Loading...Contrary to the claims of the “Jesus Seminar,” Jesus is best understood as delivering an apocalyptic message – or so I began to argue in my previous post, where I explained that all the earliest Gospel sources independently record Jesus delivering apocalyptic teachings.
Equally interesting, some of the most clearly apocalyptic traditions come to be “toned down” as we move further away from Jesus’ life in the 20s to Gospel materials produced near the end of the first century. Sources closest to Jesus: apocalyptic; sources further removed in time (as the end doesn’t come) less apocalyptic. And then non-apocalyptic. Eventually
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Although there was a “de-apocalypticizing” of Jesus’ message, over time there was a “re-apocalypticizing”.
I was raised a JW and left (rather kicked out) in 1998 and I dare say there is no religious movement that has taken the liberties with Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 as JW. I can’t tell you how much the first 35 years of my life revolved around these chapters of the Gospels and the convoluted mathematics and visions derived from Daniel 4 that someone all pointed to 1914 as the beginning of the end.
Now in hindsight, this whole notion of a dual fulfillment of prophecy (AD 70 and Now) seems blatantly misguided. All the times Jesus said “This Generation” in previous verses in those Gospels it is clear he is talking about the people of his day who were listening to him.
So, I’m wondering if there is a definite period in history where this “re-apocalypticizing” transition stands out. I’m guessing after the Reformation.
Gerry
In terms of ascribing apocalyptic views to the historical Jesus himself, it started at the end of the 1890s in Germany and hit big time with Schweitzer’s Quest of hte Historical Jesus in 1906.
What kind of human existence did John have in mind when he talked about believers already having eternal life in the here and now? Was it thought that faith would so transform people and their lives such that they felt like they were already living a utopian existence in the here and now? Or does it mean something more like they can be assured in the here and now that they will, say, go to heaven after they die — and that perhaps the knowledge of this destiny makes their present lives much more enjoyable though not utopian? Or maybe that even in their current bodily existence they will also have a profound experience of the dimension of a supernatural heaven and that their bodily existence is just one dimension of a much larger reality?
If an earthly, bodily existence is meant, it seems like at least some of the saved will still die. Does that mean that the earthly paradise will not fully come for them until their bodies are resurrected? Would that happen all at once for everyone whoever lived and was in fact saved?
I’d say it’s hard to tell. He certainly meant they would feel joyfully redeemed and in the presence of God, and probably that they were no longer part of sinful humanity but a people apart, even if for the time being they still had to suffer pain and misery. They will certainbly still die. But he appears to have thought that they would then be taken up to dwell in heaven, much as later Xns came to believe.
I am truly embarrassed to admit that despite graduating from Trinity College and being a regular church attender at a wide variety of Lutheran, E free and non denominational institutions, for over 50 years, I never critically read any more that a few comforting verses consistently. I couldn’t make it past Genesis without calling it “ Myth” pointing to some profound truth. C.S. Lewis certainly assisted me in my uninformed thinking along with W.L. Craig, Ravi Zacharias and a whole host of illogical propagandists. I was a U.S. History teacher by vocation yet I never applied the historical method to the scriptures. The power of our religious culture truly scares me now. We survived the Crazy Hateful Puritans, along with the First and Second Great Awakenings along with Promise Keepers during my adulthood. I certainly hope that Reason will prevail but given what we know about evolutionary psychology, I am very concerned. It is often said that religious believers are immune to argument and evidence. I am not, and I am thankful that you have assisted me on my journey to a more rational world view.
… “the Kingdom of the Father is spread out on the earth and people do not see it” (saying 113). For these gnostic sayings …
This is clearly anti-apocalyptic. But why is it gnostic?
It’s not necessarily. A lot of scholars today do not see Thomas as a Gnostic Gospels. I on the other hand do think it presupposed a gnostic myth behind it. Not necessarily in this verse per se, but since I think the Gospel as a whole makes better sense from some kind of gnostic point of view (given lots of other verses), I am happy to see this one as well being understood in a gnostic way.
The effects of Zoroastrianism or “Persian Dualism” on the historical Jesus’ theology, and the general apocalyptic theology of the time is quite evident. But how much did Greek/Hellenistic thought perhaps influence his doctrine/beliefs? By the time of Jesus, Hellenization in the Jewish world had of course occurred, but was this limited to the higher educated Jews e.g. Philo of Alexandria? Or did aspects of Hellenism or even platonic philosophy influence Jesus himself (not his Greek biographers or Paul but the man himself)?
I’m not convinced that Zoroastrianism is what led to the Jewish apocalyptic view. In any event, my sense is that even though much of Judaism was heavily Hellenized at the time, most of that was in the major urban areas. I’m not sure Jesus himself wsa much affected. His teachings don’t show much connection with Hellenistic thought, in any event, in my view.
Hi Bart
My first ever question;;
What was the economic or other incentive for the authors of the period to write “books”? With no copyright, no bookshops(?) And no printing presses it could not have been a paying career. Yet, as you have mentioned, there were novels, histories, gospels and other multi-volume works.
Keith Head
Yes, it’s hard to imagine anyone writing books before capitalism! But, yes, it did happen. Books were mainly written to spread ideas and culture to those who were and those who should be interested.
What I dont understand about Mark’s account of the trial is that the high priest would most likely have been dead by AD 70 when we think Mark was written, so surely Mark would have known he wouldn’t have been able to witness the son of man coming on the clouds?
You would think. Literature (religious and otherwise) is FULL of this kind of thing.
Except Q. 🙂
Q is obviously not apocalyptic. But it’s easy to understand how that happened. There was no Q. Matt expanded and enhanced Mark continuing with similar apocalyptic expectations as Mark. Luke also expanded and enhanced Mark but downplays imminent apocalyptic expectations. And Luke also utilized some of Matt’s expansions of Mark (mostly teachings, but some narratives), but mostly the non-apocalyptic ones. So, for example, Luke doesn’t include much of Matt’s expansion/doubling of Mark’s Olivet Discourse, except that he might’ve rewritten parts of it elsewhere in his Gospel (e.g., Sheep & Goats as Rich Man & Lazarus).
So the parts of Matt that Luke utilized (the double tradition) would be mostly non-apocalyptic. And then scholars thought this double tradition was an entire separate early doc, but it wasn’t. It was just the parts of Matt that Luke found useful. And then Q became a red herring to the Jesus Seminar and others who thought Jesus was not apocalyptic because they thought there was this early non-apocalyptic source for the life of Jesus, when such a thing never existed.
As you probably know, there are indeed apocalyptic sayings in Q (e.g. Luke 12:39/Matt 24:44; Luke 17:24, 26-27/Matt 24:27, 37-39.
Yes, thanks. I should have been more precise and said, Q is noticeably less apocalyptic than Mark, not completely non-apocalyptic. And that still seems like an anomaly for Q defenders. We should see a trend going from very apocalyptic with historical Jesus and early sources like Q & Mark to virtually non-apocalyptic with Fourth Gospel. But even John still expresses some apocalypticism (Jn 5:28-29). And Luke has some as well (Lk chap 17). But Luke is definitely further out on the eschatological spectrum than Mark & Matt. Mark had talked about a time gap between the death of Jesus and 70 CE/return of son of man, whereas Luke talks about a time gap *after* 70 CE (“the times of the Gentiles”). And if Luke was using Matt, he certainly avoids Matt’s more imminent apocalypticism, such as that expressed in Matt 10:23 (which is much more similar to Mark’s).
Question about “L” and “M”…how do scholars distinguish what passages may have come from these earlier sources, versus what would have been original to the authors of Luke and Matthew themselves?
I’m also curious what the counter-argument would have been to the historical Jesus not having an apocalyptic message. The historical “softening” of the apocalyptic message in the later gospels, as you lay out in your post, presents a strong argument…where is the point of contention?
Technically we can’t know. My personal view is that since we can know that both authors used sources (Mark / Q) when they can be checked, they more than likely used sources where they can’t be checked. But it’s a bit of guesswork and it’s always possible they came up wiht accounts themselves. (Luke, of course, pretty much claims that he didn’t, in 1:1-4);
Sonme scholars date later sources earlier (Crossan, e.g., argues that the materials in Thomas are earlier than those in the Synoptics); others simply argue that the apocalyptic materials got added in at one point but were not the original view, and that the original view reemerged later.
“Luke continues to think that the end of the age is going to come in his own life time. But he does not seem to think that it was supposed to come in the lifetime of Jesus’ companions. …”
“Luke, writing many years later, after the high priest was long dead and buried, changes the saying…”
So the traditional dating of Luke’s gospel about a decade or so after that of Mark has a problem here, so much changed in such a few years?
My understanding is that the consensus dating is Mark circa 70, Luke 80–90 CE, so somewhere between one and two decades between them. If neither author had direct knowledge of the fate of the high priest, that sounds pretty plausible to me. A middle aged first century man might conceivably be elderly but still alive 40 years later, especially if (like Mark) you’re confident the end is coming extremely soon & he needn’t live much longer to see it. At 50-60 years later, you’re bumping up against the upper limits of the human lifespan for someone living in an era without modern medicine, and I’d expect it to be much more likely to jump out to a reader as unbelievable that the character would still be alive. Especially if enough time has passed that you no longer share the Markan view that the destruction of the temple heralds an end extremely soon.
This is so fascinating stuff! I have a question though: why do you think “Mark” left these obviously embarrassing sayings of Jesus?
Like many people still today, he may have thought Jesus meant them — for Mark’s *own* time!
I don’t know, but this just doesn’t register to me. I think that’s kind of an anachronistic reading. Like you’ve pointed out on other occasions, this Gospel writer is brilliant — I don’t think he would leave such a glaring, straight falsification of Jesus. If he knew for a fact that all of the disciples were dead, it doesn’t make sense to me why he’d keep 9:1. Isn’t it reasonable to suggest he personally knew some of the disciples were still alive? And that’s why he kept it? Because if he didn’t, he gambled embarrassing himself (and Jesus of course) — in the case all of the disciples had indeed already died. If he did know some of them were still alive, it makes better sense to keep this saying. I don’t know… it’s too convoluted! I’ll turn my attention to the NBA trade deadline 🤣
He lived in a different part of the world from teh disciples, and almost certainly would not have known if they were alive. It’s so hard for us to imagine livig in a world where there were no long-distance connections (at all for 99% of the people)
Full knowledge – epignosis – information which I would liked to have read decades ago. I have contemplated buying the book & have requested the ebook to be available at our public library.
BTW, can anyone please tell me when “Jesus the Actual Son of Joseph” will be available for viewing???
If you purchased it it already is available nd will have been sent to you. If you haven’t purchased it you can check it out here: https://ehrman.thrivecart.com/son-of-joseph
Dr Ehrman,
I want to thank for your honesty. You have been telling it as you see it. I wish the professors at my highly regarded evangelical seminary five decades ago had been as clear as you have been in fearlessly tackling this apocalyptic muddle. Then I would not have devoted 40 years of pastoral ministry mis-indoctrinating my congregations and yes, my family and friends too. I feasted on the sermons and works of then current and past “giants of the faith” as any good bibliolatrist should, and condemned those who deserted the faith as worldly apostates. I very carefully avoided any works which seriously challenged my beliefs, in accordance with Paul’s injunction to the church at Corinth, (2 Corinthians10:3-5).
sounds like you’ve experienced a serious transformation!
Hello Prof Ehrman,
1. I am reading ‘Forged’ and note that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 is a later falsification on the lips of Paul. Please, do we have any manuscript evidence for this, or is this scholarly conclusion solely premised on literary analysis (an intrusion in the passage in which they are found)?
2. Again, do we have manuscript evidence for the different endings to Mark’s gospel, and how significantly different are these endings from what we have in the KJV?
As always, thank you for your time and patience.
1. No, no texual witnesses for it. That’s why scholars refer to it as an interpolation instead of a textual variant; the standard of proof is much higher, of course, for interpolations, since there is no hard evidence that the texthas been changed.
2. Yes, there is solid manuscript for these different endings. And they are indeed different: the final 12 verses in the KJV has 12 are missing in these older witnesses.