end of his life every nook and cranny even within the Roman Empire would have heard the good news? No. Going to the ends of the earth to preach the good news to all peoples is not a half-lifetime task. Paul had some impressive missionary journeys but he would have known that there would be work regarding the good news to be done after he died by those after him. He would have knew that the good news would take longer than his lifetime to spread to the ends of the earth. Yes, Paul thought it was possible the Lord could come within his lifetime (and people would be judged based on what has been made known to them [and based on the knowledge upon which they are without excuse] – Romans 1) but he didn’t know. He just knew that people are without excuse before God, that they cannot do anything to escape the end that God will bring about, that it would be good for people to hear the good news, and that it would take longer than Paul’s lifetime to achieve worldwide delivery of the good news.

Stop focusing on times and dates for the end. John the Baptist didn’t. Jesus didn’t. Paul didn’t. The New Testament doesn’t. To focus on times and dates is to draw attention away from what, for example, Paul considered as most important (hint: not eschatology). ** you do not have permission to see this link **:

‘I passed on to you as most important what I also received:

Christ died for our sins in line with the scriptures,

he was buried, and

he rose on the third day in line with the scriptures.

He appeared to Cephas,‘

Paul wanted his own people, the Jews, and all the Gentiles everywhere to accept this. Paul would have been conscious of the fact that not every Jew and Gentile would be reached within his lifetime. The work would not be done even after he had fallen asleep with death. He was, however, quite content with dying before the Lord comes. ** you do not have permission to see this link **

‘Rather, I hope with daring courage that Christ’s greatness will be seen in my body, now as always, whether I live or die. Because for me, living serves Christ and dying is even better. If I continue to live in this world, I get results from my work. But I don’t know what I prefer. I’m torn between the two because I want to leave this life and be with Christ, which is far better. However, it’s more important for me to stay in this world for your sake.’

Paul was indicating, by this, not only that it would be possible for him to die and be with Christ before the end fully comes but that what he would receive with dying would be far better than anything he would have prior to his death.

Stephen said
Its quite painful to read Christian apologists who twist and bend the statements in the New Testament to make them say things other than what they seem to say.

“Imminent” means “soon”, “about to occur” in every dictionary I can find.

Colin I would love to read your no doubt creative exegesis of Matthew 10:23.

You approach interpretation from a prior faith position.  You have internalized the concept that Jesus and Paul cannot be wrong about anything so when the plain reading of the text indicates that they might have indeed been typical of their age and believed things that did not come to pass then the logic of your position forces you to rationalize the text in such a way as to mitigate the problem.

But the real problem is approaching the writings of the New Testament as some special category of ancient writing called scripture with magical properties not subject to the same constraints as any other form of ancient literature.  The traditional reply to such criticism is that one has to be under the special influence of the Holy Spirit to properly interpret “scripture” and outside that  special influence one is fated to misunderstand.  What appears to be error is really truth!  This is the view I had when I was a Christian.  

Perhaps we are indeed fated to misunderstand.  But the Jesus of Faith remains a familiar and welcoming figure to us precisely because it is we who have created him in our own image.  The apocalyptic  prophet who actually strode the dusty streets in first century Palestine remains a strange and alien figure, unknown and unwanted.  

Matthew chapter 10 verse 23 is a verse only in the Matthean gospel. It does not pass the attestation criterion. I have a book called ** you do not have permission to see this link **. It presents, using the Common English Bible, verses from the four gospels on four separate columns and shows where gospels are paralleling each other and where the gospels are not. On pages 67 and 138 (the pages where Matthew chapter 10 verse 23 appear on the Matthew column), you see a blank space in Mark, Luke and John. I say this to highlight that it does not pass the attestation criterion. The thief in the night material DOES pass the attestation criterion and one thing that shows that Paul was deeply knowledgeable about what Jesus taught although Paul was concerned with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus and Paul taught that we don’t know the timing and dating of the apocalyptic end. Paul’s teaching on the end coming like a thief in the night (who breaks in and steals), and so be watchful, is roughly comparable to Matthew chapter 6 verses 19 to 21, Matthew chapter 24 verses 42 to 44, Luke chapter 12 verses 39 and 40, and Revelation chapter 16 verse 15a. The *don’t know* aspect is very early with Paul’s very first letter, it appears later in the gospels, and appears late in the book of Revelation. Just as thieves don’t tell people when they are coming, John/Jesus/Paul did not tell people when the end was coming. Their focus on being prepared, being sober, keeping watch for the end is certain and inescapable and could occur any time now. The end was (and is still – two thousand years later) imminent.

Sigh. I told you I agree imminent means ‘soon’ and ‘about to occur’. I think John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul would agree that imminent means ‘soon’ and ‘about to occcur’. ‘About to occur’ and ‘about to occur any time now’ are perfectly consistent with each other. Both are consistent with ‘imminent’. You are arbitrarily rejecting ‘about to occur any time now’.

For goodness sake, read the autobiographical details in my first topic on this forum (in the Hebrew Bible section). I was an athiest who previously didn’t care about religious matters (mainly just cared about time for video games) and held several erroneous views about Christian theism. I approached the texts that Christians held to be scripture without a faith perspective. Yes, the arguments in philosophy for a generic God of classical theism, or what might be described as the God of the philosophers, were gradually more and more convincing to me the more I read at university. But I was an atheist reading the Scriptures. I encountered the verses we are talking about, and they did not strike me at all as saying Jesus thought made a false prediction. You are reading the New Testament through a ‘John/Jesus/Paul made false predictions lens’. I was reading the New Testament to a more agnostic lens. In other words ‘I don’t know whether John/Jesus/Paul made false predictions. I am just going to read everything they said, not just some of it. I am going to do this because I don’t want to misunderstand them.’

Do you really not think unknown time for thief in the night (the raised and immortal Lord [not limited by the time of a mortal human lifespan], and the day of the Lord) and Paul’s disinterest in talking about ‘timing and dates’ is relevant to the discussion we are having? Paul’s interest is in making sure everyone is prepared so that the end will not come upon them drunk/unaware, whenever it happens (but the question of when doesn’t strike Paul as important). Of course, John/Jesus/Paul held to things ‘typical of their age’ but they had original ideas, and they countered the thinking of their day. You want them to be computers repeating exactly what the thinking of their day was without being dissimilar. Dissimilarity’s importance is shown by the fact that we have a criterion of dissimilarity in assessing whether John/Jesus/Paul said something.

I am not approaching the writings as Scripture. I am approaching them as ancient literature. I am not saying ‘inerrancy’. This is not my assumption in this discussion whether or not I hold to it myself.

Why aren’t you willing to discuss the immortal thief (not limited by a mere human lifetime) in the night in which we don’t know the time of their home invasion?

RE: ‘The apocalyptic prophet who actually strode the dusty streets in first century Palestine remains a strange and alien figure, unknown and unwanted.’

You may not know him or want him, but I do. John/Jesus and Paul were Jewish apocalypticists. Jesus of Nazareth did not claim to know when the end was to occur, neither did his mentor John the Baptist, and neither did Paul. ‘Soon’ and ‘about to occur’ was their message, not ‘the Roman Empire will be destroyed and there will be no more empires after the Roman Empire’. We know the apocalyptic worldview held to an end to earthly kingdoms in favour of God’s kingdom. John/Jesus/Paul does not add to that generic warning of fiery judgment on all earthly kingdoms by specifically predicting the Roman Empire will be the last of all earthly kingdoms to rise up on the earth before the end comes.

Stephen said
Colin you don’t have to keep repeating yourself.  I got it the first time.  I just don’t agree with you. (Or is it that you don’t think I understand your point of view?  I was like that when I was a Christian.  I thought that if people really understood it they would of course accept it because it was so obvious.  What a shock it was to encounter someone at last who understood it and still rejected it!  Perhaps rejecting because they understood it.)

A few things:

Don’t you mean that Matthew 10:23 is not multiply attested?  It’s certainly attested by Matthew!  So you deny the authenticity of this verse?  How convenient for you!  Do you similarly reject all  the Matthew only (and Luke only?) material?  Or is it just because this passage contradicts your argument? What about the criterion of embarrassment?  Since this passage is so obviously wrong it’s hard to see why someone would make it up and place it in the mouth of Jesus unless it was an authentic memory.  Perhaps it was originally in the early and heavily apocalyptic “Q” material and Luke suppressed it as part of his mitigating tendency against imminence?  Pure speculation of course. We’ll never know. 

I’m afraid you’re really overthinking the “thief in the night” idea.  The point was that the Kingdom and its consequent judgement will come soon and unexpectedly for those who aren’t prepared for it.  Hence the mission of Jesus, to prepare people for it.  I’m not sure it’s necessary to parse the idea much more than that. 

Let me be explicit.  Do you believe in “inerrancy”?  

ps:  I’m not sure you’ll appreciate either the irony or the paradox but I do admire the historical apocalyptic Jesus precisely because he has nothing to say to me.  He is a fascinating figure from history.  It’s the magical Jesus of faith I dislike, a projection of the fears and hopes of believers onto an indifferent reality and a mask used to hide themselves from themselves.

Yes, I’m sure that you know the attestation criterion that I am referring to is for multiple attestation. I was not suggesting it was not attested in Matthew. I accept or reject Matthew-only verses as authentic (something actually taught by Jesus) or historical (words describing events that actually happened) on a case by case basis based on the various criteria that New Testament scholars use and considerations, for example, about what literary genre the verse might be said to fall under. First, to start of with, do I think what is sometimes referred to as Matthean zombie apocalypse actually happened? No, it is clearly apocalyptic imagery by Matthew. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t express some true theological point, it just never occurred in history. In the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** book I referred to above, you see a curious blank space for Mark, Luke, and John where Matthew chapter 27 verses 52 to 53 are. Secondly, do I think that Jesus made a ‘three nights‘ prediction only found in the Matthean gospel? No, I think this is an expansion (almost certainly from the Greek Old Testament [or Septuagint]) of the Jonah material found within in all four gospels by the author of the Matthean gospel. Similarly, in the same book, you see a small but nevertheless curious blank space for Mark, Luke, and John where Matthew chapter 12 verse 40 is, although the idea of three days and third day are elsewhere. This is not to say that the broad point of the Jonah teaching isn’t expressing some true theological point. It very well could be. I could probably give a few more examples (like the vastly different virginal conception, birth, newborn-infancy, and childhood narratives for Jesus in the Matthean and Lukan gospels often read at Christmas church services) but I have only given two in order to be as brief as possible.

Like I have said before, I am not entering this discussion with inerrancy. However, I personally largely believe in what the scholar Roger E. Olson (2002, p. 108-09, emphasis mine, words in square brackets mine) describes as the infallible witness of Scripture:

‘Infallibility rather than inerrancy is our preferred term for describing inspired Scripture’s accuracy and trustworthiness. Inerrancy inevitably tends to imply technical, detailed, and scientific accuracy that is foreign to much of the literary genre of Scripture and to the cultures within which it was written. To demand such perfection in Scripture is to impose a modern standard on an ancient writing. It also ignores or distorts the plain phenomenon of Scripture which contains many minor flaws, inconsistencies and inaccuracies by standards of technical perfection. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10 … “in one day twenty-three thousand of them died” (1 Cor 10:8). The parallel passage in the Old Testament – Numbers 25:9 – reports that twenty-four thousand died in that incident. [You might have noticed twenty-four is twelve doubled. Twelve is a significant number in the Bible.] Which is correct? To insist that this kind of minor inconsistency did not exist in the original manuscript (either of Numbers or 1 Corinthians) is completely unnecessary. Scripture’s authority does not depend on freedom from such minor discrepancies which – given the culture and the type of literature and the author’s intent – should probably not be called errors. Rather, Scripture’s authority depends on the authorship, presence and power of the Holy Spirit communicating spiritual life and truth through it … Surely a better term than inerrancy would be infallibility because it better describes the power of Scripture never to fail in its main purpose, which is to teach people about God and transform them in encounter with him.’

Olson is one of my favourite scholars. I think I agree with Olson on almost everything (or at least on more than I would agree with Bart Ehrman for example) at the level of personal belief. I highly recommend the book I am referencing from for understanding the content and history of Christian belief. He covers a significant amount of ground on that topic although not everything on the topic (I would say it is impossible to cover everything on the topic in a single book). I often refuse to answer the question of whether I believe in inerrancy because different people mean different things by the term. Do I believe in what you would describe as inerrancy? That’s primarily for you to decide, not me. I don’t want to be labelled inaccurately. In any case, I am not arguing from inerrancy or infallibility. I am arguing from the standpoint of the New Testament as pieces of ancient literature. My personal belief is not what I want to focus on. I want to focus on the New Testament texts as pieces of ancient literature.

Regarding Matthew chapter 10 verse 23. Consider the verse. Is it apocalyptic? If so, it could just be a reflection of the writer’s own apocalyptic viewpoint. Consider the criterion of dissimilarity as well. Is this what the very early Christian church, eager for the Son of Man’s (And did they believe the Son of Man was Jesus? According to the New Testament, yes.) coming, would have wanted Jesus to have preached? It was not so obviously false when Matthew was writing his gospel. Your suggestion that it is in Q is highly speculative pure speculation. Suggestions for Q material are less speculative when the material is found in Matthew AND Luke.

Stephen said

The point was that the Kingdom and its consequent judgement will come soon and unexpectedly for those who aren’t prepared for it.  Hence the mission of Jesus, to prepare people for it.  I’m not sure it’s necessary to parse the idea much more than that. 

How convenient that you don’t feel the need to parse the idea more! By not doing that, you are missing the totally unpredictable (which second/minute/hour of a night? which day? which week? which month? which year? which decade? which century? which millennia?) nature of the thief’s coming. The thief doesn’t send you a letter declaring to you when he will invade the home in which you live. He is totally unpredictable, even more so if he is immortal and can come when you have died and your children ( or children’s children, or … ) live. That point would have been understood just as easily in Jesus’ day as in ours. It is quite clear the thief is not a mortal man. For Paul and the rest of the New Testament, it is the immortal Lord (Kuriou, Greek word for the Hebrew YHWH – a word mainly used in referring to Jesus), or one might say the stronger man who binds the strong man before robbing the strong man’s house (Mark chapter 3 verse 27; Matthew chapter 12 verse 29; Luke chapter 11 verses 21 to 22), and it is in order to bring about the day of the (immortal) Lord. Look at how much the idea is present in the early literature. It is, as I have said, a veritable bombardment. It deserves to be parsed out to the fullest extent possible, and that includes the totally unpredictable nature of the thief. Jesus claims to be that stronger man and thief, and in the context of the stronger man passage Jesus is claiming that, in him and his ministry of exorcism (healing, et cetera), the kingdom of God has already come to some extent. I would like to add here that I agree with one sentence written by the excellent New Testament scholar Mark L. Strauss (2015, p. 38) in his book, which I am currently reading through, Jesus Behaving Badly: Puzzling Paradoxes of the Man from Galilee:

‘One of the most undisputed facts about Jesus was that he was renowned as a healer and exorcist.’

Do you not think that it is reasonable to suggest Jesus is communicating total unpredictability, as I have described it (which second/minute/hour of a night? which day? which week? which month? which year? which decade? which century? which millennia?), with his own idea of imminence in the thief in the night material / teaching? As I have said, it is found as a veritable bombardment, and even more so if you include its general backing with regarding Paul’s disinterest in talking about timing and dates (1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verse 1) as well as Jesus teaching that it is not for people to know the timing or dating of the apocalyptic end (Matthew chapter 24 verse 36; Mark chapter 13 verse 32, Acts chapter 1 verse 7).

Stephen said

… he has nothing to say to me …

If you are willing to grant that

(1) Jesus thought the apocalyptic end would be totally unpredictable in its date and time (so in other words it could possibly happen in 2016 or in the year 7000 or in the year 12000 or any other year) like a thief in the night, and that

(2) Jesus apocalyptically wanted all people in the world – not just Jews – to repent (turn to YHWH) and believe (trust based on evidence available) the good news concerning himself and the Kingdom before the (totally unpredictable – following from 1) apocalyptic end comes, and that

(3) Jesus appears to have taught that he had a rightful claim over people’s lives as the person in whose actions, presence and teaching the Kingdom of God had come, which smoothly would lead to the conclusion that

(4) Jesus believed that his message was for someone like you, then

(5) Would Jesus be wrong about (4)?

Isn’t this portrait of the historical apocalyptic Jesus reasonable?

As far as I can see (1) is reasonable, (2) is indisputable – the apocalyptic historical Jesus’ message was one of repentance (as was John the Baptist’s) and one of YHWH’s kingdom, (3) is likewise indisputable – it is accepted by scholars that Jesus taught that in his own actions and teachings YHWH’s kingdom had come, (4) follows from (1) and (2) taken together, and so I answer (5) with a resounding ‘no’. He has a claim on my life, I have to tell others about the apocalyptic historical Jesus’ message and call them to repent and believe in him.

As far as I am concerned, justification/vindication of his claim over my own life comes from what we indisputably know in regards to how his life ended (crucifixion under Pontius Pilate) and what we indisputably know in regards to what happened soon after his death (his disciples came to believe that YHWH had raised Jesus from the dead and lifted him up to the position from which the earliest followers of Jesus said every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that he is Lord [Kyrios/YHWH]). This is related to Isaiah chapter 45 verses 22 to 23 in the Hebrew Bible, Philippians chapter 2 verses 10 to 11 (from a very early pre-Pauline tradition before the Philippians letter), and Romans chapter 14 verse 11.

I don’t think the apocalyptic historical Jesus is in reality separable from the Jesus described in these texts reflecting the very earliest understandings of the apocalyptic historical Jesus by those who had lived when he had lived (contemporaries: Paul – though not a follower initially – was, and so were those from whom he received the Christ poem in Philippians). As far as I am concerned, these people were right. One can certainly artificially separate the two in one’s mind but in reality, for me, they are one and the same Jesus. They come together. They are not non-overlapping. It is the very apocalyptic historical Jesus who was historically crucified for his claims whom the God of Israel, Yahweh, has vindicated with what we know about what happened soon after this man’s death. This belief radically changed the lives of those who followed Jesus, although some (we don’t know how many) doubted this had occurred.

I agree with Bart Ehrman (2014, pp. 255-265, italics original to the Ehrman text, bold and underline emphasis mine, words in square brackets mine) when he says

‘scholars have long considered the passage [Philippians chapter 2 verses 6 to 11] to be a pre-Pauline tradition that Paul includes here in his letter to the Philippians. It is not something Paul composed on the spot, while writing the letter … several reasons for thinking this … the passage … a self-contained unit that is poetic rather than proselike in its composition … a number of words – including some of the key words – occur in this passage but nowhere else in Paul’s letters … the word form … and the phrase grasped after. The absence of such important words in Paul’s writings suggests that he [Paul] is quoting a passage that someone else [who would have been a contemporary of Jesus] wrote, earlier.

 

Confirmation for this view … that several of the key concepts in the passage cannot be found elsewhere in Paul’s writings …

 

It is almost certainly the case that this was indeed a preexistent poem that was familiar to Paul and, probably, to the Philippians. Paul quotes the entire poem because it is familiar to his readers and conveys a point that he wants to convey – that they should imitate Christ’s example in giving themselves up for others …

 

one line is longer than the others in the poem: “obedient unto death – even death on a cross.” It is longer in the Greek. Scholars frequently think that Paul added the words “even death on a cross,” since for him it was precisely the crucifixion of Jesus that was so important.

 

…

 

[In] the final two stanzas of the poem, vv. 10-11 … we are told that God “hyperexalted” Jesus, so that “At the name of Jesus / Every knee should bow / Of those in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. / And every tongue confess / That Jesus Christ is Lord [Kurios/Yahweh] / To the glory of God the Father.” … these lines allude to a passage in the Hebrew Bible … Isaiah 45:22-23, it is to Yahweh alone, the God of Israel, that “every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess” …

 

The prophet Isaiah is quite explicit. There is only one God, no other. That God is Yahweh. That God has sworn that to no other shall every knee bow and every tongue make confession. Yet in the Philippians poem … to the exalted Jesus … all knees will bow and tongues confess. Jesus … [is] the One Almighty God [, the LORD, Yahweh – as in Deuteronomy chapter 6 verse 4 -] himself.

 

This interpretation of the Christ poem in Philippians shows that very early in the Christian movement the followers were making audacious claims about him.‘

A lot hinges on whether one accepts (1) Jesus thought the apocalyptic end would be totally unpredictable in its date and time like a thief in the night, and are willing to step forward and be counted among those who say ‘no’ to ‘(5) Would Jesus be wrong about (4)?’ One part of (2) follows from (1) and other parts of (2) are indisputable otherwise. (3) is indisputable. (4) is reached by following (1) to (3).

Reference:

** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **