To make sense of my claim that Jesus himself told the disciples that he thought he was the messiah, I have to set his teachings generally in a wider context. As I have repeatedly argued on the blog, Jesus’ teachings are best understood as apocalyptic in nature, and to understand any of them it is important to remember what the world view we call Jewish apocalypticism entailed. This is essential background to the question I’m pursuing, since I will be maintaining that Jesus did indeed consider himself the messiah, and said so to his disciples, but he meant this in a completely apocalyptic sense.
So, to set the stage for my consideration of the messianic self-teaching of Jesus, I need to provide a quick refresher course on Jewish apocalypticism. Here is what I said in an earlier post on the matter.
******************************************************************
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. This is a widely held view among critical scholars – by far the majority view for over a century, since the writings of Albert Schweitzer.
What did early Jewish apocalypticists believe? Let me break it down into four component themes. I have …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, you are missing out on one of life’s great ecstacies! So JOIN!!! Every penny goes to help the needy!!
How do loving one’s enemies, turning the other cheek, mercy and forgiveness, and Jesus’s other ethical teachings fit with the eternal torment that the evil should expect? Shouldn’t Jesus’s followers love those people, forgive them and have mercy on them? It sounds like a case of “do as I and the Father say [eg, love enemies] and not as the Father and Son Man do [eg, deliver eternal torment to enemies].”
It’s not only that it seems inconsistent. What I also wonder is whether, say, loving one’s enemies might have less to do with willing their good and more to do with simply not getting upset about the evil in this world since this world is going to come to an end very shortly anyway. Keep your eye on the ball and don’t let anything distract you, including retaliation against evil, from the imminent kingdom of God.
I guess these rules only apply to this life?
I’m guessing we’re getting into a controversial area. Are the apocalyptic teachings authentic and the ethical teachings from a different source than Jesus? Are they both authentic Jesus and his community didn’t see the contradictions that modern people see? Did they see the contradictions but have a way of reconciling them in a framework that we no longer have access to? Are we running up against the limits of the evidence we have?
My view is that hte ethical teachings are apocalyptic in nature and have to be put in their apocalyptic context to be understood.
It’s about proving yourself worthy of the Kingdom. And we’ve all met a lot of people who will never be worthy. Let’s face it, we’re a pretty effed up species. Genuinely good people are rare.
I’m not convinced Jesus believed in eternal torment. His statements on this subject are contradictory. He said tax collectors and prostitutes would enter the Kingdom of Heaven before many seemingly good citizens.
And remember, the Kingdom of Heaven, for him, was not the afterlife. It would be this life, transformed by God.
ditto to all ‘godspell’ comments
. . . not convinced Jesus believed in eternal torment. . .
Do you think at least some of the Jewish apocalypticists may have had theories about *why* God was allowing Satan to rule that age, and it just happens that they’re not mentioned in any surviving writings?
Some thought it was because of the sin of Adam; others because of the fall of the angels.
How was the sin of Adam discussed in Jewish apocalypticism? I’ve heard from modern Jews that the interpretation of the Genesis story as the fall from God’s grace and an earthly paradise is foreign to Jewish interpretation. Is this a strand of Jewish thought that was abandoned but kept alive by the Christians? Did it come from a non-Jewish source?
Also, when did the story of the fall of the angels develop in Jewish thought? I’m not aware of any mention in the Hebrew scriptures except for the story of the Nephilim in Genesis. Did this develop in the intertestimental period? What sources do we have for it?
Adam: off the top of my head, I don’t know! Fall of angels: yes, there wsa a lot of discussion of that. See especially the Book of the Watchers in 1 Enoch.
This sounds an awful lot like the wars between the gods in ancient mythology.
My take on it is that by the time Judaism came in contact with dualism (Zoroastrianism, etc.), it’s theology was sufficiently established as a pure monotheism that a dualist theology made little impact (outside Daniel and some apocryphal writings). But Christianity was more easily influenced.
An excellent description of the beliefs that led to Paul’s Gospel on the imminent arrival of his Lord Jesus Christ as in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Except that Paul’s Jesus was empowered by being mistakenly killed, and hung from a tree (crucified) in Satan’s world. As a Pharisee, Paul added resurrection of the dead to the mix.
The Gospel writer attempts a fulfillment of prophesy with Mark using the “Son of Man” term from Daniel as a predictive statement coming from Jesus as in Mark 10:45 etc.
Something I find puzzling is that Jesus was accused of being possessed by demons. He was also casting out demons and around the same time he was doing this, his family thought he was crazy. Could his family thought he was crazy because he was casting out demons? Was it normal for a Jewish preacher to perform such an act or would Jesus have been the first to do it?
The text is frustratingly vague about what made them think this. But yes, others could cast out demons and were not thought to be crazy for doing so.
Did Jewish preachers normally appoint disciples like Jesus did?
Apparently so (the later rabbis did, in any event)
I’m stuck on this–Jesus cast out demons, but others did that too as you said. He was also accused of being possessed, but why would onlookers believe he’s possessed and his family think he’s crazy? I don’t know if being a miracle worker would be enough to think he was possessed and crazy, but claiming to be the messiah would really give people pause. In John 7, Jesus’ family admonished him to come out publicly because they didn’t believe in him. Didn’t believe he was a miracle worker? Meh. Didn’t believe he was the messiah? That sounds possible. John also says that people were divided over him and some thought he was deceitful. So, for now, I really do think he was portraying himself as the messiah.
Something else I’ve thought, too, is that there may have been a time lapse from the time Jesus’ family thought he was just a regular, Jewish preacher to the next time they saw him–a miracle working messiah. Where did he go and who was he with that radically influenced his thinking? My theory is that it was John the Baptist. I’m not sure if John influenced Jesus or Jesus was the one who influenced John.
I’m pretty sure it was John who influenced Jesus. That’s what all the records indicate — even those who would have been more comfortably with it being the other way around.
Another cliffhanger!
Dr. Ehrman, could you please address an issue that I have yet to see resolved in any of the works by Jesus scholars I’ve read so far (including yours), an issue that has bugged me incessantly ever since I started trying to outline an historically plausible narrative for my Jesus novel. That issue is this: Even if we allow for the possibility that Jesus’ ministry lasted up to three years (I, for one, not only think that length is ridiculously far-fetched, I think it was less than a year — closer to four or five months long, for reasons I’ve mentioned in previous comments), if Jesus truly believed, and if he actually preached that Judgment Day was right around the corner — within months, if not weeks or days or hours — then the notion that Jesus believed his mission was to save ALL of humanity becomes utterly absurd. In other words, that Jesus’ message (i.e. the “good news”) was BOTH a message of immediate urgency (“For Godsake, prepared yourselves now, now, now!) AND universal (“I bring the one true message of hope; spread it to the four corners of the earth!”) are as incompatible, incomprehensible and self-defeating as 20 measly lifeboats on the Titanic.
I totally agree with you and other scholars that Jesus preached an imminent, almost hour-by-hour urgency for salvation. If that is, in fact, the truth of Jesus’ mission, then there is absolutely no possible way Jesus could have spread that message to all of humanity within 3 years, let alone a year (let alone the 4 to 5 months I think he was active!). That’s why I think Jesus did NOT preach a universal message. I don’t, for one second, think Jesus was going around saying “I have the one and only true message of salvation to all Israel,” let alone to ALL humanity. That’s simply ludicrous.
Do any scholars address this problem? If they do, can you recommend some?
I, for one, have been forced to take this into consideration for the Jesus of my novel. My Jesus doesn’t go around saying he has the one and only message of salvation. He does not go around saying his message is universal, that it must be spread to all humanity. My Jesus only says he has a message (possibly one of many?), that his message is a special message reserved just for his devoted followers who have been privileged by God to have received it (why? because that’s what ALL charlatans say!). I mean, there’s no way getting around it. No matter how much I try to square that circle, Dr. Ehrman, Jesus comes out a religious huckster. Every sign points to it!
So what do you make of that?
Yes, I don’t think Jesus had a universal message. It was for Israel. That’s why he went to Jerusalem to preach the message at Passover. But no, I don’t think he was a huckster. In our day he could / would be seen that way, but not in his.
I should be more clear about what I mean by “huckster”. I don’t think Jesus was an intentionally unscrupulous Elmer Gantry type. I think Jesus truly believed “the End is nigh”. I think Jesus believed he had a special role to play in the end times drama, whether as prophet or leader or both.
Do I think Jesus really believed he was the Messiah? Mmm, I suspect he had his moments. From what I’ve studied of other messianic figures, they tend to shift back and forth between moments of doubt and moments of resolve, going in and out like a sinusoidal wave. (And that’s how my Jesus is portrayed; everyone keeps treating him like the Messiah, and, unlike Monty Python’s Brian, Jesus soaks in the adulation and accepts the role he believes he was destined for.)
What I mean by “huckster” is that, from the outside looking in, to us today it would be just as apparent that Jesus was a charlatan as it seems to us that Osho Rajneesh, or Benny Hinn, or Sathya Sai Baba, or J. Z. Knight are all charlatans. Maybe Knight actually believes she’s channeling Ramtha. (We can’t get into her head to know for sure). But we’re pretty near 100% certain that she is not. And we can be pretty sure she’s, at best, terribly confused. (Though I’m sure you would avoid such undiplomatic terms, I have no qualms calling such “prophets” kooks.) I place Jesus squarely within the same camp as those “prophets”.
There are two cases where men have purposely pretended to be religious hucksters that I’ve taken as models of deception. One was the documentary Kumare, where an Indian guy pretended to be a guru to expose how easy it is to fool believers, and the other was the hoax created by James Randi, where he taught his boyfriend how to fake channeling an ancient spirit. Both are great experiments in credulity.
Randi’s experiment: https://youtu.be/jksKtGoz3og
Kumare experiment: https://youtu.be/Liqtk_qV0PE
I kinda thought Jesus message was pretty much like every other prophet- turn back to God or you’ll be in trouble. For the OT prophets the emphasis was on Israel as a whole, whereas for Jesus it was about each individual (in an apocalyptic sense). In essence he wanted people to follow the law (to the extreme). So I don’t think he thought he had to personally save everyone. The people all knew what they had to do, Jesus message was more a message of urgency and a wake-up call. I imagine John the Baptist was spreading essentially the same message. But yes, he did think he himself was something special.
So sort of on topic. About to finish Daniel Boyarin’s “The Jewish Gospels”. Are you familiar? I’m finding his connection between Dan 7 / the Jesus movement….being very jewish in context, interesting. Essentially, the whole messiah/divine son of man/son of god is an ancient form of Israelite religion…and very jewish. The Ancient of Days and Son of Man being the precursor to the trinity. I would love to know your opinion on this work. Is his work gaining any ground in scholarly circles?
I’m not sure it is. He’s scary smart and very creative. I do agree that there was a sense of other divine beings in Judaism before Christianity came along.
I’m not sure I agree with this point. While the Tanakh shows a development from multiple gods to monolatry (or henotheism, if you prefer), Ezra forced the Judaeans to practice a pure monotheism. And he and his successors were around long enough for it to stick. if by “divine beings” you mean angels, well possibly, but they were seen as messengers, not independent beings. Supernatural beings, such as demons, golems, etc., did abound – and continue to – in folk Judaism and show up in the Talmud, but I would hesitate to say that Jews thought of them as “divine.”
You may want to look at my discussion in How Jesus Became God, where I address the issue.
You wrote above that Jewish apocalypticism was a very common view in Jesus’ day. Do you mean that most Jews were apocalypticists?
I don’t think we know. But my sense is that a lot in Palestine were.
If a lot were apocalypticists, would they be expecting the Messiah to show up imminently?
Possibly — we don’t have any writings from any of them (except the Essenes, who expected a major battle to occur soon)
Is it known when and why Jews started developing this apocalyptic view of reality? In which books of the Old Testament is this becoming noticeable?
During the intense period of suffering before the Maccabean Revolt a couple of centuries before Jesus, as seen as lying behind the book of Daniel. See e.g. my post https://ehrmanblog.org/the-rise-of-apocalypticism/ (and those immediately before nad after it)
Bart, a question please (nothing to do with the current thread, probably).
It’s about the Samaritans. My limited understanding is that they claimed to be the ‘true followers’ of Judaism but were held in contempt by the Judean jews, thus used as examples of people ‘beyond the pale’ a bit like ‘tax collectors’ in the NT.
The story in John 4 about the woman at the well seems to talk about this, as does the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’.
My reading suggests that whilst there is scant historical evidence for David, a successor from a couple of generations later Omri is much better attested. Omri established his capital in Samaria but this was destroyed by the Maccabean kings about 100-150 years BC. This suggests an ongoing feud/mistrust/contempt between southern jews and Samaritans.
My mind is drawn back to your post about the research done by the Italian husband and wife team into different ‘Jesus teachings and events’ in different parts of Palestine. Seems to confirm that the idea of a ‘united Israel’ – even under Pax Romana (let alone in earlier or later times) – is erroneous and thus the idea of ‘the Jews’ as portrayed in the gospels as some sort of united opinion group misses the point.
(Sorry for being a bit rambling!)
Sorry — I don’t see a question!
OOPs! Sorry!
Question is this: If, in Jesus’ time there was a fundamental difference/hostility between ‘Jerusalem Jews’ and ‘Samaritan Jews’ was that a significant point in the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’, was it likely to have been an original story (or a later addition) and how would recipients at the time of Jesus viewed it?
Thanks
Yes, I think it may have been original — though it is not multiply attested (it is found only in Luke). ANd yes, the point is that the despised half-breed follows the Torah better than the highly religious Jews, and that’s what all should do.
If The Son of Man was one version of the Messiah, and if Jesus did not (as you have said) refer to himself when he referred to The Son of Man, that creates certain problems for the notion that Jesus believed he was Messiah. Yes, he could have simply interpreted the Son as being a separate manifestation of God’s will, but then why is he acting at the end as if the time has come, when the Son is nowhere to be seen? He seems to be trying to trigger some great change.
Jesus saw what happened to John the Baptist, his master. He knew very well what would happen to any religious figure who sufficiently aggravated the temporal powers. He must have believed at some point in time that John was someone very special–perhaps even the Messiah himself. He said that no one born of woman was greater than John. Obviously the Messiah would be greater. Unless he believed John would return as the Son of Man? That seems a bit forced.
It is hard to pierce the reasoning of a true mystic, in any belief system, or none. That’s why I think it’s dodgy to say, with certainty, “Jesus believed he was Messiah, and said so.” I just don’t believe it could ever be that simple.
I used to think that the one thing that Ehrman had not done is put it all together in one book. Actually, he has pretty much done that in his textbook of the New Testament. I strongly recommend it.
The big thing that is bothering me today is how few are really interested in the historical approach to early Christianity. I have spent considerable time visiting different churches for extensive periods of time and this historical approach is almost never presented. I did find a discussion of Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” at one Unitarian fellowship one time and a discussion of Spong’s “The Sins of Scripture” at another Unitarian Fellowship, and a discussion of another of Ehrman’s books (“Jesus, Interrupted”) at a Presbyterian Church once, but that is about it. Such discussions are rare indeed and this is both odd and disappointing. You would think that such a topic would be of crucial importance to Christians, but it is not. So, this website provides a discussion that is hard to find “out there” where people seem to have almost no interest in the topic.
I know what you mean. It’s very frustrating to have a passion for something that doesn’t have much of an outlet for the average layperson. The blog is very helpful in that regard, and I’m grateful for it. There are other scholars, too, who are really nice and willing to share some of their time via social media, but I wish I wasn’t limited to mainly being a keyboard critic.
It is why “they” call it FAITH. Spend as little time pondering the deeper questions and meanings as possible. Just trust that you have all that is needed for salvation and run with it. In my more than 50 years of human experience, at least this time around, I have seen the vast majority never wanting to explore any subject in any depth whatsoever. I have been accused of “thinking too much” since the 1970’s. This community that has evolved around Bart and his refreshing knowledge is akin to drinking the most pure water available, when the population at large is enjoying the Cholera Pump.
Interesting Read, Dr. Ehrman do you believe the non-violent aspects of the Gospels stems from Jesus’s personal apocalyptic message or was added and adapted later by the Gospel authors?
I think these go back to Jesus myself.
Early Christians said that Jesus was the MESSIAH who got crucified. Did they believe that because God raised him from the dead has Paul preaches ?
My point is that a resurrection in and of itself would not make anyone the messiah or make anyone else think the person was a messiah. There must have been something else. I’m trying to explain that something else in this thread of posts.
Fundamentalist Christians always ‘interpret’ passages of the 2nd coming to make it seem like Jesus and the NT writers didn’t really expect it in their lifetimes. Do you think there are any passages that teach, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the 2nd coming was supposed to happen in the first century?
Yes, that’s the burden of my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Dr Ehrman:
Your Comment:
These in fact are the words of Jesus (Mark 9:1). Or as he says elsewhere, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things have taken place” (Mark 13:30).
My Comment:
These are in fact are NOT the words of Jesus but are the words of the person who wrote the gospel attributed to Mark and we can’t be certain that he quoted Jesus correctly.
As you well know the gospel of Mark is anonymous. It was written about 40 years after the death of Jesus. The person that wrote this book was not an eye-witness.
We also don’t know why he wrote this book… What were His motives? How could he had known what Jesus said? What he wrote was hearsay and most likely historically inaccurate.
As you usually do, you made this topic clear for us non-scholars, this time by dividing into 4 concepts. This is a very helpful way to remember this, especially if you are one of those “lists” people, like I am.
Dr. Ehrman, do you think that Jesus himself was a member of a divergent sect of the Essenes ? I think it is extremely probable, even certain, that a member (or members) of the Essenes were named Jesus in the early 1st century. We know from Josephus that “Jesus” was an extremely common name in 1st century Judea, and specifically in religious circles. I’ve counted 8 mentioned in total between Antiquities and War, and it’s probably the most frequently mentioned name by Josephus for that period in Judea (and also Judas, Simon, James and John). Certainly, some of the “impostors” (prophets) mentioned by Josephus likely came from the Essene sect and were involved in the tumult described by Josephus during the period when Pilate, Marcellus and Fadus were prefects and procurators.
There is an analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, from a portion of them dating to the early 1st century, that they may have mentioned Jesus: http://www.simchajtv.com/jesus-discovered-in-dead-sea-scrolls/
No, I think Jesus was definitely not a member of the Essene sect. Maybe I’ll do a short thread on the issue! (Simcha, by the way, is a film producer. He is not a qualified expert on the New Testament, ancient Judaism, or much of anything else!)
Yes, I am aware that he is a film producer, but those he interviewed about the possible mention of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls are experts, including those who translate the documents in Israel. I posted that link because it has a video of his interviews with some of them discussing the strong possibility that portions of the scrolls mention or allude to Jesus, his followers or even Paul and James. What is your opinion on the matter ? Do you think the mention of “Jonah (dove)”, “Teacher of Righteousness” and “crucifixion” in a part of the scrolls could be referring to Jesus ?
As for the Essenes, their doctrines as described by Josephus do have many strong parallels with the early Christians, not to mention they inhabited the areas of the Judaean desert, Peraea and the Decapolis where the Gospels say Jesus spent time preaching in.
I’m afraid there aren’t any bona fide scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls that I know of (I suppose I know many of the world’s experts) who thinks that the Scrolls mention Jesus or his followers. If you would like to read authoritative accounts, I’d suggest trying the works of James Vanderkam, Peter Flint, John Collins, or even the older Joseph Fitzmeyer.
In the video I provided, Simcha interviews Prof. Emil Puech from the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, who translated the Scrolls. He also interviewed Dr. Robert Deutsch, a respected Aramaic and Hebrew epigrapher.
Both of them mention the significant possibility that the Scrolls could be referring to Jesus in fragment 4Q541.
I do give Simcha credit as well in his “The Exodus Decoded” for contributing to increasing the public awareness about the discussion of the connection between the Hyksos expulsions of Semitic Canaanites from Egypt, the enormous Thera eruption at Santorini and the Exodus narrative, not to mention the possible link of the historical Moses with AhMOSE I, or maybe one of his sons AhMOSE-ankh and RahMOSE.
I mean, there are clearly some academics and archaeologists in Egypt, like Zahi Hawass, who illogically don’t even consider it and make ridiculous statements that there’s “no evidence for the Exodus”, because of his well-documented personal political and religious biases against Israel and Jewish history. Many of the most important sites, like the Hyksos capital at Avaris, aren’t even permitted to be completely excavated by the Egyptian government for such reasons.
Egyptologist Donald Redford has asserted that the Hyksos expulsions remained a shared memory of the people of Canaan, including the Israelites, for centuries. (https://books.google.ca/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=expulsion&f=false)
Clearly, the Hyksos being Semitic Canaanites expelled from Egypt circa 1500 BC is a massive piece of evidence for a relation to the Exodus narrative. “Israel” is then mentioned in the Merneptah Stele to exist circa 1200 BC. Josephus was discussing the link between the Hyksos and the Exodus in the 1st century in his “Against Apion”.
Yes, the Hyksos theory has been around for a very long time. Every scholar of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament knows it quite well! And to my knowledge it is not widely credited these days. Probably any solid Introduction to the Hebrew Bible textbook will explain why.
I personally find the link with the Hyksos extremely strong. They were Semitic Canaanites, like the Israelites. Their main area of settlement at Avaris is in the same area east of the Nile Delta as the Land of Goshen. They were expelled circa 1600 – 1500 BC, at a time of the violent Minoan volcanic eruption at Santorini which produced a massive tsunami (parallel to the plagues), as well as when several figures in Egypt had the name of “MOSE” (Moses), including Ahmose I, and two of his princes named Ahmose-ankh (who mysteriously dies before his father and siblings) and Rahmose.
As I stated above, Redford clearly states the expulsions were a strong shared memory of the people of Canaan, and the Exodus narrative may have developed from those memories or oral traditions.
One of the “inconsistencies” with the theory often leveled by some is the mention of the Israelites being put to work in the city of Ramesses (Pi-Ramesses) in the Exodus narrative. They claim this is inconsistent because that city was not a capital and major city until circa 1279 BC and the reign of Ramesses the Great, nearly 300 years after the Hyksos expulsions.
However, the city of Pi-Ramesses was built on almost the same exact location as the old Hyksos capital of Avaris. Thus, the authors of the Exodus narrative may have simply been referring to the precise location of Avaris by the name that was current for it at the time of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel (10th – 8th centuries BC), when the oral narrative may have taken on many of its present elements or been first written down in part.
Hosea and Amos, dating to the 8th century BC, certainly both allude to the Exodus and wandering in the wilderness.
Josephus describes a fourth sect comprised of the numerous “impostors” ( a numerous number of prophets Judaea is filled with, and which are anonymous to Josephus), “magicians” (e.g. Theudas), zealots, rebels, “robbers”, etc. Do you think Jesus and his followers were more likely from that “fourth sect” then instead of the Essenes ?
My sense is that the vast majority of Jews didn’t belong to *any* of the sects. But I owuld not put Jesus’ followers in Josephus’s “Fourth Philosophy.” Those were Jews who advocated vioent overthrow of the Romans, and Jesus’ followrs appear to have been pacifists.
So, the several anonymous “impostors”/prophets or “magicians” which filled the countryside circa 30 – 60 would not have belonged to any of the four sects ?
That’s right. 99% of the people probably didn’t belong to any. Josephus says that the Pharisees were the largest group and they numbered 4000. There were over 4 million Jews at the time, throughout the world!
Is he (Simcha) also not a naked Archaeologist?
Yup!
Some of your readers have mentioned the notion that Jesus intended to bring about salvation and whether it was universal or specific to the Jews. I think it is generally assumed among present-day Christians that this salvation involves forgiveness of sins and eternal life with God. I’ve read some scholars (from the Jesus Seminar, for instance) who state point-blank that Jesus did not die for anyone’s sins, which I accept as historically accurate, but Paul and others in the NT definitely believe Jesus accomplished something they call salvation. My question is, does the salvation the NT authors proclaimed bear any resemblance to the “fire insurance” model proclaimed by evangelical and fundamentalist preachers — and even some Roman Catholics, truth be told? If not, what is it?
There is some fire and brimstone in the NT (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1; the book of Revelation). It appears to become more of an evangelistic tool by the second Christian century (I’ll be discussing this in my new book, The Triumph of Christianity)
You mentioned Mark 9:1, “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.”
Have you ever encountered anyone (scholar or otherwise) who argued that this verse was fulfilled when Jesus took Peter, James, and John with him to witness the transfiguration, thus attempting to say that this event was the kingdom of God coming with power?
It seems to me I heard someone make this stretch some time ago.
Yes, that’s a standard interpretation. Many critical scholars find it unconvincing because see Jesus radiant is not really seeing the Kingdom of God “come in power” (Jesus explains what that means more fully in Mark 13)
Take comfort in my words, these things shall come to pass………………….. in another couple of thousand years or so.
Bart,
1. the apocalypticists didn’t mean that “the entire creation had become corrupt because of the presence of sin and the power of Satan” literally and universally, did they, since a part of that creation were “those who had remained faithful to the true God”? Does apocalyptic language ever explicitly allow this exception?
2. Was the distinction between the pre-Christian Jewish of the world as corrupt and Christian beliefs about the world as corrupt that the apocalyptic view focused on corrupt leaders whose power oppressed the Jewish world and more, while the Christian view was that the corruption was within every soul?
1. I’m not sure htere was just one apocalyptic view. But for many, the creation refers not to humans but to the world they live in; 2. I don’t understand what you’re asking.
In “2,” I’m asking if the following is a fair thing to say: for Israel, redemption was needed because of the corruption of the world around them while for Christians, redemption was needed because every soul was tainted by sin.
I would say for some Jews yes; and for some Christians yes. But there are huge varieties of both religions.
There is no reason to suppose, as Ehrman does, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. Paul says “20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Cor 15:20).” Paul is identifying that Jesus was the first fruits of the general resurrection of souls at the end of days, so the end times were imminent. Paul or one of the other first Christians could have learned this firstfruits business from something they thought was Jesus through hallucinations. And, Mark could have learned this apocalyptic stuff from Paul, and simply invented the apocalyptic material in his gospel. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose, as Ehrman does, that the historical Jesus, if there was one, was an apocalyptic prophet.
Yes, if my grounds for thinking Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet were that both Paul and Mark were apocalypticists, that would be a very weak argument indeed!
And, there is no reason to think Jesus ever met John the Baptist. The Baptist pericope is often deemed historical by the criterion of embarrassment. For example, Ehrman says that Jesus Christ being baptized by a mere mortal was embarrassing, so it must have happened. But this, along with other passages, could just have represented humility (which may also lead to exaltation) to Mark. Philippians 2:5-11, for instance, supports a humbled, then exalted, Jesus. And some have disputed the historicity of the Baptist motif as theologically recapitulating the Elijah/Elisha dynamic of Elijah bequeathing a double portion of his power to Elisha, making Elisha his successor and his superior. Paul never mentions John the Baptist, and there is no reason to think Jesus ever met him. It could be a Markan invention.
Jesus’ association with John is indicated in Mark, Q, M, and John — so it doesn’t seem to be something that Mark himself could have invented (all these sources are independent of one another).
Matthew could have invented the Baptist material unique to him, and there is really no reason to think ‘Q’ existed. For example, see Mark Goodacre’s “A Monopoly on Marcan Priority?” and Michael Goulder’s “Is Q a Juggernaut?” For an extensive refutation of Q, see Goodacre’s “The Case against Q” and now (supporting that) “Thomas and the Gospels”. It’s also perfectly reasonable to suppose that the author of the Gospel of John was just repeating what the community John belonged to had to say about the Baptizer, which, as late as John was writing, may have had no basis in reality.
David Oliver Smith suggests Mark needed a forerunner of Jesus because of Mal 4:5, and he needed to institute baptism as a sacrament because Paul mentions it in 1 Corinthians and I assume it was an established initiation ritual by the time Mark was writing.
Carrier says:
Paul also describes the apocalypse as being taught by Jesus in 1 Thess. 4:15-16, “we say unto you by the word of the Lord…” He just doesn’t say when that “word of the Lord” came to anyone…was it after Jesus died and “appeared” in visions to the Apostles? Paul only ever seems to know about the latter; never in his epistles does Paul ever mention Jesus ever saying anything to anyone before he died (not even in 1 Cor. 11:23, where Jesus is revealing a pre-death event in his life: it’s still being revealed in a post-death revelation). And that there was no distinction being made (between what he taught in life, and in visions after death) is highly peculiar…unless Jesus did not preach anything when alive. Which supports the notion that he wasn’t an earthly person at all, but only known through visions. But even a historicist has to admit, there is no evidence in Paul that whatever Jesus preached to the Apostles before he died, it had anything to do with the apocalypse. Paul seems to mean, they got his apocalyptic preaching only in visions after his death; just as we see happening still in Revelation (an entire apocalyptic preaching of Jesus…invented after he died, and portrayed as only being taught by him after he died).
So, really, the apocalyptic prophet thesis is really no better grounded than the Zealot thesis: both require “excusing away” passages to the contrary and cherry picking evidence and backfilling the thesis with a whole lot of suppositions not specifically in evidence.
As with most things Carrier says, I think this is almost completely wrong but it would take more effort than it’s worth than to show why!! (He writes a paragraph; it takes three paragraphs to show the problems; he responds in three pages and it takes ten pages to show the problems with his response; so he writes a chapter and … and so it goes.)
But, a couple of Gospels portray Jesus as having said that the end of days would come before the generation he was addressing would have passed away, and the generation Jesus would have been addressing before 30 CE, if they were 20 or older, would have been at least 60 when Mark was composed and at least 70 when Matthew was composed. The end of days did not come by then or even by the end of the next generation. Copyists of the second century had the opportunity to delete that line from the two Gospels but they didn’t. The logic of the criterion of dissimilarity suggests that they left it in because it was truly something Jesus had said or, rather, because there was a tradition that he had really said it. This isn’t proof, just the reasoning a historian might employ in seeking what was probable.
Hi Bart, this is my understanding of how the image of Satan changed from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament. Is it correct?
In the Hebrew Bible, the Satan, part of the council of God, appears as the accuser and his main job is to tempt and prosecute human. During the second temple period several sectarians Jewish communities, like the Essenes and the Pharisees, started to “demonise” their opponents, especially the ones in power (high priest) for supposedly becoming “apostate” and being seduced by the power of evil or possesed by it. In the process they turned this “angel”, the satan into a far more malevolent angel, from the one “tempting and prosecuting humans” to test their loyalty to God, into a malevolent figure, the one responsible for the evil in humans, for leading them astray and an enemy of God. Some of the jews of this time saw the foreign occupation of Palestine and the accommodation of that majority of Jews to that occupation as evidence that forces of evil have taken over the world and in the form of Satan infiltrated in taken over God’s own people turning most f them into allies of the evil ones. This is eventually the Satan of New Testament.
My view is that the move to the evil Satan was *indirectly* related to demonizing the opponent, but was principally based on the idea that the kinds of suffering being inflicted on believers precisely for *keeping* God’s law could not come as punishment from God (as regularly believed), and the idea that there are cosmic enemies opposed to God emerged, and just as God was the head of the powers of good, so his personal enemy, Satan, was head of the powers of evil.
Are passages like 1 Corinthians 7:8 “the time is short” or James 5:8-9 “the judge is at the door” 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 “we who are left will be caught up in the clouds” evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and his followers believed that he would return in their lifetimes?
I’d say they are only indirectly evidence, since none of them is quoting Jesus. But the indirect evidence matters because if all lthe early Christians were apocalyticists, as it appears, and if Jesus started his ministry by associating with an apocalypticist, John the Baptist, that shows that hte one connection link between the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and the outcomem of it (the church) must almost certainly be apocalyptic as well.