Once the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is spoken, Jewish Apocalypticism fails.
Once the Messiah-Savior-Son of God is killed, Jewish Apocalypticism fails.
Once Temple Judaism is destroyed, Jewish Apocalypticism fails.
Once Simon bar Kokhba was killed in action or executed during the siege of the town where the fortress of Betar was,
Jewish Apocalypticism fails.
You do agree that the author of the Gospel of John wrote a gospel not with the goal of being historically accurate. The author also wanted to add philosophical and theological elements.
The author was willing to change so important a marker in the accounts as the day of Jesus’ death in order to make a theological point. Nevertheless I suspect he thought what he was writing was “true”. The quest for disinterested historical accuracy is a modern concern.
Jewish Apocalypticism fails…
The later Jewish Rabbinical movement certainly agreed. They ran away from it like an ugly pit bull.
Here are two excellent scholarly books that will help you explore Jewish apocalypticism — especially its rise in the Second Temple period and its transformation or decline in later Rabbinic Judaism:
📘 1. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature by John J. Collins
- Why it’s excellent: This is one of the most influential academic studies of Jewish apocalyptic thought, showing how apocalyptic worldview developed in Jewish literature (like Daniel, 1 Enoch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls) and how it framed Jewish expectations about history, salvation, and God’s intervention in the world. It’s foundational for understanding what apocalypticism looked like before and around the time of early Christianity.
- How it helps your topic: Before you can understand how and why Rabbinic Judaism moved away from overtly apocalyptic expressions, you first need a strong grasp of what Jewish apocalypticism was. Collins gives you that grounding.
📘 2. Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (Library of Second Temple Studies, ed. G. Nickelsburg/others)
- Why it’s excellent: This anthology surveys the history of Jewish apocalyptic literature and its scholarly interpretation, especially from the Second Temple period (roughly 200 BCE–200 CE). It includes historical context, genre discussion, and insights into how apocalyptic streams interacted with emerging rabbinic and early Christian thought.
- How it helps your topic: Though not strictly about “abandonment,” this kind of historical survey is crucial for tracing the trajectory of apocalyptic ideas as they recede in prominence in post-Temple Judaism — showing which forms of apocalyptic belief persisted and which faded.
📚 Additional scholarly reading (optional but highly relevant)
If you want to go deeper into how apocalyptic expectations changed in post-Temple Rabbinic Judaism (including the decline of classic apocalyptic motifs), the following are highly relevant — not exactly “books about abandonment,” but they directly engage the shift:
- Chapters/articles on messianism and apocalypticism in rabbinic texts (e.g., in The Cambridge History of Judaism). These discuss how apocalyptic ideas largely recede in the tannaitic period and only resurface in much later rabbinic imagination in attenuated forms.
- Scholarly articles showing that apocalypticism was distinctive to the Second Temple period and was much less central in rabbinic Judaism (e.g., debates about whether it was “suppressed” or simply transformed).
🔍 How this addresses your question
- Apocalypticism in ancient Judaism was a robust worldview with vivid eschatological expectations and angelic revelations. Collin’s work is one of the best introductions to its literature and worldview.
- Later Rabbinic Judaism (from the Mishnah and Talmud onward) is generally less apocalyptic in the classic sense: it focuses more on Torah observance, ethical life, and legal traditions, with messianic expectations often framed very differently (less imminent cataclysm, more distant hope, or spiritualized). Academic discussions of that transition appear in historical/survey volumes and specialized studies.
If you want specific works analyzing why apocalypticism fades in Rabbinic Judaism (e.g., intellectual, social, or theological reasons), let me know — I can recommend that narrower list too.
Here are two excellent scholarly books that directly address or help you understand the transition from Jewish apocalypticism in the Second Temple period to the much less apocalyptic orientation of later Rabbinic Judaism — which is exactly the topic you’re exploring:
📘 ** you do not have permission to see this link **
A focused academic study tracing how Jewish apocalyptic thought shaped Biblical interpretation in the Second Temple era and how that heritage was received and reworked in early Rabbinic Judaism and early Christian tradition. This book includes a section explicitly on the heritage of Jewish apocalypticism in Rabbinic and early medieval Judaism, which directly engages with your topic of how later Judaism moves away from classic apocalyptic expectations.
➡️ Why it’s excellent for your question:
- Synthesizes apocalyptic developments from early Judaism through to post-Temple Rabbinic contexts.
- Offers historical analysis of how apocalyptic motifs were reinterpreted or downplayed as Rabbinic Judaism became dominant.
- Not narrowly theological — it’s historical and literary.
📘 ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (alternate title commonly cited)
While not exclusively about apocalypticism, this influential book (often published under titles like From the Maccabees to the Mishnah or Early Judaism) provides a comprehensive historical framework that shows how Judaism transformed from a period rich in apocalyptic expectation to the Rabbinic era, where law, tradition, and ethical life become the central religious focus. Its historical narrative makes clear how classic apocalyptic orientations recede as legal-theological Rabbinic Judaism emerges.
➡️ Why it’s excellent for your question:
- Situates apocalypticism within a broader historical sweep from Second Temple sects to Rabbinic authority.
- Helps you understand why and how the shift occurred — not just that it did.
📚 How These Books Fit Your Topic
Both works together give you:
- Primary historical context: What Jewish apocalypticism looked like, why it mattered in the Second Temple period.
- Reception and transformation: How Rabbinic Judaism treated apocalyptic themes — whether they were maintained, reinterpreted, or marginalized.
This gives not just literature on the decline, but a nuanced analysis of the intellectual and cultural transition you seem to be investigating.
Definitely start with the John J Collins book. That’ll be plenty for most people.
But if you want a bit of a deeper scholarly dive into the textual nuts & bolts of the apocalyptic genre seek out a work entitled-
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Great stuff!
Stephen said
You do agree that the author of the Gospel of John wrote a gospel not with the goal of being historically accurate. The author also wanted to add philosophical and theological elements.
The author was willing to change so important a marker in the accounts as the day of Jesus’ death in order to make a theological point. Nevertheless I suspect he thought what he was writing was “true”. The quest for disinterested historical accuracy is a modern concern.
Jewish Apocalypticism fails…
The later Jewish Rabbinical movement certainly agreed. They ran away from it like an ugly pit bull.
Though it’s not three against one, it’s Mark and his plagiarists against John. If any of John’s later plagiarists had gotten themselves canonized, there might have been a more even plagiarists fight than 2 to 0, but as for as the original passion tales, it’s 1 against 1.
Dr. Tabor speculates whether John has at hand an independent passion account, since it can be argued that John makes for a more plausible tale regarding the behavior of the anti-Jesus faction in the Sanhedrin. The whole rush to capture Jesus and then try him in an emergency Sanhedrin meeting in the evening is more plausible if the last supper is the evening of the day prior to the Passover, in terms of the ceremonial necessity to purify themselves after handing someone over to the Roman authorities to be executed, prior to the start of the Passover Sabbath. And as well, I would observe that Jn19:35 “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.” (NIV, therefore sic.) can be read as a citation to either an oral or written testimony of an eyewitness, rather than the apologetic reading of the author of John claiming to be an eyewitness, and in the first reading, that indicates a distinctive source for some part of the passion narrative as opposed to the balance of “Johns” Evangelion.
Of course, this is always shadow-boxing in a thick fog … somebody could accept that “greater plausibility” argument, and conclude that the earliest versions of the passion narratives were crafting apologetic narratives to be able to give more detail than the teller had originally been told, and in so doing made a glaring error in plausible behavior of the Sanhedrin which John realized and so he corrected, and the eyewitness claim was awareness that people would push back against the correction, so “bear in mind that those other Evangelion were not from eyewitnesses, but you can know that this is the corrected version because it came from an eyewitness!”.
Of course, when John was canonized alongside Mark and his plagiarists, the whole, “no, don’t listen to those guys, listen to me, I’ve got the real goss” strategy has clearly failed.
Robert said
… Surely there were underlying historical events, but how can we discern the historical events in any detail based on the nature of the narratives we have?
Yes … as someone in the above comments said, it’s this is always shadow-boxing in a thick fog when trying to get into or before the middle of the 1st century.
I feel reasonably confident about the death of James the Just, that his oldest brother was an early 1st century preacher/teacher named Yeshu’, which is the name “Joshua” among Aramaic speakers, who was crucified, that Joshua likely used the 5 parables common to the synoptics & coptic translation of the Gospel of Thomas in his teaching, and the thing about the sheep and the goats — and obviously am not a scholar in the field, so wouldn’t insist on whether anyone else should accept all of those.
I mean, someone finds a strong non-Jesus Movement witness to there being a hurried evening or middle of the night trial of Joshua by the Sanhedrin, then I’m going to be thinking it’s 80%+ likelihood they are meeting before the beginning of Passover than after Passover has begun, because whether their beliefs are sincere or not, they would have to keep up appearances. But lacking that witness, there’s no way to be confident whether such a trial occurred, or whether it was a part of the story of Joshua’s arrest and crucifixion growing in the telling, so 80% x [Unknown%] = [Unknown%].
…it’s Mark and his plagiarists against John.
I’m a little queasy about using the term “plagiarists” only because it ascribes motivations to Matthew & Luke we can’t possibly know. I’ve fallen enough under the spell of the work of Robyn Faith Walsh to think that if we’re going to question the verities lets start with the fundamentals. I’ve even wondered if it might be better to consider Matthew & Luke, not as separate literary traditions, but as later versions of a single literary tradition, I.e., later versions of Mark. We know literally nothing about the provenance of these texts. Prof Ehrman’s view, that of independent, collected, redacted oral Jesus community traditions seems less and less likely. These are creative literary artifacts.
Surely there were underlying historical events, but how can we discern the historical events in any detail based on the nature of the narratives we have?
Precisely. And we must also not assume that Mark didn’t feel free to modify his own story based on theological considerations. In fact, thinking of these texts as primarily historical is probably a mistake in the first place. Now I’m not a mythicist in any sense. But it’s entirely possible what Mark had was a frame story and creeds that captured the surviving traditions. I think few of the details of his specific narrative events are historical. Look at his description of the crucifixion. It’s rather bare bones. He let’s Psalm 22 do all the heavy lifting. He need not have known any details about the crucifixion other than that it happened sometime during the Passover.
Robert:
Which five parables from the gospel of Thomas are you selecting?
Google AI Overview:
the Sower (9)
Mustard Seed (20)
Wicked Tenants (65)
Lost Sheep (107)
Hidden Treasure (109)
= = =
and unique ones like the Assassin (98) and Empty Jar (97).
Stephen said
…it’s Mark and his plagiarists against John.
I’m a little queasy about using the term “plagiarists” only because it ascribes motivations to Matthew & Luke we can’t possibly know. …
Plagiarism is to copy without giving appropriate credit, so it is an objective question, not a question about the motivations of the copyist.
Surely, some people plagiarism as part of an effort to cheat, but just as surely there is plagiarism occurring all the time through accident or negligence instead.
The argument would rather be whether giving no credit at all to the primary sources of their work was appropriate at the time, and I would surely be open to hearing an evidence based argument that it would, in fact, have been appropriate, and be willing to footnote the use of the term with {* on modern standards regarding giving credit to the work of others}.
Robert said
Which five parables from the gospel of Thomas are you selecting, and why?
No, I obviously did not phrase my statement clearly, I was saying the five parables that are in Thomas, Mark, Matthew & Luke. The witness of Matthew and Luke is simply that they were for whatever reason decided not to be removed in the process of redacting Mark and mixing in other sources.
Are there specific aspects of these parables that indicate they may have been transmitted independently from the synoptic gospels?
Just the observation that there does not seem to be literary dependence.
I’m aware of the argument that the allegorical interpretation of the parables is later, but if Thomas wanted to re-interpret the parables he could also have removed earlier allegorical interpretations so I would ask for more elucidation on this point.
The Parables of the New and the Old, the Parable of the Sower, the Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. I’ll note that I probably should have said four parables common to all four gospels (the three synoptics & Thomas), since the Parables of the Old and the New is two metaphors for the same point, only in different order between the synoptics and Thomas.
I am skeptical of assigning agency to a process of accumulation (and possibly omission, since omission wouldn’t leave a trace signal in a rolling oral corpus) spread over a period of decades … while we can argue what “Thomas” may or may not have done, given the contradictions and wide range of influences represented in the corpus (themselves reflecting influences from different decades), the character of the work makes it appear that it was enscribed without a lot of cleaning up.
I’ll note that my list of parables is idiosyncratic, since I don’t include all metaphorical language, if it does not seem to tell a story.
Additional Notes:
The parable in all synoptics but not Thomas is the Parable of the Faithful Servant.
The “Qn” Parables in Luke, Matthew & Thomas are the Parable of the Leaven, the Parable of the Lost Sheep, the Parable of the Great Banquet.
The “Mark and Thomas” Parable is the Parable of the Growing Seed.
The “Matthew & Thomas” Parables are the Parable of the Weeds, the Parable of the Hidden Treasure, the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price, the Parable of the Talents.
The “Luke and Thomas” Parable is the Parable of the Rich Fool
No Parables are only in Mark.
The Parables only in Matthew are the Unforgiving Servant, the Workers in the Vinyard, and the Ten Bridesmaids.
The Parables only in Luke are the Good Samaritan, the Barren Fig Tree, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, and the Unjust Judge.
The Parables only in Thomas are the Parable of the Broken Jar and the Parable of Preparation (aka the Parable of the Assassin).
Robert said
BruceRMcF said
Just the observation that there does not seem to be literary dependence.That is certainly a disputed point among scholars. While Helmut Koester, Elaine Pagels, and John Dominic Crossan might be on your side, you may also want to look at the work of Frans Neirynck, Christopher Tuckett, Nicholas Perrin, Klyne Snodgrass, Mark Goodacre, and Simon Gathercole. I’m no expert on this secondary literature, but I am most indebted to the approach of Neirynck, ie, the identification of Matthean and Lukan redaction carried over into Thomas.
I’ll look and see what I can find of Neirnynk, Tuckett, Perrin, Snodgrass and Gathercole. As per below, from what I can make of his arguments, Goodacre treats Thomas as a text composed at a point in time, so that much of his work is not going to be useful for my working through the issue.
Surely Matthean & Lukan traces in Thomas are compatible with the rolling corpus thesis, and indeed useful in getting a handle on the dates of some of the entry of some of the types of material into the corpus. But I don’t see any such traces in these four-ish parables.
The Parables of the New and the Old, the Parable of the Sower, the Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. I’ll note that I probably should have said four parables common to all four gospels (the three synoptics & Thomas), since the Parables of the Old and the New is two metaphors for the same point, only in different order between the synoptics and Thomas.
Why leave out the parables that Thomas shares with Matthew and Luke (eg, Leaven, Lost Sheep, Wedding Feast) or with Matthew (eg, Hidden Treasure, Pearl of Great Price, the Net)? Wouldn’t these additional parables give us a greater opportunity to find traces of Matthean and Lukan redaction in Thomas?
Looking for traces of Matthean or Lukan redaction in the Thomas versions of the parable was not the point … looking for what seems to be multiple witnesses to the parables was. But if there are traces of Matthean or Lukan redaction in the Thomas versions of these parables not found in Mark, that would reduce rather than increase the argument for including them in that list.
Or you perhaps following April DeConnick in only positing independence for what she judges to be the earliest layer? Are these the parables that she assigns to the earliest, apocalyptic layer?
That’s a good question, let me check it up rather than speak from a likely hazy two or three year old memory. Also, note that, unlike the Vinzent & crew reconstructions of Evangelion, the Kernal is about half of 60% of the received Thomas, which could be explicated by remembering that if Dr. DeConnick is correct, someone would still have to memorize and say the sayings as part of the Teachings part of a liturgy, but a skeptic could also note that rather than requiring a witness that it was there or a stylometric resemblance to the use of language in the passages with a witness to being there, Dr. DeConnick’s Kernel is a residual of all of the sayings to which none of her enumerated reasons for assigning to a later layer apply, so even if the approach is correct in general, missing a criterion for being assigned to a later layer would result in one or more false positives for the Kernel.
So anyway, after removing sayings identified with a later layer of the rolling corpus, the Kernel sayings are:
2, 3, 5, 6b, 6c, 8-10, 11a, 14b, 15, 16a, 16b, 17, 20, 21b, 21d, 23a, 24b, 25, 26, 30-36, 38a, 39-42, 44-48, 54, 55, 57, 60a, 61a, 62-64a, 65, 66, 69a, 69c, 71-74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 86, 89-100b, 102-104, 107, 109, 111a.
The parables are all in the Kernel, though a few have an dialog introduction or a concluding lesson which are not.
The four parables I noted are 47, 20, 65 and 57.
The “Qn” parables are 96, 107, 64a
The Matthew & Thomas parables are 109, 76, 8,
The Mark & Thomas parable is 21b
The Luke & Thomas parable is 63
The distinctive Thomas parables are 97 & 98.
I am skeptical of assigning agency to a process of accumulation (and possibly omission, since omission wouldn’t leave a trace signal in a rolling oral corpus) spread over a period of decades … while we can argue what “Thomas” may or may not have done, given the contradictions and wide range of influences represented in the corpus (themselves reflecting influences from different decades), the character of the work makes it appear that it was enscribed without a lot of cleaning up.
I’m not sure I totally follow everything you’re saying here, but we can note if Thomas seems to have a differing interpretation of a parable than that included in the synoptics. That alone would allow us to consider whether the synoptic interpretation might have been left off for that reason.
Yes, if one also presumes that interpretations of parables are present in the version of the synoptics that the presumed author of Thomas had at hand, one could go down that track.
Since I found the argument of Dr. DeConnick that the Gospel of Thomas is taking down the result of a rolling corpus accumulated over roughly a century more compelling, I don’t follow that path. I don’t believe any “Thomas” in the sense of the author of the corpus existed, but rather view the person enscribing the Gospel of Thomas as a compiler of the gospel.
If Dr. DeConnick is correct about what it is, the editorial process is more likely to be rearrangement of the sayings then fine grained editing.
One may speculate that a complete, coherent Greek version would allow the kind of stylometric analysis that Bilby and Lotharp engage in, but if DeConnick is correct about it being a rolling corpus of liturgical teachings, techniques refined for studying prior evolution of manuscripts may not get any traction, because functional language usage is prone to harmonizing as the passages are repeated alongside each other.
Robert said
Why does DeConnick bring like a liturgical model into this discussion? Is there anything in the gospel of Thomas that indicates it was a compilation of liturgical sayings?
Oh goodness no, Dr. DeConnick’s discussion of the indications of the tentative reconstruction is:
My detailed analysis of the kernel gospel as well as the later layers will be taken up in future publications. My preliminary analysis of this kernel gospel and the various later layers, however, suggests a “probable” scenario that begins with a very old gospel of sayings of Jesus that likely originated from the Jerusalem church. This gospel was carried to eastern Syria, seemingly the result of the missionary activity of the Jerusalem church. It originally was apocalyptic in orientation, anticipating the imminent judgment of God and the end of the world since, by and large, it consists of eschatological sayings warning about the impending destruction and the
need to prepare for the battle (i.e., L. 1 la, 16a-b, 35, 64, 65, 68a, 69b, 71, 74, 79, 81, 82, 98, 103, Illa). It seems that the original community believed that it was living in a very late stage in history that was characterized by general chaos and the reversal of normalcy. The day of Judgment and the coming Kingdom were imminent (i.e., L. 8, 15, 20, 23a, 40, 61a, 57, 76, 96, 97, 107, 109). The end time conditions were severe and chaotic; relief would only come to those who persevered, maintaining their commitment to the coming Kingdom and to the hope of their election.
… but it’s not very plausible that the rolling corpus of sayings of Yeshu’ is being maintained in a largely illiterate faith community so that the small minority of literate members can pour over it and nod knowingly to themselves.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)