Loading...Here is the recording of an interesting on-line discussion I had on May 17, 2020 for a podcast called “Reason and Theology.” It was a rather unusual experience for me. The three moderators were all extremely well-informed lay people who are deeply interested in and knowledgeable about Roman Catholic tradition and theology. We talked about my book “Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife,” and we got into all sorts of things that I never would have expected.
The podcast generally seeks to provide a wide range of in-depth interviews on theological, philosophical, and historical matters in a way that translates to the average person, to provide a platform for charitable round table discussions between opposing perspectives, and to facilitate formal debates in order to arrive at a better understanding of the truth.
I’m not sure I helped to that end, but it was an interesting and at times lively discussion. Here it is.
Please adjust gear icon for 1080p High-Definition:
Oh yes, I watched this one already. Since I’ve started following your work (January 2019) I’ve hunted down and absorbed every available interview and debate you’ve done. There were many times when I’ve thought, my god, how does he just not completely lose his temper with some of these people? The debate with that Butt guy comes to mind, and then this one with that Albrecht character just banging on after you’ve patiently and meticulously dismantled his claims. It’s really maddening for me as a spectator, so I have to wonder, why do you agree to do these debates/polemical interviews, and does it emotionally affect you to be pushed so hard by such absurdity?
Yeah, it can be irritating, but it’s also nice to realize that surely other people are going to be seeing what the problem is here. The Butt debate was a particular instance of it. On the other hand, during these debates I almost always find myself scribbling notes to myself: “And WHY am I doing this???” But in the end, it’s all about reaching those few people who are on the fence who are open to seeing reason.
My best moments in the video and notes, sparsely:
William Albrecht: “Quotation doesn’t mean canonicity. I agree with you on that.”
Bart Erhman: “Stating your case over and over again it doesn’t make it an argument.”
The Council of Nicaea is the equivalent of the Knight Templars in literature. “The job of the editor is to recognize the mad at a glance. When one brings up the Templars, he is almost always mad.” (cit)
Plato is beyond the Christian idea of Heaven and Hell.
Inanna was left outside (’cause Richard Carrier already wore her out?)
Michael Lofton: “Thank you so much. You are welcome on the show anytime!”
Bart Erhman: “I don’t think I will survive another one.”
William Albrecht and others: “The canon is very dear to me.”
Probably not reciprocated.
“I have a blog!” Shouted like Martin Luther King’s: “I have a dream!”
And when at the end you think it can’t get more juice: “God bless you all” and Ybarra goes on the salute!
Much more entertaining than your interviews/debates with a single interlocutor. With three Catholics arrayed against you, it was much more dramatic, sort of like Bart in Daniel’s lion’s den. But that one bald guy, William Albrecht, should have known better than to try and debate you while he was drinking a beer!
Bart, it took you one hour and twenty seven minutes to tell those folks, you are speaking Theology and your beliefs and not historically. Judith was obviously in their interest ( Catholicism) and wanted you to agree on their belief on declaring her sacred scripture.. The interview was fine an hour in and then you became restless and the original topic was lost. I like their mantra, which I heard repeatedly, ” that is my view or belief but I am open to correctness”. I am glad you are slowing down the sparring!!!!!!!????
veritas – Judith was written in the 1st century BC. In the 4th century AD, it was declared canonical by Augustine and two different Church councils. So it is safe to assume that during the intervening years, SOME followers of Jesus believed Judith was sacred scripture and it was their tradition that was recognized as orthodox by the 4th century. The passage quoted by Albrecht from Judith (16:17) does indeed say the suffering from the Lord’s punishment experienced by the enemies of Israel will last forever: “Woe to the nations that rise against my people! The Lord Almighty will requite them; in the day of judgment he will punish them: He will send fire and worms into their flesh, AND THEY WILL WEEP AND SUFFER FOREVER.” Bart admits he overlooked Judith and as a result wasn’t immediately prepared to deal with the question. However, he recovered well and did a pretty good job addressing the question in the end.
Interesting, informative and intriguing the way you “debated” with Tom while remaining friendly. Glad you told about the blog!
Fascinating discussion!!
very good discussion even though there may have been a few bumps in the road. should be good exposure for your book AND your blog
This was very interesting! I myself grew up in the Jehovah’s Witness religion, so that’s the doctrine I am most familiar with. I am no longer a Christian today. The JWs actually teach that there is no heaven or hell. Rather, sinners receive eternal destruction as their punishment, while the righteous will live forever on a paradise earth. This paradise will be established after Armageddon, in which all sinners living at that moment will be destroyed forever. The righteous will survive. People who died before Armageddon will be resurrected afterwards and will receive a second chance to become righteous, and if they don’t, they will suffer destruction, too. A select few (144,000 anointed ones) will receive eternal life in heaven. I have 2 questions for Dr Ehrman: How much of an outlier are the JWs with this doctrine – are there any other Christian religions that teach this? And also: I heard that your next book is going to be on the Apocalypse – is that correct, and what is going to be the angle of that book? As a former doomsday group member, I am very interested in this subject.
1. I’m not sure I know of other major gruops with that view, no; 2. That’s the plan. It will be about how misinterpretations that the Apocalypse was to happen in our own time arose in the 19th century, came to dominate parts of the 20th, and, among other things, came to be secularized in political and social discourse (starting especially with the nuclear age; now with climate change)
That’s fascinating! I’m looking forward to the book! I just finished reading “William Miller” by George Knight about the Millerite movement. This is the starting point of the expectation of the second coming in America, isn’t it? The Jehovah’s Witnesses build on these adventist ideas. They combine verses from Revelation, Daniel and Matthew and construct from that their idea that Christ returned invisibly in 1914 and that we are living in the last days and Armageddon will come any day now. The current coronavirus pandemic of course feeds into that. The pale horseman and all that. Will your book examine these Millerite end time calculations and those of others?
I haven’t decided. I do deal with them in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium briefly.
After your response, I bought the “Apocalyptic Prophet” book and just finished reading it. (A great read! I think it is the 6th or 7th book of yours that I have read.) Towards the end, when you describe how Jesus (possibly) created a ruckus in the Temple by challenging the money changers and the animal sellers, and how he (possibly) did not deny the charges of having claimed to be the King of the Jews because he really believed himself to be just that – it made me wonder about how deluded he was at the end of his ministry. I wonder, if the Romans had not executed him when they did, could he have become the Jim Jones of his day? Do we know anything about what happened to other apocalyptic prophets of that time period?
As it turns out, the ones we know by name almost all were executed for one reason or another! (Think: John the Baptist). Most, though, went on to live harmless lives, predicting the end of the age until the end of their own life.
The Seventh Day Adventists also teach annihilation. (JW and SDA are related — both have roots in Miller and The Great Disappointment of 1844) . Also, even though this is not current, Harold Camping had a large following in Family Radio. Towards the end of his life, he was teaching annihilation (as well as that all the churches were apostate). You may recall the multi-million dollar advertising campaign in 2011 that claimed the rapture would arrive on May 21 of that year. That was Family Radio, led by Camping.
The Jehova’s Witnesses came from the Seventh-Day Adventists, so they may have similar views.
I really enjoyed this and found it very interesting! One tangential question not related to heaven/hell: It sounded like one person referred to Papias as a “keolist” (cheolist?, teolist?). My hearing is not what it used to be and I couldn’t make it out even after listening several times to that part. It’s at around 17 minutes in. Whatever it was, if it was ultimately a heresy, does that make Papias not proto-orthodox?
Ah, right. It’s chiliasm — the belief there would be a literall 1000 year reign of Christ on earth at the end of time (the “millennium). There were lots of proto-orthodox who held the belief, though they were sometimes frowned upon.
Some questions if I may.
The 1500 year biblical theme is that life is a sojourn in the earth and we must seek the heavenly kingdom (not a new Eden.) Do you agree?
“Arguments” that God’s breath in Adam was just air is disingenuous. Did God breath into plants, animals and bacteria to provide “living souls”?
Most Jews DID believe in a resurrection. You use the minority Sadducees to prove your point. Can you explain why the views of common people, the Essenes and the Pharisees weren’t considered by you?
The tired old Gehenna argument is fallacious and doesn’t even fit biblical contexts. What did Moses mean by, “blotted out of the book of life”?
Where’s the evidence that Mark was written ca 70 and in Greek?
Can you discern variableness between what Paul preached and what Peter’s companion wrote?
There’s no list of cities Jesus visited. How can you say where he wasn’t? What’s this about every city and town hearing the Gospel?
Why do you think Jesus’ ministry is only for simple, ignorant or poor folk? Did Jesus give money to the poor? Do you read of any rich converts? How many super-educated people believed on Jesus?
Thanks.
I can only answer one question, at most two, at a time. 1. No 2. In the biblical view, only humans had divine souls.
what, no 79 questions? you are so stingy with your time, lol
The Bible writers obviously never met our cats!
Most Jews believe in resurrection NOW. What the majority believed in Second Temple times is not at all clear. In Talmudic times, the rabbis made resurrection – t’chiyat maytim (literally, making the dead alive) – into one of the very very few required beliefs; failure or refusal to believe it would cost you your place in the world to come. The fact that they were so stringent about this (and remember, Judaism doesn’t go in for dogma) suggests it was not a universal, perhaps not even a widespread, belief at the time.
Wow! This troika is all over the scriptures and ancient writings. If I showed I knew that much when I was Roman Catholic I would have been excommunicated.
First time I’ve seen you get into it with believers who aren’t protestant. This is highly entertaining for this former Catholic!!!!
Wow!! Fascinating and extremely informative. Heard a lot of stuff that I have never heard of before, especially about Judith. Great discussions.
Wow…incredible conversation.
Loved this video! Hoping you take them up on the offer for another round of debating the canon. 🙂
The Dead Sea Scrolls include the Book of Judith in the Septuagint. The Septuagint, the Old Testament in Greek, is the only version of the Old Testament that early Christian communities in Greece had access to. What Jews and early Christians believed about Judith at the time Jesus was teaching and during the time that Mark was writing is relevant to the discussion. And, as Bart wrote about a week ago, the Hebrew canon that excludes Judith was not agreed upon until after Mark was written. If Bart’s interlocutor is correct about Judith’s influence on Jesus, it would imply that Jesus could read the Septuagint.
Thank you for posting this video. I really enjoyed it.
I have a question related to the discussion you and William Albrecht had about canon:
The Septuagint translators decided to translate certain Hebrew/Aramaic writings into Greek; conversely, they decided not to translate others. For a couple of centuries thereafter, the Septuagint was the preferred scripture used by the majority of Jews, since most Jews at that time were part of the Diaspora and knew little or no Hebrew/Aramaic. Doesn’t the Septuagint therefore establish a canon of Jewish scriptures? And isn’t this in fact the earliest such canon? Wouldn’t the first few generations of Hellenistic Christians have considered the Septuagint to be the “official” Jewish Scriptures? And, finally, didn’t the Septuagint contain all the writings we now call Deuterocanonical, so that early Hellenistic Christians — and perhaps several generations of non-Christian Hellenistic Jews — would also have regarded those writings as Holy Scripture?
I appreciate any insight you can provide on this. Thanks.
I don’t think we know what the trasnlators *decided* to do. If a book was not translated into Greek, there could be a variety of other reasons. E.g., maybe they didn’t know about it. But yes, the Septuagint is a canon. Any collection of books is a canon. But there was no “official” canon at the time.
Thanks for posting the video. You were gracious when you could have embarrassed those three large men (especially the co-hosts).
As you do in your book, in the video you mentioned that Origen was anathematized in the 6th century(?) (not for promoting a form of universalism but for apokatastasis). Was universalism ever officially deemed heretical by any the three major branches of Christianity (RCC, EO & Prots) or, was it simply condemned farther down the line so to speak by individual RCC orders, EO regions or Protestant denominations?
Most Christian ideas on teh margins are never “officially” condemned. I’m not sure how that would actually work, at least since after the days of the ecumenical councils. Maybe someone could tell us!
Do you agree that the Septuagint had been around for some 250 years before Jesus was born and that it included the Book of Judith, which apparently has some hell and afterlife verses in it? And as NonFingo said, the Septuagint would have been the version of scripture used by non-Judean Jews who were scattered about the Roman Empire.
Fascinating that the discussion of heaven and hell has yielded another factoid suggesting Jesus knew Greek.
I believe it is usually thought that Judith was composed in Hebrew sometime in teh second century BCE (probably the 160s or so); I don’t know when the first Greek translation of it would have been made.
Didn’t Augustine condemn Origen’s universalism? How much weight would his condemnation carry?
he did, but by then virtually everyone else did as well. But Augustine’s was an incredibly powerful voice, and he devoted a good chunk of Book 22 of the City of God attacking various forms of universalism, Origen’s in particular.
Bart was exceptional in responding to questions about the early church fathers. He even had to pull out an old book to refute claims by one of the hosts. Great podcast. You will not be disappointed when you listen to the entire hour+ of questions and answers.
That was fascinating. It’s interesting, now that I think about it, how little is discussed on here about Catholic doctrines.
I have a question about the discussion of “Judith”. Until watching that, I didn’t even know there was such a book. I did know, however, that there was a group of ‘apocryphal’ books in the Catholic Bible.
Why – do you think -that guy was so obsessed with establishing Judith, specifically, as canonical? Was it simply because she offered supposedly great evidence that early Christians believed in Hell (which was the question of the day), or is there a deeper/more significant issue among Catholics defending that book? That book seemed to be one of the most important issues in that guy’s faith.
I wasn’t quite sure!! I’ve never encountered that before.
Prof Ehrman,
As clearly pointed out in the thesis of your book, the concepts of the immortality of the soul and Heaven & Hell were clearly Greek influences. I have listed below a number of things and would want to find out from you whether these are also Greek influences on the New Testament/ Christianity?
1. The Virgin birth
2. The multiplicity of deities as expressed in the concept of the 3 co-equal Gods – i.e. Trinity
3. Resurrection, in the case of Jesus (not to be confused with the Jewish apocalyptic concept of resurrection)
4. Incarnation
5. Titles ascribed to Jesus – Son of God, God from God, Saviour of the world, Redeemer etc. (a position argued by Scholar John Dominic Crossan)
1. No 2. Probably 3. No 4. Well, kinda 5. Probably
Some of these have Jewish influence as well. I talk about a good bit of this in my book Did Jesus Exist.
Prof Ehrman,
Please do you think as we have it in aspects of the New Testament i.e. Christianity/ Christians, did the then Greek culture have any influence on aspects of the OT or Judaism or Jewish culture? Maccabean revolt, periods of Jewish servitude or any other period for that matter.
If so, can you mention one of such influences (a major one)?
Oh yes. Greek culture had a huge impact on Jewish life and beliefs. In Israel that is why there was a Maccabean revolt — against Greek culture. But it has to be remembered that one reason Greek culture was so problematic for those behind the revolt was that so many Jews started adopting it! It was hugely influential, even on the ideas of those who opposed it.
Prof Ehrman,
Follow up please.
Do some of these Greek influences continue to shape and affect Jewish theology, doctrines and beliefs as is evident in the case of Christianity OR did Jews eventually purge themselves off all Greek influences?
Reference
clerrance2005 July 14, 2020
Prof Ehrman,
Please do you think as we have it in aspects of the New Testament i.e. Christianity/ Christians, did the then Greek culture have any influence on aspects of the OT or Judaism or Jewish culture? Maccabean revolt, periods of Jewish servitude or any other period for that matter.
If so, can you mention one of such influences (a major one)?
I’m not really an expert on modern Jewish thinking; I’m just talking about the ancient situation around the time of the New Testament, when the Mediterranean was dominated by Rome politically and Greece culturally.
“Son of God, God from God, Saviour of the world, Redeemer etc.”
So that’s Capricorn, is it?
Not sure everyone will get the allusion! 🙂 Next time, keep the myrrh.
Prof Ehrman,
Before, during the life and after the death of Jesus (say up until 100AD), were there other personalities that claimed to be the awaited Jewish Messiah?
Yes, e.g., during the Jewish War. But of course we don’t have records of what the vast majority of Jews were saying at the time.
How is the book selling?
Not enough to get me out of Purgatory as early as I’d like.
Prof Ehrman,
On the contemporary image of Jesus, I digged a little into old blog posts and noted one guest post by Joan Taylor. In it, she asserts that “today’s images were based on the image of an enthroned emperor and influenced by presentations of pagan gods.”
1. Please, is it historical that Pope Alexander VI had the image of Jesus modelled after his son Caesar Borgia by Leonardo DaVinci?
2. What is your position on the Shroud of Turin – A fake or authentic piece.
1. No idea! 2. Medieval forgery. Absolutely.
I’ve been reflecting on your thesis that Jesus did not believe in hell, and that he was actually referring to Ghenna.
In light of this, how do you interpret Lk12:4-5?
“4 ‘I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority[a] to cast into hell.[b] Yes, I tell you, fear him!” (NRSV)
If we take the Ghenna line, then it sounds like Jesus is saying ‘fear not those who kill you and you are then afforded a respectable burial, instead fear him who kills you and then has the power/authority to cast your corpse in the valley of Ghenna!’
Is that how you would interpret this? If so, what is Jesus trying to say here?
The word he uses here is “Gehenna” (not “hell). he’s saying you should be afraid to be cast into this god-foresaken place. Yup!
Listening to this reminds of the view in Ecclesiastes, which Terry Pratchett paraphrased as “the wages of sin is death but so is the salary of virtue”
Compared to that silly ad hominem review by Randy Alcorn this was so much more enlightening. I bet none of your evangelical interlocutors ever queried you on the apokatastasis of Gregory of Nissa.
AS a matter of fact, no, they have not. 🙂
Why do you think Jesus believed his followers should fear their corpses being cast into a god-forsaken valley? As he believed the resurrection was coming soon, why did it matter? Did he believe the resurrection would not apply to those corpses?
They would be raised, only to be destroyed. The fear is rooted in the very widespread fear in antiquity generally of not receiving a decent burial. It was widely thought to be the worse thing that could happen to you.
So Jesus shared the belief that corpses tossed into Ghenna would result in eternal destruction? Interesting interpretation. I assume you cover this in your book?
You say this belief was very widespread, but do you think Paul shared it? He seemed to be pretty emphatic that there was very little that could separate Christians from God:
Rom 38-39 “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Christian doctrine of the afterlife as an eternity of either bliss in heaven or torment in hell raises problematic issues. Either of these fates originally came in degrees — an accommodation to fairness that Catholics replaced with Purgatory, a cleansing stop along the way to The Good Place. Other denominations hold that at the instant of death each of us is all-in, one of these profoundly opposite fates sealed for eternity (and hang any scales of justice.)
But the Jewish conception of death as temporary, followed by resurrection for a judgment that will lead to either an eternal life in this world or utter annihilation — both physical and spiritual nonexistence — is even more perplexing.
Jewish mythology has God make Adam by breathing life into dust with the caveat that at death “to dust you shall return.” That, at least, leaves behind some dust. But the “breath of life,” the divine essence that actually brought Adam to life? That is lost and gone forever?
How can it be that dirt is eternal (or 13.7 billion years old and counting, anyway) while a piece of God, the divine spark that instilled life into that dust, is permanently extinguished?
Are you asking about the reality? The reality is that dirt and humans aer all made of particles and eventually because of the laws of physics, especially the pull of gravity and entropy, they will eventually all be scattered into infinitely remote spaces ….
Maybe I’m too steeped in western thinking (or it’s the twelve years of Catholic schooling), but I expect theology to be reasonable, at least to the “Let us reason together” extent this is possible.
What I am not following is the logic that holds God created a physical universe, including the dust from which Adam’s body was formed, that is eternal (for all practical purposes, i.e., setting aside dark energy and the ultimate disintegration of matter in an expanding universe.) Yet when God’s own “breath” — His very essence that imbued inanimate matter with life — disconnects from the dust at death it somehow evaporates into the ether, into nonexistence, rather than returning to the divine source.
You touched on this point only briefly and, perhaps, I am misconstruing the implications of your explanation of Jewish theology as holding that at a man’s death “his breath leaves him and doesn’t go anywhere” — because the dust definitely sticks around (and even per current cosmology will do so for another trillion+ years.)
As to reality, I don’t expect to know that now. And, frankly, hope not to find out for at least another couple of decades! ????
Written by the academically capable author Bart Ehrman, “Heaven and Hell” is an industriously informative collation of doctrines which, originally acclaimed as immutable truth, have been shaped by culture and the unfolding of history.
On p201, Bart Ehrman illustrates how the perspectives on poverty in the gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke are respectively spiritual and monetarist, by the astute observation of two words, “in spirit”, missing from the later synoptic.
If the “copy-of-the-copy” principle in “Misquoting Jesus” is a speculative approximation to history, the New Testament cannot be read as though it were a legal document whose every word is finely calibrated to prescribe and proscribe human behavior. Similarly, the two omitted words may have no more significance than that a copyist sneezed and carelessly resumed his task.
Interfacing “Misquoting Jesus” with the theoretical construct on “Heaven and Hell” p201, about the evolved significance, in the third gospel, of poverty for the afterlife, seems to demand logic that is as slightly loose and tolerant as the process of thought required if I attempted to convince myself that the garter snake in Bart Ehrman’s yard (p292) is at all times not only dangerously venomous but also harmless!
Dr. Ehrman,
From p. 180 : “…after his resurrection he was seen not only by his disciples but by a large number of people, including five hundred at one time and, finally, by Paul himself…All these people actually saw Jesus. That’s because he was physically raised.”
So do you think an argument could be made right there that because they saw the risen Jesus with their eyes, there had to have been a physical aspect to him?
Have you read my book?
Dr. Ehrman,
Yes, I read the book. What I was asking about is: Can we counter those who say that Paul and the early followers of Jesus didn’t believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection by pointing to the claim that they saw him, because something/someone has to at least be physical in some sense to be seen?
I asked if you read my book because I deal with that question at length, by arguing that Jesus did not have to physically appear to the disciples for them to believe they had seen him. It could have been a non-veridical vision.
Dr. Ehrman,
Yes, in actuality it may have been hallucination, but when you write on p. 180 : “…after his resurrection he was seen not only by his disciples but by a large number of people, including five hundred at one time and, finally, by Paul himself…All these people actually saw Jesus. That’s because he was physically raised.”
Here you are talking about things from the point of view of Paul and the early disciples, and how when they saw what they thought was the bodily raised Jesus, that was proof to them that he was physically alive again, is that correct?
Yes
Dr. Ehrman,
So with no empty tomb to base anything on, Paul’s prime piece of evidence for his conviction that Jesus was bodily raised was when Paul believed he saw with his eyes the risen Jesus physically, is this correct?
Please reread my book. I’ve answered this repeatedly on the blog.
Dr. Ehrman,
My question here is a bit more broad and a bit more on the philosophical side: (With the exception of hallucinations) Just the fact that something is visible is evidence that the thing is at least made up of some substance, is that correct?
You really do not seem to be listening to me. The answer is no. People see things that aren’t there all the time. Everyone does every night. And lots of people do at other times.
Dr. Ehrman,
I know you don’t believe that they actually saw anything, and that it was just hallucination. My question is more hypothetical. IF one does see something that is really there, is that good prima facie evidence that the thing is made of some kind of physical matter?
That’s a tautology. Yes, if it’s really there it is really there. There is nothing “there” that is not made up of matter. It’s all particles, all the way down.
Dr. Ehrman,
So to confirm: A ghostly apparition, if real, is made of some kind of physical matter?
Dr. Ehrman,
You posted this question, but didn’t reply: Just to confirm, A ghostly apparition, if real, is made of some kind of physical matter?
You’re asking if real ghosts are made of matter? I’m afraid I have no way of answering that. If angels are real are they made up of atoms? If the boogey man is real does he have ears? These aren’t the kinds of questions that have answers, or rather, anyone can answer them anyway they want?
Hi! Where does the concept of an evil Satan come fro
? Is it from Zoroastrianism?
In my book I argue that it’s an internal development from within Judaism; teh dualism *may* have been influenced by Zoroastrianism, but in the book I try to show what that is not at all certain.
Thanks! Bought it yesterday and I find it fascinating!! Just to double check to fully understand it, the Apocalyptic Jews, like Jesus, took the imagine of “Semyaza” from the book of Enoch (and not from the Bible) and came up with the idea of the evil Satan (as we see it in the New Testament), the “chief” of demons responsible for all the evil in the world. Is that right?
Thanks so much!
No, I don’t think that all apocalypticists acquired their views form the book of 1 Enoch. It was an ideological / theological movement first represented in our surviving literature in 1 Enoch, but it was around before and independently of it.
Thanks so much again! I have one last question whenever you have time (I promise!) this is all fascinating to me! Why do you think the priests who started the Apocalyptic movement and the different “prophecies” did so? Do you think they would come up with these ideas to gain more followers, to become influential or to actually keep people to still support them (and financially) as they had the “truth from God”? Thanks again!
No, I definitely don’t think that they did it for ulterior reasons. They were trying to make sense of their reality. Do a word search for “apocalypticism” on the blog and you can see some extended discussions of the matter.