(18 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...Jewish apocalypticism was a very common view in Jesus’ day – it was the view of the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, of the Pharisees, of John the Baptist, later of the Apostle Paul – and almost certainly of Jesus. I can demonstrate that in some later thread if it seems appropriate. For now, let me just say that this is a widely held view among critical scholars – by far the majority view for over a century, since the writings of Albert Schweitzer, author of The Quest of the Historical Jesus
What did early Jewish apocalypticists believe? Let me break it down into four component themes. I have
Join the blog and you can get five posts a week like this, giving information that can help you understand the New Testament and the historical Jesus! Click here for membership options
Was Bar Kokhba himself a later member of the apocalyptic tradition? It would seem that by his time the Imminence expectation would have been getting very strained.
No, I don’t believe so. He appears to have wanted a political/military solution.
> He appears to have wanted a political/military solution.
I guess he hadn’t figured out that, in 132 CE, “SPQR” meant “Don’t Mess With Rome.”
From my position of ignorance, the Wikipedia article on the revolt is interesting. Do you think it gets the events more or less right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
I’m not sure: I haven’t read it!
It is interesting that this is what most Christians believe today and it started with Jewish apocalypticists over 2,000 years ago! And for all of that 2,000+ years, the vindication of God was going to happen very soon!
Modern orthodox Jews also still hold out hope as well, not sure how “imminent” however. Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants have either put judgement day into indefinite abeyance or tossed it altogether.
Off-topic question –
Are you familiar with the work of Robyn Walsh, in particular her position (that I may be oversimplifying) that there probably was not any oral tradition behind the eventual writing of the gospels, but that they were written by essentially highly educated elite spokespersons for the christian communities, and perhaps that they were actually writing to each other? I saw her interview on the MythVision youtube podcast (on which you have been featured) and I felt that it would be at odds with your views, so I am curious to know how you feel about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLKMcIz8Vd0
I haven’t read her book but those who have think very highly of her. I completely disagree with view as I have heard others summarize it, but I haven’t looked to see what kinds of evidence she adduces.
“He was going to raise all people bodily from the dead, and they would have to face judgment: eternal bliss for those who had taken his side, eternal torment for everyone else.”
It’s been a few months since i read “Heaven and Hell,” but was this, in fact the view of Jewish Apocalypticists? I thought from my understanding of what I read that the alternative to eternal bliss wasn’t eternal torment, but complete destruction (i.e. the “second death”), perhaps by a lake of fire, but not eternal. Were there apocalypticists who believed in eternal torment? If so, do we know how prevalent that view was as opposed to the annihilation option?
Yup, I definitely changed my mind after wrote that sentence (while writing Heaven and Hell)
In John 16:12-14, what did the author meant when he mentioned the Spirit of truth will come and that ‘he’ will guide them. In contrary to Christian believes, did Jesus implies the coming of ‘the messiah’ too? Or the author mentioned the about the holy spirit?
The author is referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit.
It would be interesting to see references to those themes in Jewish literature around Jesus’ time.
Dr. Ehrman, how do people who believe that everything in the Bible is absolutely true explain the passage that God would return in the lifetime of the Apostles? Obviously that did not happen.
They claim that this is not what Jesus really meant; for example that when JEsus indicates that some of the disciples will not taste death untill the Kingdom of God comes, he was reffering to the coming of the Kingdom, or the coming of God’s Spirit after his death, etc.
” he was reffering to the coming of the Kingdom, or the coming of God’s Spirit after his death, etc.”
Dr, Ehrman
I don’t understand what you mean by “coming of the kingdom”
When has “god’s spirit after his death” referred to as “coming in his kingdom” ? the “coming of the kingdom” seem to refer to physical rescuing , punishment and rulership, not metaphysical claim .
“For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
These interpreters are saying that Jesus is referring to the Day of Pentecost (“the coming of the Spirit). And yes, I don’t think it can be the right interpretation.
I’m curious, with Pilate being so brutal and willing to massacre large numbers of people, why he didn’t also go after the followers of Jesus and why the early followers would gather eventually in Jerusalem which seems like a dangerous place given Pilate’s nature. Why didn’t he hunt them down and smash this movement? And why did the earliest followers gather in Jerusalem?
My guess is that he didn’t see it as a significant movement in the least, and so decided simply to get rid of the troublemaker — as happened sometimes.
I always have been amused that one of the terrible terrible things Antiochus Epiphanes wanted to do as he Hellenized Judea was to make Jerusalem a Polis, a Greek city under democratic rule (at least within the boundaries of his say so).
I’d say it wasn’t amusing to a lot of the people living in Jerusalem. It would be kind of like what people would think in Washington DC, closed all the churches, and required people to violate the U.S. Constitution…
My impression is that most Jewish apocalypticists of the Second Temple period were expecting supernatural help in getting rid of the Romans. But I’m not aware that they saw the Romans as pure evil and instruments of a demonic power equal or almost equal to God, which I think would be a requirement for a true dualism.
The exception, of course, was the Qumran community, who predicted a battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. Am I correct in understanding that the “Sons of Darkness” meant those Jews who didn’t follow Essene rules, and not the Romans? These Essenes were the only group of Jews other than the Jesus Movement to see their theological opponents as evil, as children of the devil (hence their dualism). I don’t find any occasion where Pharisees and Sadducees each said the other was going to hell, for example.
I may have missed this in 1 Enoch, but I read that book as punishing individuals for their acts, not whole groups for their beliefs, which is what the Essenes and Christians hold. Their position is more in line with a full dualism, I suggest.
The early Christians and Essenes were dualists like the Zoroastrians.
The evil seems more complex when one looks beyond the Romans to the (Richmen} Romano Jews who ran the farms and government and of course the king and clergy with a long history of working with the Romans. The Gospels avoid mention of the Roman cities in Judea with circus, temples, baths and such.
Some (typically evangelicals) will argue that Mark 9:1 refers to the Transfiguration, which comes immediately afterward. Here’s how these people see this passage…
“Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that that kingdom of God has come with power…” [And 6 days later, Jesus was transfigured in front of them.]
So, those three disciples are supposedly the ones who did not taste death before they saw Jesus coming in his kingdom, i.e., the Transfiguration.
But it certainly sounds to me like Jesus is concluding his earlier thought, in Mark 8:38. It seems strange if Mark was introducing a completely new point by starting off with that sentence. Thoughts?
Yes, that’s a standard reading and it may be what Mark himself had in mind. But the saying itself is speaking about the “Kingdom of God coming in power” not about Jesus being shown to his disciples to be a divine being. Jesus of course says more about the apocalyptic end of all thigns *after* the transfiguration in Mark.
Dr. Ehrman,
A bit off topic….
In Genesis 18,
1. Does Yahweh appears to Abraham as three men who are really ONE as per Original Hebrew translation?
2. Could the text be read as though the men spoke as one, with one voice, hence a prelude to Trinity?
Yahweh is one of the three. And yes, some early Christians did claim this was an appearance of the Trinity. But that’s certainly not what the author had in mind.
Dr. Ehrman
For me these interpretations,understandings and explanations are very helpful. Thanks.
I do not think we do the whole subject justice just by looking at the revelation (s) / apocalyptic messages as an external, materialistic, personified and mythologized narratives. It really does not speak to me in these terms anymore.
It is not just that our canonized Revelation / Acopolypse has much in common with a Hindi conciousness/spiritual cosmology, all the way down to the structure, even the important 7 spiritual centers that they call Chacras, as divine energy passes and is closed / zealed. All this must be awakened, cleansed and a part of the ego (beast) that has polluted the self must meet itself in the self. Other symbols seem similar, but in addition to different, probably pythagorean, also Judeo-Christian numberology and symbols.
And not just that,,,there are a whole lot of clues within Christianity itself that were not canonized that have revelatory structure and message (the Gnostics), and other more inner / mysterious branches and texts, even the messages in the Gospel of Thomas.
Even in the Bible itself, there are references to consider the message to point to a divinity origin and participance within the essence of ourself, among others 1 Peter, 2: 5 and 9.
I think there are a lot of clues in the Bible that talk about revelations, such as found among John, Jesus and above, 1. Peter and more, pointing to a much more inner understanding of the revelatory/apocolyptical messages.
Hi Bart,
I appreciate your post and notice that the book of Job, an edited poem, contains three of the four elements of an Apocalypse.
First, the dualism of God, also called “Lord,” versus Satan (or the Adversary as translated and footnoted by the NRSV).
Second, the pessimism of a righteous man suffering horrific trials. In this case, Satan attacked Job only when God originally permitted it until God forbid the attacks.
Third, the vindication of Job after God restored blessing to Job that enabled Job to conceive new children, including the most beautiful daughters in the land, and regain great material wealth.
Fourth, I do not see imminence in Job.
Do you agree with me? or disagree?
–James
No, I reaad Job very differently. Maybe I should repost on it.
To me, the book of Job is partly in its essence apocalyptic (revelatory) in the sense of revealing the deeper spiritual pattern, the relationship between God and man, somehow the same as I read the book of revelation as a revelation of an inner understanding. . of God a man, and man, and finally the spiritual development given from chapter 12 to the end of the book.
For me, a deeper reading of Job, perhaps the first two chapters have been useful for me to understand the beginning of the second part of Revelation for me from chapter 12. The concept given in the book of Job may have been useful for me to understand chapter 12 and 13 and maybe 16 in the Revelation.
Off topic again- sorry! Some friends of mine have been talking about a new book called: After Jesus, before Christianity. It has been produced by Westcar who I think are linked to the Jesus Seminar. The book looks at the first two Christian centuries and seems to include the role of women in the early church and its theological diversity. Do you have any views on this book, please Dr Ehrman?
I haven’t read it, I’m afraid. But yes, Weststar is connected with the Jesus Seminar folk. I tend to agree with them more on ealry Christianity than on Jesus himself.
“God would destroy all that is evil and create a new heaven and a new earth, one in which the forces of evil would have no place whatsoever.” It’s easy to fall into the idea that we’re dealing with a heaven and hell after all when mentioning Satan or Beelzebub along with Gehenna and Sheol. Though it’s earth itself that remained the only playing field. Outside of the Greek influence, was there a misunderstanding of the OT which also played a role in influencing the Christian views of Heaven, Hell and Satan?
Yes, that’s the thesis of my book Heaven and Hell. Later Christian views were heavily influenced by non-Jewish Greek thought.
I had asked “Outside of Greek influence, was there a misunderstanding of the OT which also played a role in influencing the Christian views of Heaven, Hell and Satan?” Greek influence is clear enough to see. But were there other “church fathers” who simply misinterpreted the OT then influenced NT texts/translations?
Ah, sorry. I must have misread your questoin. I’m not sure how to answer your question. Normally when someone misinterprets the BIble it is because they are making it say sonmething that they already are inclined to think; the church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek culture, so that would probably be what shaped their re-interpretations.
Hi Bart,
A few questions: How would we classify the apocalypticism of Jesus compared to “earlier” examples in the Jewish literature? That is, does Jesus fit a particular apocalyptic type (if such a type even exists) or was he unique in that regard? Simply put, is there anyone we could point to that would match well with the type or form of proclaiming that we see with Jesus?
Thanks!
Jeff
I’d say that each apocalyptic thinker had different emphases. Jesus does appear pretty close to John the Baptist, e.g., but not nearly as close to the Essenes. Unlike them he did not believe in focusing on establishing his own purity but preached a message of repentance to sinners en masse. And unlike some he was a pacifist. Etc….
Wow, your discussion about Jewish apocalypticism, sounds like what I might hear at a fundamentalist revival…great summary about what most Christian fundamentalists believe…sounds almost like a fairy tale……….doesn’t it😎
Reading this, I realize that I’d appreciate it if you were to discuss the concept of “Spirit”, starting with Ruach HaQodesh in Genesis 1, proceeding through the evil spirit that afflicted Saul and moving forward. Just what did the authors understand by the term?
Gen. 1 is almost certainly referring to “wind” instead of Spirit; and the “evil spirit” appears to be some kind of divine being sent by God to do bad things. STrange — but that’s what it appears to be referring to.
It appears to me that the book of Job serves allegorically in support of the apocalyptic view.
Dr. Ehrman
What Old Testament texts support or used by Christians that predicted that the Messiah would have to come twice to bring about the Kingdom of God/Heaven?
None of them actually predict it. The Christians thoug7)h would point to all sorts of texts, e.g., showing that some indicated that a righteous man would die for others (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) and that others talked about a great divine being who would come to judge and rule (Daniel 7). Combine the two and say they are talking about the same person, and you’ve got it. Some (highly unrelated!) texts were used to show both things at once: the Epistle of Barnabas, e.g., says that the two goats involved with the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) represented the crucified and the returning Christ (Ep.Barn.
This is fascinating. I’ve often wondered how the early Christians must have shifted their view as the apostles started to die off and yet Jesus did not return. How did this affect the development of the early Church?
Most people seemed to have thought that the end had been graciously delayed by God, or that it was never meant to come *right* away, or that in some sense it had in fact come (e.g. in the church on the Day of Pentecost). Before long the emphasis shifted from a concern abuot when the Kingdom would come on earth to what will happen at death.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post and learned a lot from it. I’m one of your fans. I read your books, listen to your lectures and quote you in my various courses such as Survey of the Bible and When Christians were Jews.
My only comment on this blog is that I wish it had sources listed so that I can go back to them and read them. I know this is a blog and doesn’t require sources, but the text is so rich in material and insight. Any help with my concern?
Maybe I should post some annotated bibliographies now and then, on various topics. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?
The Jewish good-versus-evil dualism — a dichotomy so unequivocal that “the entire creation had become corrupt because of the presence of sin and the power of Satan” which can only end in a TEOTWAWKI showdown led by the Messiah — sounds suspiciously similar to Zoroastrianism.
My understanding is that this older religion — beginning no later than the 7th-century BCE (and probably several centuries earlier) about 1,400 miles east of Jerusalem — was the earliest known monotheism, as well as the first to propound a dualistic hypostasis.
Zoroastrian theology posited an eternal conflict between the forces of the good Ahura Mazdā (Yahweh) and the evil Angra Mainyu (Satan) that would end in a final confrontation (Armageddon) led by a mortal champion, Saoshyans (the Messiah), who would finally vanquish evil and establish a good kingdom to rule the world forever after. [Sidebar for Christians: It was also prophesied that Saoshyans would be miraculously conceived by a virgin and, following his final victory, resurrect the bodies of the dead!]
Thus spake Zarathustra.
Was this a cosmic coincidence or the source/inspiration that informed Judaism?
One standard view is that it inspired Jewish apocalypticism. I used to think that but now I have my doubts, in large measure because it is almost impossible to provide reliable dates for the Zorastrian texts that embody this kind of dualism and it’s not clear if they actually predate the deelopment of Jewish thought or not.
Two questions about Judaism vis-à-vis Zoroastrianism:
1. Taking historical notice that this Persian religion was at least contemporaneous with (and more likely predated) Judaism AND that the place where Jews were held captive during their “Babylonian Exile” was halfway to its source, is their any controverting evidence to show that Jews had a monotheistic-dualistic theology BEFORE the 6th-century BCE (or is this an instance where the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” supposition is not fallacious)?
2. The transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect into a religion more commodious to erstwhile pagans is an understandable sine qua non. But how did emerging, Christian theology reconcile the transition from the insular, Yahweh cult — that had NO interest in proselytizing/converting others — into the expansive, apocalyptic view that God’s “vindication would be universal: it would affect the entire world, not simply the Jewish nation”?
1. See my previous answer. A further problem is that the Persian control of Israel ended about a century before Jewish apocalytpic thought appears, not during the Persain period. 2. That’s the topic of my book Triumph of Christianity. Christianity’s missionary impulse derived (this is massively simplified) from its view that salvation was necessary and it came only through Jesus — so people had to hear.
Setting aside divine inspiration (as both of us do), if Jews did not adopt and adapt Zoroastrian monotheism, dualism and apocalypticism, did these concepts flow in the opposite direction, or both groups, perhaps, inherit them from some unrelated, earlier source?
The only other possibility is the simultaneous emergence of a theology of eternal conflict between the good forces of Yahweh (in Palestine), Ahura Mazdā (in Persia) and the evil forces of Satan (in Palestine), Angra Mainyu (in Persia), that will be brought to a cataclysmic end (aka Armageddon by the Christian heirs of Judaism) with the arrival of a divine champion, the Messiah (in Palestine), Saoshyans (in Persia), who was prophesied in both traditions to be a miraculously conceived mortal, destined to vanquish evil forever and establish a good kingdom on earth, and then resurrect the bodies of the dead.
That last seems to me scarcely more far-fetched than divine inspiration.
As you disclaim in every presentation and debate: historians can only attempt to determine what PROBABLY happened. So which is the most probable explanation:
1. Zoroastrianism inspired Judaism
2. Judaism inspired Zoroastrianism
3. [??] inspired both Judaism AND Zoroastrianism
4. It’s a cosmic coincidence
Or (failing an appeal to the divine) is there some other possibility?
My view is that it’s a mistake to think that if someone comes up with an idea there had to be someone who had it first. There are lots of dualistic systems in the world (including, e.g., Plato), and they probably arise because of the nature of the human brain. The various instantiations of it, of course, will be culturally determined in a rather severe way. So I wouldn’t say it’s much of a cosmic coincidence.
The Bart Ehrman section of my library doesn’t include “How Jesus Became God” or “The Triumph of Christianity,” mostly because I’m put off by tragedies and horror stories (and especially both.)
Though your wonderfully clear explications of how scholars sift from “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” what survives of the genuine teachings of Jesus led you to agnosticism/atheism, they rejuvenated my belief that he actually WAS the Incarnate Word.
I am attempting to dig through all the doctrinal offal — starting with the muck dumped on Jesus’ teachings by the astonishingly arrogant author who not only never heard (much less knew) Jesus, but had the unmitigated gall to INSULT the people who actually did! — to find the pearls of divine wisdom trampled underfoot by the emerging church.
It’s an ongoing process. But among the (admittedly theological, not historical) conclusions I have reached is that “Jesus Became God” by his OWN ardent prayers and unswerving devotion to doing so. “The Word became flesh” NOT because it was foreordained, either from eternity past OR at the moment of his conception, but because a man — as mortal as the rest of us — volunteered for the job!
How’s that for heresy? 😱
Actually the teachings of Jesus didn’t have any role in my deciding to beconme an agnostic/atheist.
Jesus of Nazareth in a sense BECAME God when the “Spirit” descended from heaven (the earliest gospel suggests at his baptism) to provide divine inspiration. Though almost preternaturally courageous — but 100% mortal — he prayed for and received the mission to illuminate the path to salvation for his unenlightened, fellow sojourners.
He was horrifyingly murdered for his efforts. “You can stand me up at the gates of Hell and I WON’T back down!”
The “Father” then raised Jesus (spiritually) from the dead so he could appear to some who had known him in life — in glorious vindication of the man and validation of the Word he conveyed.
“The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament” was REPUDIATION of the words of the Word to substitute the delusional doctrine of “Substitutionary Atonement” because it better served consolidating the power of the hierarchy of the aborning church.
How many blind followers of the blind have been (and continue to be) led into the “Substitutionary Atonement” pit? How many are doomed to eventually hear Jesus say “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers!” — AFTER arriving home to discover that the jar they have been carrying is empty?
I find it interesting that in Acts 1:6 just before Jesus goes to heaven after He spends allegedly 40 days post resurrection appearing to the disciples and explaining to them God‘s plan of salvation, it appears the disciples did not really understand it. They still held to the apocalyptic view asking if Jesus at this time would restore the kingdom to Israel. I never really understood the question until I read what you had to say about Jewish apocalyptic views of the world. It appears that they really did not understand God’s plan of salvation. They were still looking for him to overthrow the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel. But then after Pentecost they somehow abandon this view For the more traditional view that Jesus had to die for the salvation of the world. He would come again one day but not now. What do you think changed their thoughts on this? How did that thinking evolve? If you have answered this in one of your books, please let me know I would like to buy it and read it. Your insight into early Christianity is really open my eyes to a lot of things. Thank you
Fantastic I’m loving this tour of Jewish apocalyptic thought. Is this essentially the origins of Satan as he’s perceived today?
Yup.