(19 votes, average: 4.79 out of 5)
Loading...I have finished a draft of my book on Revelation and am now having readers take a look at it, both layreaders and experts. Once I get their comments back I’ll make revisions and then get it sent out to the publisher; the plan is to have it published in the spring of 2022.
I may change all this, but here is how at this point I’m planning to start the book, in ch. 1.
******************************
I was expecting a good deal of culture shock when I moved to North Carolina in 1988. I had spent ten years in New Jersey, four of them teaching at Rutgers University in New Brunswick. It was a position I loved: teaching New Testament to students who were curious but not, as a rule, particularly invested in the subject before taking the class. Most of my students there were Roman Catholic, at least nominally; others were Jewish or completely secular. Not many were Bible-reading evangelicals. I was pretty sure things would be different in the south. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill itself was not known as a bastion of conservative thought, but it was, after all, in the Bible Belt. I braced myself, imagining that – as a former evangelical Christian myself – I knew what to expect. But the world is full of surprises.
I arrived in early August, and about a week after unpacking my office I received a call from a local newspaper. The reporter had heard I was a New Testament scholar and he had a pressing question: “Is it true that Jesus is returning in September?”
My first thought was: “OK, here we go.” Even so, I had no idea why he asked. It turns out there was a booklet in wide circulation in these climes by someone named Edgar Whisenant, who mounted numerous biblical arguments that the “rapture” would occur that year during Rosh Hashanah (Sept. 11-13) – just weeks away. There were some two million copies of the booklet in circulation.
For readers who do not
The blog is set up to raise money for charity. Every penny of your small membership fee goes to help those in need, especially the hungry and homeless. So why not join? Click here for membership options
I have a documentary on DVD about a so-called “Bible Code” that claims if you arrange the text of the Bible in columns, moving the relationship between lines around a bit, you can pick out words, like a word search. And these words are supposed to predict all events in history (those that have now happened and those that are yet to happen), including the Kennedy Assassination and 9/11. And these claims are made by Jewish and Christian “scholars,” so it is not merely a Christian view. It works better with the old testament in Hebrew, of course, because there are no vowels, so more “words” can be created. (The problem, as they admit, is that it is hard to use it to predict because you need to know what you are looking for to find it.) It is, of course, preposterous, but it is amusing to see the Jewish “scholars” mock the Christian “scholars” for doing with the New Testament exactly what they are doing with the Old Testament. (I understand that it has also been done with big books, like Moby Dick and Huckleberry Finn to show that it is just what happens with enough words.)
(To clarify a bit, you arrange the text in columns so that it runs vertically as a continuous string of individual letters and no spaces, with the next columns being strings of other individual letters, across several columns. This is what lets you shift the relationship of letters, and pick out words that are not necessarily in the text directly. You can pick out words straight up or down, or diagonally. I think they did at least restrict themselves to a word needing to be formed in a straight line, no matter the direction. I don’t think you could go up and down, just picking connecting letters and changing directions, although that may have changed since the documentary was made. There is even software that makes it easier to achieve. There is some discussion in the documentary about whether you need to do this in the original languages for the text or if it works in translation. People have apparently spent a lot of time doing this, as if it had any merit at all beyond mere entertainment.)
!!
Which translation? What size font? How big? All of that will affect which letters are where. Just bogglingly silly.
Nice!! Looking forward to reading your next opus!
Mr. Ehrman, I have 2 questions (By the way, of course I have no comment for the upcoming book, since it is beyond obvious it’s going to be dope):
1) In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 NIV, Paul says:
”For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.”
My question is: can this verse serve also as an indicator of Paul’s understanding of Jesus as an archangel?
2) In his next breath (4:17), he says:
”After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.”
You have said many times that the apocalyptic vision entailed a good kingdom of God right here on earth. But Paul says they will be forever with the Lord “in the air”. Can you please explain the nuances?
Sorry for being too greedy today asking 2 questions! 😊
1. I don’t think so; the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God are not the voice and trumpet of Jesus, but of an angelic being and God himself, respectively. 2. I’m dealing with that in my book, as it turns out. Maybe I should post on it!
Well, this certainly contrasts what a rocket scientist–without Google mind you–can do with Leviticus vs the rest of us, even a smart, ruthless king of England.
Henry VIII couldn’t get a son out of his 1st wife (her fault, of course). What to do? Use Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21 to solve his “great matter” (i.e., his eye for Ann Boleyn).
Result? The Church of England. The rocket scientist couldn’t do that.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
So when Jesus says things like “no one knows the date or time” or speaks about the fig tree… the event that he’s referring to is the apocalypse when God would set up his kingdom and Jesus would be king…. so
1. Is it not then wildly taken out of context when these verses are used to refer to an apocalypse happening in our time?
2. Did Jesus ever speak of a second coming?
Thank you!
1. Yup! 2. Nope!
No, but the angels did in Act 1:11
“Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
That strikes me as a good way to begin such a book. It does a great job of hooking a reader in. How could anyone not want to read more??
I was born into a fundamental, pentecostal, evangelical, charismatic (yes, we did it all! Nazarene, Assembly of God, Foursquare and back to AofG) home and extended family. The rapture was a terrifying prospect. We worried that in a “moment of sin” the rapture would happen and we’d be left behind. In the mid 60’s (Bay Area/California) our pastor’s daughter (17yrs old) came home from a football game. Her parents weren’t home. The house was dark. She hid under the kitchen table afraid the rapture had happened and she’d been left behind. It’s funny now but it wasn’t at the time! I started having doubts when I was 16. It took several years to let go completely but as the process continued I became freer and happier. I have not looked back and have never doubted my decision. In 2014, (long being an agnostic/atheist) I came across your book Misquoting Jesus. I was astonished that your scholarship supported what my intuition told me. Thank you for all that you do and for the opportunity to have access to this blog.
That brings back memories. I was raised in a strict fundamentalist sect that referred to the Rapture as the “Second Coming.” They hung their hat on the passage from 1st Thessalonians 4 (King James version):
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”
The passage is really quite beautiful from a wordsmithing perspective. Unfortunately it was used as a scare tactic, particularly for the young. As a child I remember more than once coming home to an empty house and wondering if the “Second Coming” had occurred and I had been “left behind.”
Yes, we referred to the Rapture as the Second Coming as well using the same scripture you note.
Brilliant — and oh so familiar from my time (mercifully long past) as a young, zealous and impressionable fundamentalist evangelical. Though I’m embarrassed to admit it, I used to eat this stuff up.
I have a side question. Is your commentary of Revelation part of a series? or is it a stand-alone commentary?
It’s not a commentary — it’s a trade book for a general audience. It will be published by Simon & Schuster.
If anyone is interested it is possible to download a free PDF of Whisenant’s immortal tome at the wonderful Internet Archive site –
https://archive.org/details/ReasonsWhyTheRaptureWillBeIn1988PDF
Prof Ehrman do you know if the publisher, the World Bible Society, ever received requests for refunds?
For that matter, could one successfully sue a failed end times prophet for promoting a defective product?
One should! In this case, the the publisher instead published his next book.
A likely reply: We regret to tell you that your money has been raptured.
This is tongue in cheek….. but, RE: The first and third elements of standing: what was the injury in fact? How is it redressable ( really interested in that one)?
That website is really good for reading books for free.
Would you please explain the difference between a “fundamentalist” and an “evangelical”? I see these terms used interchangeably even in high scholarly works, and no one seems to have a clear definition, especially of the latter. Andrew Herrmann, who says he is an “exvangelical”, even writes about “fundamentalist evangelicalism” for whom the “belief that we’re living in the end times with the imminent return of Jesus is THE core driving force” (emphasis in original).
Is there a reference that would help? I’ve looked everywhere.
There’s lots of debate and discussion and differentiations that get made. My sense is that generally it is thought that fundamentalism (which can be dated to the end of the 19th into the early 1920s) is a movement out of evangelicalism. Evangelicals have typically maintained that only a personal relationship with Christ thorugh a kind of spiritual experience/born again experience will be saved and everyone else will be condemned to hell; they have a high view of Scripture as the conveyor of truth, but do not necessarily insist that every jot and tittle is infallible. And they believe it is important to convert non-believers (hence their name). Fundamentalists are more right wing as a rule, insisting on the complete inerrancy of the Bible on everything (in its original wording; or in the King James; etc. — depending which ones you’re talking about); more rigid social morality; more rigid everything. The fundamentalist movement did arise with the emphasis of the imminent return of JEsus for the rapture, which became a hallmark of it’s claims.
There’s a bumper sticker I saw the other day:
If it aint King James
It aint Bible
Somehow the grammar seemed appropriate to the sentiment. 😢
Dr. Erhman, I laugh to myself whenever I hear some of your anecdotes about attending a “dogmatic, fundamentalist Bible College” like MBI. In the circles I came up in, they had been labeled as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that were deceptively corrupting “true” American Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is in the eye of the beholder.
Every word is inerrant except “wine.” They’re quite sure that Jesus didn’t *really* make or drink wine.
I actually had someone assert that “they didn’t have the technology in Jesus’ day” to turn grape juice into wine. I pointed out that it takes no technology to turn grape juice into wine (though some expertise to turn it into *good* wine); it takes technology to keep it from becoming wine.
Yikes. You might point out that there are roughly a zillion references in ancient sources to people getting blind-drunk, which is a bit hard to do on grape juice….
A good beginning, especially since 1988 came and went. Of course, maybe we just missed the Rapture and we are ll living in the Tribulation, with either Trump or Biden or Obama acting as the AntiChrist, depending upon one’s political bent. I myself suspect Ben Roethlisberger, but that is because I am a long-suffering Cleveland Browns fan! lol
How Baker has fallen. Very sad — we had such hopes at the beginning of the season. And who would-a thought the Bengals…?
Who Dey!
NFL lore….
Dr Ehrman. In your book, will you be looking at how Hollywood has treated the book of Revelation? A number of films have taken their titles from it (eg. Behold a Pale Horse, Armageddon etc.) and there have been movies about the Rapture. But I guess the core material is well nigh impossible to film. Art is probably better placed to give expression to it, eg. Durer.
That was the original plan. But I ditched it. I was also going to do novels. I decided to stick ot my expertise and related things, instead of film and lit crit.
May I suggest you discuss the films and books here? No use wasting that material!
Interesting idea.
Looking forward to the new book!
Very much looking forward to reading this new book!
I saw him speak at North Central Bible College which is now known as North Central University and I remember the atmosphere was that the guy is from NASA so that means he’s smart so he must be right! I can still remember him saying he didn’t know the day just the week! Lol Needless to say I was unconvinced even though I was a conservative Christian at the time!
Can’t wait. Any idea when it will come out on Audible?
I don’t really know. They don’t inform mere mortals of such things.
Off-topic: Bart, what would the historical Jesus have thought or said if someone had told him they believed him to be the eternal God who had created the universe?
He surely whould have torn his robes and shrieked.
Hi Bart. When Jesus talks about the Apocalypse, is there any indication of what he thinks this will look like ? I assume the Jesus version of the Apocalypse does not include death, mayhem, untold suffering etc. Maybe the whole world goes to sleep, and wakes up the next day to find Paradise, or some such ?
Thank you.
Are you asking me my personal view about how live in this world will end? I have no way of knowing. At this ppoint I’d say the two leading candidates are nuclear fallout and human destruction of the climate.
Hi Bart. Thanks for that. No, I was asking about how Jesus himself viewed the process by which Kingdom of God would be realized on earth ? Did he talk about going through a process of bloodshed, torment etc, or would the people in his time just wake up one morning and find paradise ?
Thank you.
Ah! He appears to have thought that God was soon to send a cosmic judge who would destroy all those who were opposed to him and bring in the kingdom.
Thanks Bart. I wonder if we can infer from this that Jesus himself was supportive of violence and suffering under certain circumstances, or is it too unclear to say one way or the other ?
Thank you
My view is that he completely depended on God to deal with it, and urged non-violence among his followers.
Bart, how should your above answer be construed? Are you saying that, if apocalypse is stipulated as a given and the question is merely “how”, then you’re answer is that nuclear fallout and human destruction of the climate would be the most likely causes? This would say nothing about your thoughts on how likely the stipulated apocalypse is in the first place.
Or are you saying that you believe that man-made apocalypse is indeed likely? And if so, are you familiar with the works of Steven Pinker (e.g., Enlightenment Now, The Better Angels of Our Nature, etc.)? And if so, what is your take on his depiction of the positive trajectory of human history?
I was answering the question (which I thought was the question!) of how I think it’s likely the world as we know it will end, if it is to come to an end any time soon — say in a century or three.
I’m cheering for the eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. Not much of a respecter of wealth or privilege, that, and will leave the Earth renewed for future life. What that life will be will depend, of course, on what survives, just as was the case with the previous great dyings.
I’d love to see a YouTube video of Dr. Ehrman and Hal Lindsey discussing the book of Revelation! Lindsey is 92 years old now, so it needs to happen soon.
Since the 1960s he’s been hoping he won’t be around for long.
… as did so many of his followers!
I think you should have a contest to see which blog member can come up with the most convoluted reason why the Rapture will occur in 2022 using as many Bible verses as possible.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hi Dr Ehrman!
What are your thoughts on this difference of opinion?
To sum up, the influence of the Montanist movement onthe conception o f the canon was th e opposite o f that exerted b y Marcion. Whereas the latter had spurred the Church to recognize th e breadth o f the written corpus o f authoritative writings, th e insistence of the former o n th e continuous gift of inspiration and prophecy influenced the Church to emphasize the final authority of apostolic writings a s the rule of faith. By rejecting the extravagances o f Montanism, th e Church took the first step toward the adoption of a closed canon of Scripture.
– Metzger
The church did not as a result of the montanist crisis confine inspired revelation to the apostolic past. Both during and after the heyday of montanism, the activity of the spirit of the church was fully affirmed, and even anti-montanist writers laid positive emphasis on the prophetic charisma and so did not think that ecstatic prophecy and authoritative writings were mutually exclusive sources of Christian teaching. For these reasons Montanism cannot be deemed a crucial factor in the shaping of the canon.
– gamble
Thank you!!
This may seem strange, but I’m not sure they’re flat-out contradictory. Metzger is talking about influence and the beginnings of a movement; Gamble is denying that it was the major factor. THere’s some wiggle room between the two options. I’d prefer Gamble, ,though, to have said that it was not “the” crucial facotr instead of “a”. My sense is that it was somewhat important. But the big problem is that both of the statements seem to be imagining that there was a monolithic movement toward canon in orthodox circles, whereas there were different views by different orthodox thinkers at different times because of different circumstances. Not everyone was as concerned about something like Montanism as everyone else, even in the orthodox tradition. They both know there was a lot of diversity, but both seem to be imagining a kind of linear direction taken by “the” church.
Ah! Thank your for explicating that nuance Dr Ehrman!! That’s really helpful.
I read further and later on in his discussion Gamble really hits hard on the idea that Montanism had no effect on efforts to establish a closed canon.
“It highlighted some related issues, such as the nature and meaning of historical tradition, the relation of past and present revelation, the authority of certain documents (John, Revelation), and the prerogative of their interpretation. But there is no good evidence that it called forth the idea of a closed canon of scripture.” -Gamble
What is your take on Montanism and closing the canon?
Would you say that Montanism did have an effect although was not a crucial factor?
Thank you!!
I think it was *a* factor that may have influenced *some* church leaders; but I don’t think it was hugely decisive.
Furthermore,
Gamble states that:
“The fact that the catholic canon came to have broader scope than Marcion’s is no more adequately explained as a reaction against Marcion than as a result of historic usages in the church.”
– gamble
Whereas Metzger implies that Marcion lead the church to adopt a wider range of literature (see his quote in my previous comment)
What are your thoughts on This difference of opinion?
(I’m starting to see what you mean when you joke about how the agreement of all scholars would be a miracle!! Haha)
Thank you!
I think Marcion’s canon did have some influence but was not deteriminative. Gamble tends to be a bit more conservative on such issues, thinking that the canon would have happened purely on internal grounds. It’s hard to say, but it seems that opposition to false teachings was always a part of deciding which books were authoritative.
I am a new member and I have one question I really want to ask, unrelated, but I searched the blog and I don’t think it’s been addressed.
I “nerd out” over the issue of translating John 1:1, because the traditional rendering “Word was with God, and the Word was God” is a bit problematic, because to a modern reader with knowledge of Christian theological development, this translation implies the trinity, but correct me if I am wrong, but the gospel was written before the trinity developed, and therefore it’s hard to know that the author really intended to convey the idea that the Word was just as much “God”, as we would understand it, as the Father is.
The problem is no matter how you translate it, the translator almost has to take a position on the issue of the trinity, that might go beyond the idea the author intended to express.
I don’t know Greek, but from my limited understanding, just using a lowercase “g” god like “the Word was god” preserves the ambiguity, and the oral reading, while not raising any other theological issues and without clearly taking an opposing stance … would you comment on your view of this?
I think the idea of the Trinity has to be imported into the text, however it is translated. The doctrine in brief form states that there are three persons, all of whom are equally God, but there is only one God. John 1 doesn’t say anything about that. There were lots of Jews who believed that there were divine beings besides Yahweh. Calling someone God doesn’t make them *equal* with God the Father; and notice, the passage says nothing about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. If you want ot read more about allthis, check out my book How Jesus Became God (which is all about the questoin)
Dr Ehrman,
Seems like a wonderful book, cant wait to get my hands(or ears for audiobook) on it.
1. Is there any reference in Bible of end of times and “3rd time temple will be built on the Temple Mount”?
2. Does Jesus, in NT, seems to be connecting end of times with once/final destruction of temple?
3. Does Jesus, in NT, seems to be suggesting or hinting a rebuilding plan before or after rapture?
regards,
1. I’ll be showing that conservative Christians have always taken 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to indicate this. 2. Yes. 3. Jesus had no conception of a rapture.
We spend a great deal of time talking about fundamentalist Christians.. I guess those who believe in biblical inerrancy? I taught a course at a local monastery on the Holy Spirit, and the Catholics mostly didn’t know the difference between evangelicals and charismatics. And of course, there are Catholic charismatics. Is there a book somewhere that describes these views and tells us the names of denominations where we might expect to find them?
This would help a great deal in looking at the social science of these folks.
I’ve decided to post on it; it’s in teh queue for a couple of weeks from now.
“I’ve learned to be wary of library patrons with a Bible in one hand and a pocket calculator in the other”–anecdote from a public librarian friend to me ca. 1986!
I’m curious about what happened around the 1890’s that brought the apocalyptic view to popularity. Was there a particular person/sect/cult that gained influence? There was no radio so I assume that tent shows were the effective form of promulgation.
Yup, I’ll be dealing wtih that in my book. It was a confluence of things, all connected with the rise of fundamentalism.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
At the risk of being declared a heretic like the Gnostics of ages long past, I was wondering which Biblical scholars do you recommend that you feel do solid scholarly work but who you disagree with?
I’d say there are many hundreds who do very fine work in one field or another, and I probably disagree with all of them on one thing or another, as each one of them disagrees with all others! So it really depends which topics you have in mind. When it comes to Revelation, Craig Koester is one of the finest more knowledgable scholars on the planet, and I think he’s completely wrong about major things (he doesn’t see the book as violent, he thinks the author could right very good Greek, and lots of other things). He, of course, thinks I’m wrong too!
Koester’s lecture on the Apocalypse where he points out that the Sword was a non-violent representation of the Word of God from creation as an allusion to Genesis blew my mind. I had to re-read the book again an re-read his Anchor commentary.
Yeah, it’s a non-violent sword that in chapter 19 destroys masses of humanity….
This dismisses the idea that a 1st century author steeped in 2nd temple literature could/would be writing an apocalyptic work in imagery that could possibly be operating on more than 1 level at a time.
The vision sees everyone get smitten AND ruled by a rod of iron. How does one rule a bunch of corpses? It seems more reasonable that this passage is intentionally evoking violent imagery to describe the ultimate elimination of injustice. The nations are smitten down and their is a just ruler once the source of the injustice (temporal nations) are smitten. This image is self contained and nested within a series of images that ties together a whole bunch of ANE concepts of chaos, creation, and eschatology.
You would kind of have to take “the beast” to be a literal monster who gets picked apart by literal birds… even though the beast ALSO gets thrown into the lake of fire shortly. So, has he been digested or is he burning in thr Lake of Fire? Wait… I thought all the nations were already smitten?
I best, a narrow,, liiteral understanding seems needlessly strict.
You certainly have helped me understand the apocalyptic ideas of Jesus & Paul and how important the idea was in the early church.
For later generations, as the religion of Jesus grew in its many forms, do you think this idea of a returning Jesus and coming rapture was also an important help in spreading it? It is an idea that still gains traction and adherents/followers today, no matter how provably wrong the supposed prophesized date is after the fact. It must have been so much easier in 2nd and 3rd centuries.
I have read your excellent analyses of why Christianity spread like it did. I know mainly is is that the Xtian God is the most powerful God, & not the supposed moral communities etc. I just wondered if you think this idea that “Jesus was coming and boy is he pissed” was a major selling point to the Mediterranean World w/i the first few centuries post-Jesus?
I think it was a selling point early on, e.g., in the work of Paul; but I think it lost it’s force over time. Instead the emphasis came to be: you will die soon and have hell to pay (literally), unless you come to believe.
I seem to recall another apologist back in the 80s claiming that Jesus would rapture his believers before the end of the 80s because of the fig tree/Israel passage. I seem to recall it was Josh McDowell, but I could be wrong.
My fifty year old memory of reading the Late Great Planet Earth my be hazy, but I do think I remember one of Lindsey’s and his ghost writer’s key reasons for dating the rapture “soon” had to do with the European Common Market and the ten heads of the Beast in the book of Revelation. At that point there were 7 or 8 members of the market. At ten, some prophecy was to be fulfilled because the market countries had to do with the heads of the beast. Of course, it wasn’t too long before there were 12 countries in the market and more, and I take it further editions of the book were revised to change the argument.
Yup, you have a good memory.
Continued…
I do remember being reminded of this years later when studying Aristotle’s Poetics. In one passage he writes about tactics the play writers of his day used to fool their audiences as a means of enhancing the drama. One was to associate a very unlikely happening with another that seemed much more likely. Somehow, in most people’s minds, this makes the unlikely seem more likely. In Lindsey’s case, the unlikely is the rapture, and the very likely was the possibility that the European Market would grow to include 10 countries. Wow! It’s right there in scripture. Again, I’m just going on some pretty old memory here, but the idea that the authors of the Late Great Planet Earth deliberately used a classic trick to fool people and to sell books—that made a lot of money for the authors—under the guise of interpreting biblical prophecy seemed more than a bit unscrupulous. Not that there wasn’t a whole lot of additional fear-mongering and such in the book. Has the above ever been noted? Or am I mistaken?
Yes, people have pointed out that it wasn’t hard to see the European Market expanding to 10 and that “fulfilld” what was prophecied in Scripture. Until there was 12…. I’m not sure that anyn’e has connected it with the passage in Aristotle though; interesting point.
Dr. Ehrman,
Looking forward to the Revelation book. As I said before, D.H. Lawrence’s Apocalypse is a personal fav so I can’t wait to see what you have to say about it. Side question: When you were at Moody Bible Institute, what was the general opinion of Appalachian serpent handlers? Ralph Hood has shown that the Pentecostal church actually tried to hide the fact that they once approved of handling up until about the middle 1960’s (see Conn’s A Mighty Army). Was it considered just an oddity? Did people simply write them off as ignorant and backwards? I’m curious if there was any consensus or if it was just totally ignored. Secondly, is there any evidence for early Christians handling serpents? They are of course following Mark 16 and there are lots of serpents in ancient religion in general. What do you think Mark 16 is about if not a command to handle, as these churches believe? Thanks!
There may have been a range of opinions. The people I ran around with thought that it was “tempting God” (or “putting God to a test”) and so was completely inappropriate; nad also many of us knew that Mark 16:9-20 were not originaly in the text and so were not the Bible. I’ve never seen the passage as a command to handle snakes; it’s instead saying that if you pick one up or get accidentally bitten by one, it won’t harm you. (Just as it’s not telling people to drink poison). There are stories — one in Acts — of Christians being bitten by deadly snakes and not being harmed, and possibly the passage arose from that.
God hates tests too. Me and him/her/them have something in common afterall!
Thanks, Bart! It strikes me as so odd that there wouldn’t have been a clearer reason to insert these anti-warning labels. “Oh, and by the way, if you drink venom and handle cobras, no big deal. Just wanted you to know!” These are some weird books! Such a hodgepodge. Endlessly fascinating.
I sense a sarcastic tone in your essay and response to several questions. I hope you do not use the book to mock the views of other people with whom you have a disagreement. A straightforward explanation of the text, as you understand it, will be much appreciated. It is entirely possible to develop a history of different positions taken by the church in a non condescending manner. I know you can do it!
Thanks. What strikes you as sarcastic? I certainly do try to use some humor to lighten things up.
I appreciate the humor. It was the statement: “Even conservative Christians often refuse to set a date” that I thought was condescending. I consider myself a conservative Christian (not a Fundamentalist). Even so, I do not think the Rapture or the Tribulation as taught by the Church has any Biblical support. Maybe a better way to say this would be to change the text to read: “There are many conservative Christians that do not agree with Whisenant. Jesus himself said that “No one knows the day or the hour” when ….”
In any event. I am looking forward to reading the new Book and learning from your insight and knowledge.
OK< thanks. There is some sarcasm in the book -- but I certainly did not mean *that* statement to be sarcastic!
Looking forward to this!
Awhile ago you had blogged about writing a book on the Christian appropriation of Jewish scripture- is this still in the works?
Unfortunately I’ve decided to head in other directions.
Dr. Ehrman. I chuckled a lot when I read about your experience with Edgar Whisenant and his predictions. But he is not the only one who has done exactly the same thing; dug into the holy scriptures and thought they had revealed hidden holy truths. We know for sure that this was done in antiquity, through midrash, pesher or the like. As I see it, that’s how Christianity originated.
John the Baptist was a Christian character based on Job from the OT. He was a forerunner of Christ in all things, except, possibly, for Humility. Job had become a better person through his sufferings, so the Lord eventually allowed him to baptize his friends for salvation from their sins. His friends had not told the Truth, as Job had. Water can be explained literally as water, but religiously also as the Word of God. Jesus was the Word, He was the Truth and He was the living Water. This is why John baptized with water. He gave his friends the Truth from the source of wisdom himself. This was the baptism of John.
But there was one man in the ancient scriptures more humble than Job, and that was Joseph.
Humility was to be fulfilled by Christ. Joseph’s humility is symbolized by a dove. Joseph was to make peace with his brothers, who had previously inflicted on him his sufferings – When Joseph was revealed to Israel.
But in order for Job to see who surpassed him in virtues, the Edgar Whisenant’s of that time had to understand that Job was the baker in the dungeon with Joseph.
Was Joseph baptized by the baker? Well, in a way, he was. It was because of the baker, and the cup-bearer, that Joseph eventually became free. The baker saw that Joseph had interpreted the dreams correctly. He saw that the cup-bearer Joseph had sent out, like a dove, had been returned with a good message. As with Noah. Job, who had baptized his friends for salvation, now baptized Joseph for salvation from the dungeon.
The dreams had come from the Father, but the interpretation came through the Father and the Son. The moan from Joseph was in fact the Spirit who moaned, like the moan of a dove, as Augustine writes. The Trinity was thus present, and Job was a witness.
This became a Christian dogma – in type and shadows.
Job had suffered many afflictions at the hand of the devil, showing that he surpassed all other people in virtues. But the Lord was still not pleased with Job when He finally addressed him. Job had become complacent to see that he surpassed his friends; Job had become Proud.
Ecclesiastes 10:13 Pride is the beginning of all sin.
Humility is the true wisdom of man. This is what the Lord wanted to show Job in the final chapters of the book of Job, and what is better than pointing out a human example to follow. This example was Joseph. Job knew the power of the Lord, but he did not know the suffering servant of the Lord. Job knew the Lord, yet he did not know Him. The peaceful Joseph introduced Job to this aspect of the Lord, and the Dove made him aware of it. That is why Jesus was baptized when he was 30 years old.
Job saw, as the baker, Joseph rise from the dungeon as the new king of Israel and the Gentiles.
«His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn.»
Augustine on the Dove:
«Now if the dove’s note is a moaning, as we all know it to be, and doves moan in love (…) He gives us to know that we are sojourners in a foreign land, and He teaches us to sigh after our native country; and through that very longing do we groan (…) to have true peace with his brethren, that peace which the kisses of doves signify (…) Come; the dove is calling you, calling you by her sighing. My brethren, to you I say, call by groaning, not by quarreling; call by praying, by invitation, by fasting; let them by your charity understand that you pity them. I doubt not, my brethren, that if they see your sorrow they will be astonished, and will come to life again. Come, then, come; be not afraid; be afraid if you do not come; nay, be not afraid, rather bewail yourself. Come, you will rejoice if you will come; you will indeed groan in the tribulations of your pilgrimage, but you will rejoice in hope. Come where the dove is, to whom it was said, My dove is one, the only one of her mother.»
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701006.htm
Was Job the Lamb of God? For religious reasons, it might have been tempting to believe that. For was not Job led as a lamb to the slaughter? Undoubtedly, Job suffered, and he received permission from the Lord to save his friends. But Job did not save the whole world, as Joseph did.
Job bore witness to the Truth — the Truth that would save all, both Jews and Gentiles. Job was a Lamb, but he was not the Lamb of God. This is exactly what the evangelist was trying to emphasize when he had John to point out the Lamb of God. Not me, but him! Why do you give heed to me? I am not the lamb; behold the Lamb of God. I’m just the forerunner!
John: «A man can not receive anything, unless it be given him from heaven» – Job: «The Lord gives, the Lord takes, the name of the Lord be praised.»
Job was now ready to deliver his congregation to the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles. The Lord was to be the bridegroom.
Two disciples, the Church, followed Jesus, one representing the Jews (Aaron the priest) and the other the Gentiles. What are you looking for? It was now the tenth hour, meaning it was still under the law.
What they discovered, by putting the example of Joseph before their eyes, was that all were to be saved by Grace. That was the essence of Joseph’s teaching.
Joseph forgave his brothers, he forgave those who had persecuted and condemned him. Joseph showed mercy to his enemies. Joseph showed exalted love. Joseph showed Charity. Joseph showed Humility.
«Where dwellest Thou? Come and see»; In Grace, Charity, Love and Humility.
The time had come for the law to be fulfilled with love, because it could not be fulfilled by the Jews by fear.
PS. I do not hope that what I write will be interpreted as preaching. It is not. I’m just trying, to the best of my ability, to understand the evangelist’s thoughts.
The ways of the Lord are unsearchable. The same can be said about the gospel writers who found incredible religious connections, patterns and interpretations read all over the OT.
We read that the Baker was thrown into the dungeon by Pharaoh. If we read the book of Job with religious glasses (in a form of pesher?) we can say that Job was also imprisoned, by the devil. Job was put in the devil’s custody!
After Job had testified about Jesus, John sends someone to ask if they should wait for someone else. This sounds like an obvious contradiction.
When Job sat on the dunghill, held down by the devil, he uttered some words that could be interpreted as both ignorant and doubtful about the Lord. It is Job’s apparent ignorance that we hear from the dunghill: «Are you the one to come, or should we wait for another?»
But, perhaps, it was Job’s friends who had asked the Lord the ignorant questions?
In any case, there on the dunghill, the power of the Lord was questioned.
Joseph was thrown into the dungeon because of a temptress. Perhaps the same could be said of Job?
In the book of Job, Job was tempted to sin by his wife. The religious belief was that the devil used Job’s wife by cunning, as he had done before with Adam. Some thought Job’s wife was Dinah, the daughter of Leah.
Anyway, Job did not want the devil to get hold of her. Similarly, John was imprisoned because he did not want Herod to have Philip’s wife.
If the story of the baker in the dungeon is sewn together with the story of Job, then many pieces fall into place.
I’m not sure if all lay readers should have received their review copy of your book on Revelation yet, but in case we should all have it, I haven’t receive it yet.
Please write me an email. I may have slipped up!
Bart, here is my email” [email protected]
Like RAhmed, I have not received the review copy of your book.
When you have the time, I would greatly appreciate the review copy.
Thank you.
Yikes! I’m a lost cause — as I guess is pretty obvious. So sorry. I’ll send it along.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. I’m catching up on the blog as the monotony of life has put me behind a bit. I’m very excited for the upcoming online events you have coming up this year! Thank you for doing these and for recording the events for later consumption. I’m currently working my way through the Christmas seminar and it is fantastic so far.
Do scholars have an idea of why the early Christians said that Jesus, after his resurrection, was sitting at the right hand of God? I think this is something that even James and his disciples probably believed in right? I understand that they took his resurrection to mean that Jesus was clearly a very special for God, but what made them think that he was sitting at the right hand of God and that he shared any authority with God?
Oh wait nvm! That’s from Psalm 110! Brain cramp.
It was often thought in ancient religions of all kind that a human who was taken up to live with the gods was made into a divine being as an obviously unusually favored person. If Jesus was raised by God, it wasn’t simply to live for another 20 years; he was up with God. Since in this case we are dealing with a monotheistic religion, and since Jesus was the only one ever raised from the dead, he was *specially* honored. At a feast or in the court, the most honored was seated at the right hand of the host/ruler. Hence the idea.
Whisenant was before my time, but I have read Stan Deyo, who follows in very similar footsteps. Everything from the numerological proof that America is the Great Beast, to the Satanic origins of UFOs, explained in intricate detail. When I was living in a conservative Christian college, there was one highly eccentric individual who was very much a fundamentalist’s fundamentalist, and he lent me the books. Truly an experience.