(14 votes, average: 4.57 out of 5)
Loading...In my last post I showed why it is so widely acknowledged that Jesus began his ministry by associating with John the Baptist, an apocalyptic preacher of coming doom. The reason that matters for our purposes in this thread is that it shows that Jesus chose, of his own free will, to join an apocalyptic movement at the very beginning of his public ministry. That certainly demonstrates that Jesus started out his public life as a fervent advocate of a Jewish apocalyptic message. He too must have been expecting the judgment of God soon to appear in which those aligned against God would be destroyed and those who sided with God would be rewarded.
That in itself does not show, however, that Jesus’ own proclamation, after he got started, was apocalyptic. Maybe he changed his mind! Maybe he decided John was wrong! Maybe he went his own direction!
There are two arguments against the idea that he changed. The first is one I have already recounted several posts ago: apocalyptic sayings are significantly attributed to Jesus in all of the early strands of our Gospel traditions – that is, in all the sources lying behind our earliest Gospels: Mark, Q, M, and L. These four sources are all independent of each other. They haven’t derived their teachings from one another. They independently report that Jesus proclaimed an apocalyptic message.
But there is an equally important consideration as well. It can be shown beyond any doubt that…
The Rest of this Post is for MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! You benefit, the blog benefits, the world benefits, and it’s nothing but benefits!!!
We actually have a Theorem in Calculus called the “Sandwich Theorem” which indicates this iv a logically valid method of reasoning. I won’t bore you with the details (you can look it up) but it’s kind of neat when the disciplines converge!
Has anyone ever written anything about Paul’s psychological state? It just occurred to me that in 1 Thess he’s exhibiting rationalization when he says the dead in Christ would go on to a heavenly reward. After noting that I think it’s possible he exhibits other neurotic defense mechanisms as it becomes apparent that Jesus will in fact not return in his lifetime (a realization that becomes apparent as his life progresses). Perhaps he suffered from denial, regression, and maybe sublimation among many other neuroses. And, no, I didn’t remember all those mechanisms off the top of my head, but the concept is one of the few things I retained from my freshmen elective Psychology course in 1986 🙂
I think these days most historians think that it is impossible to psychoanalyze someone from 2000 years ago, on such thin evidence as seven short writings. So I don’t really know of anything written up along these lines. Maybe someone else on the blog does?
Yes, I had an ex priest opine that to me once, based, I believe, on a similar passage. Note; I am a biblical tyro … but I remember him referring to a saying of Paul’s about “the pinch of the flesh”, though I may quite possibly be misquoting what the erstwhile priest quoted. But he definitely interpreted that in a homosexual context … which may have been wishful thinking on his part, I don’t know. Peace.
I wonder if I’m “unusual” in not being convinced that Jesus’s followers didn’t invent the “baptism by John the Baptist” story to attract John’s followers?
I *am* convinced of Jesus’s apocalyptism by the argument that it’s multiply attested by Mark, Q, and the M and L sources.
I suuppose if someone wanted to invent the story, they would have John baptized by Jesus!
Not if they were inventing it for the purpose of attracting John’s followers!
Of course, I know this isn’t a big deal, one way or the other. I don’t doubt that Jesus was an apocalypticist.
I’m absolutely no scholar, but I just blogged about that possibility (John the Baptist used to endorse Jesus) this afternoon. http://adamgonnerman.tumblr.com/post/133819715387/king-herod-heard-of-it-for-jesus-name-had-become
Why do you think John *does* remove the baptism?
Because he didn’t want Jesus to appear to be John’s inferior.
Me, too! In any case it appears that the Jesus Movement benefited from network of followers that John’s activities had established. Why else would the evangelist have Herod frightened that Jesus was a resurrected John come back to get him?
With such a strong John Movement in place, it would behoove Jesus’ followers to at least highlight the continuity between their missions.
As Dr Ehrman points, that still leaves the order of baptism in an awkward state…
An OT question: I was thinking about how the Gospels were named…its having been understood that James son of Zebedee couldn’t be claimed as an author of any of them, because he’d been martyred very early. I assume that’s mentioned in Acts, and was accepted by the early Christians. But is there any actual *evidence* that he was martyred, and didn’t just cease believing in the Resurrection, and walk away? As may, for all we know, have happened with others of the original disciples?
No real evidence outside of the the book of Acts.
Saying 114 in Thomas is probably not historical either. 🙂
Modern day Christians still have an apocalyptic view. I’m wondering if there’s ever been a time since early Christianity that it wasn’t the view of most churches.
As I recall from some past readings, Western Christianity went through an apocalyptic fervor as the year 1000 approached. The new millineum failed and apocalpticism faded significantly until the emergence of many new demoninations following the Protestant Reformation, some groups holding more apocalyptic views than others.
Today, most mainline churches hardly even speak or discuss that view, but the Evangelicals & Fundamentalists certainly continue and broadcast that belief.
Raises the question, though, of where Paul received his sense of Jesus’ message. He disclaims apostolic sources, and he didn’t know Jesus. I suppose he could have learned the early church’s worldview during his persecutions. Any speculation?
Yes, he had to know something about the Christian faith before he converted, otherwise he couldn’t have converted; and his understanding of what they believed must have been based on what they were saying.
Also, according to Acts, Paul spent several days with the disciples after being healed by Ananias. We can assume he learned much from them
Given that people were already questioning the Kingdom of God on Earth by around 50 (the year 1 Thess was written), and that the canonical gospels were written 20 or more years after that, one would think some sayings about the soon-coming Kingdom of God might not have been put in the gospels, since by then it was looking more iffy. Yet, some apocalyptic sayings of Jesus still made it in. I wonder if other apocalyptic sayings of Jesus were left out, due to the tardiness of the Kingdom.
I’m sure tons of them were!
The kingdom did, in fact, come. None of the characters understood what the kingdom was. But it came.
Convincing argument given with usual Ehrman clarity. Thanks.
I find this argument to be the most satisfying. Some other scholars, such as Crossan, have proposed what might be called the “that didn’t work” theory,” where Jesus’ thinking about the Apocalypse shifted markedly after the death of John the Baptizer (my Jewish religion professor insisted it was “Baptizer”, not “Baptist”). If I recall, Crossan proposed that Jesus shifted his focus from an apocalyptic viewpoint to a more organic movement whereby he and his followers would initiate the kingdom movement themselves, emphasizing what he called “open comensality”, where meals were shared and all had enough. I’ve read his books on Paul as well, but can’t recall how he harmonizes that with Paul’s apocalyptic message. Of course, he also says that God is a process whereby injustice is transformed into justice, so he sometimes confounds me. Perhaps Paul was only aware of the apocalyptic message of Jesus and not the “be the change you want to see in the world” (sorry Gandhi) message where Jesus emphasizes social justice over apocalyptic change.
Did Jesus chose to join an apocalyptic preacher at the very beginning of his own ministry because he wanted to start with an apocalyptic movement or because it was just natural to have your very own relative perform the baptism? And wasn’t the baptism the only recorded association between the two men and, therefore, we cannot assume Jesus was ever a part of John the Baptist’s apocalyptic movement?
The idea that they were related is only in Luke, and is almost certainly not historical. The question about their association is why Jesus would go to him to be baptized if he did not subscribe to his views.
Most people today read the accounts of Jesus’ baptism in the gospels and envision it as a brief moment in time – Jesus arrives, is baptized and leaves for his 40 days in the desert – an encounter of a few minutes or at most an hour or so. It seems more likely to me that Jesus and John were together for some time – weeks or maybe months. We know from Luke’s gospel that when Jesus goes back to preach at the synagogue in Nazareth it is described almost as if he were a visitor – someone who had been away for some time and had returned. And they are shocked by the views of the returning Jesus – views he obviously hadn’t expressed in previous Sabbath attendance at the synagogue. Is there any scholarship on the relation and interaction between Jesus and John and the extent to which Jesus’ belief system and perceived “mission” was influenced by John?
I think this relationship is usually assumed in *most* books written about the historical Jesus. You might try John Meier’s lengthy volumes.
Thanks! And you are right. That story about Elizabeth and Mary is only in Luke. Astounding!
First let me state that I completely agree with you that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and that his consent to be baptized by John supports this view. As you mentioned, we also know that the apostles of the historical Jesus expected a Messiah who would redeem Israel (Luke 24:21), and that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels themselves expected the imminent end of the world, the coming judgement, and a new Kingdom of God to be established on earth. What I find problematic is the notion that Paul is useful for understanding the teachings of the historical Jesus. Paul himself states that his gospel was not taught to him by men, but it came to him via a divine revelation of Christ.
“For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:11-13”
For me this implies Paul’s understanding of Christ, and Paul’s gospel that salvation comes through faith in Christ and not by following Torah, came from his personal visions. How, then, can Paul’s apocalyptic world view be applied to what the historical Jesus believed and taught? Could Paul have had independent apocalyptic visions totally unrelated to what the historical Jesus taught? Or I am missing something? This would not alter your general point, but I am curious if I have misunderstood the relationship between Paul’s Christ and the historical Jesus.
I don’t think that Paul knew the preaching of the historical Jesus, but that Paul converted to the views held by Jesus’ followers and that therefore his apocalyptic views were those of his predecessors.
Regarding Morphinius’ comment:
Bart, I find it difficult to grasp/understand how Paul could have been influenced by Christians who preceded him, rather than as he said, and as Morphinius mentioned quoting Galatians 1:11-13, by revelation, neither received nor taught by any man.
Adding to my confusion is the seeming fact that the very early followers of Jesus weren’t converts. They remained Jews who observed the Law, in particular James, Peter and John,who opposed Paul’s teaching and of whom Paul spoke derogatorily. It could not have been, therefore, their form of Christianity that Paul converted to, it seems to me; rather none but his own invention born of his visions/revelations.
It also seems to me that if Paul was persecuting Christians it would have been those very early Christians who yet remained Jews and who practiced Judaism, such as those who adhered themselves to the teachings of not only Jesus but the leaders of the Jerusalem church.
Jesus had quite a following, none of whom expected their messiah (him) to suffer and die or play the part of a human sacrifice that was seen as an abomination in the eyes of God; and cutting to the chase Jesus, like John the Baptist, taught repentance and obedience to the Law as the means of obtaining eternal life, not blood sacrifice, and no matter the writings contained within the Book of John.
I find it difficult to believe that the author of the Book of John knew much of anything about the John the Apostle who knew Jesus personally, and who served as one of the earliest church leaders.
As such my understanding; so it is that I tend to believe that Paul was the first to suggest the blood atonement, and that Paul was the sole author of Christianity as we know it.
You say, “Paul converted to the views held by Jesus’ followers” and so I ask which followers? From where? Surely not Jerusalem, and those very early followers with whom he had no contact prior to preaching and teaching his visions. No?
He must have been persecuting the Christians because of what they said — so when he converted, he know what he was converting to. But what he does say is that the idea that he needed to preach Jesus to the Gentiles came to him by a revelation.
Thanks, Bart. I better understand now.
Paul converted from staring into the sun.
So Jesus started as an apocalypticist, ended as an apocalypticist, and in between he was an apocalypticist (given the sayings we have from Mark, Q, M and L). At least he was consistent.
Dr. Ehrman,
I, too, am convinced that Jesus was for the most part a run-of-the-mill Jewish apocalyptic preacher. Indeed, I’m convinced that Jesus thought that God’s reign was going to start the very same year that Jesus was, instead, arrested and executed (30CE)! And that’s why he was so motivated to preach it’s imminent arrival, because he was totally convinced it was coming within months, in not weeks.
However, when I read the research of other NT scholars, particularly those of the Jesus Seminar, I notice that they claim the opposite, that Jesus’ apocalyptic message was attributed to him ex post facto by his disciples. Some even assume (e.g. JD Crossan) the Jesus’ original message was actually more social and class conscious than doomsaying. I wondering, do these scholars have a leg to stand on? Is it just wishful thinking on their part to paint Jesus as a noble social justice warrior rather than a misguided, delusional prophet/preacher?
Well, some of them are good scholars; but I don’t think you can explain why he associated with an apocalyptic preacher *and* that his followers were apocalypticists afterward if he wasn’t one himself.
talmoore wrote: ”However, when I read the research of other NT scholars, particularly those of the Jesus Seminar, I notice that they claim the opposite, that Jesus’ apocalyptic message was attributed to him ex post facto by his disciples. Some even assume (e.g. JD Crossan) the Jesus’ original message was actually more social and class conscious than doomsaying. I wondering, do these scholars have a leg to stand on? Is it just wishful thinking on their part to paint Jesus as a noble social justice warrior rather than a misguided, delusional prophet/preacher?”
On the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure – it seems more likely that he would be more interested in social concerns, healing the sick etc that engaging in apocalyptic. After all, remembering, and honoring, a man for his social relevance, rather than for his failed apocalyptic pronouncements, would serve as a model to emulate. A failed apocalyptic prophet is best forgotten. Sure, followers of such a failed apocalyptic prophet could resort to re-interpretation his pronouncements – leading to what is often seen in such end-times apocalyptic sects to this day – the continual shifting of that end-time, the rapture that never materializes, the reinterpretation of the apocalyptic prophet’s pronouncements.
Viewing Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet due to association with John the Baptist is problematic. It is problematic due to the obvious reason that this figure, mentioned in Josephus, cannot be historically verified. One reason is that Antiquities was written after the first gospels (usually dated pre 90s) and thus the Josephan writer could have had a basic knowledge of their story, either from written sources or orally. (the TF being an example) Mention in written sources does not confer historicity.
Additionally, Josephus himself presents adequate reason to use caution when using his writings:
”Josephus’ prophetic role as historian merits special attention…..In War 1.18-19 he declares that he will begin writing his history where the prophets ended theirs, so he is continuing this part of their prophetic function. According to Ap.1.29 the priests were custodians of the nation’s historical records, and in Ap.1.37 inspired prophets wrote that history. As a priest Josephus is a custodian of his people’s traditions, and by continuing that history in the Jewish War and subsequently by rewriting it in his Antiquities, he is a prophet. For Josephus prophets and historians preserve the past and predict the future, and he has picked up the mantle of creating prophetic writings. Perhaps, in his own mind he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography….”
Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis by Robert Karl Gnuse.
———————-
note also:
Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus: Rebecca Gray
———————
The followers of Jesus, re Luke ch.24, had hoped that ”he was the one to redeem Israel”. That is not apocalyptic – that is straightforward revolutionary talk. Talk for which, on the historical Jesus assumption, he was crucified by the Romans. It was for what he was doing, in the hear and now – not some future apocalyptic scenario – that Jesus was crucified.
After the crucifixion – when the Jesus followers had to pick up the pieces – then reinterpretation of the ‘kingdom of god’ would need to take on board a spiritual, heavenly, kingdom. At that stage apocalyptic could take center stage – for, after all, spiritual matters are always open to interpretation, revaluation…..and failure can turn into triumph.
It seems to me that in the case of the gospel Jesus – apocalyptic makes more sense as an afterthought, a backward story, not an immediate concern. The hear and now taking prominence over speculation about future scenarios.
I know you wrote an entire book seeking to show that Jesus was an “apocalyptic prophet” and this is undeniable. That he also held the role of religious reformer and moral teacher is also undeniable. To imply that these are additions to the apocalyptic message seems to be seeking a solution to an already agreed-upon hypothesis.
Why can’t he be both, or several, things? Some theologians (and, ahem, scholars) seem to over-emphasize the apocalypticism aspect of his ministry and then some claim (as logically follows) that he ‘failed’ because there was no earth-shattering event in the lifetime of his hearers. Except of course there was, and remains, the Preterist theological explanation, explaning that he did NOT fail. To believe that his predictions appear to perfectly describe the AD66-70 Jewish Wars and destruction of Jerusalem doesn’t even require ‘faith’. We don’t have to believe Jesus was a “seer” or a version of a prophet of the Hebrew Bible variety of some sort to believe that he had the ability (as modern social scientists do) to see the faults and dangerous trends of Judean society in the early First century. That he warned of their impending consequences falls into the realm of religion, but again, social scientists who warn of dangerous trends aren’t ‘religious’ per se.
Bottom line, he wasn’t just a prophet, but I guess we have to wait for Q and other First Century source documents to show up for us to be sure.
hello Bart
can we safely say that jesus accepted to be baptised by john because he considered himself to be sinner like everybodyelse
That would seem to be the implication.
If we are to take Jesus at his word, and not read into it, or believe more into it than that which he said, it seems pretty clear:
“And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me, good? There is none good but one, that is God” Mark 19:17
(I can almost hear a few aplogists I know scream!)
I recently heard a fascinating argument about the apocalyptic message in the gospels from a full preterist author. He claims that the book of Enoch prophesies 70 generations from Enoch to the arrival of the messiah and that according to the book of Enoch, the final judgement is to take place in the generation that the messiah appears. Remarkably, there are 70 generations from Enoch to Jesus according to Luke’s gospel. Ignoring the preterist origins of this argument, look at this from the perspective that the Bible is not inerrant and consider the well-known differences between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Is it possible that Luke’s version of the genealogy was deliberately constructed to correspond with the prophecy in Enoch in keeping with Luke’s view that Jesus had appeared in the final generation?
Keep in mind that the book of Enoch is borderline canonical and is quoted as prophecy in Jude 1:14-15. It was likely known to Luke. I must add that while I can confirm that there are in fact 70 generations from Enoch to Jesus in Luke, I am not familiar with the book of Enoch and cannot confirm if it really contains a prophecy of 70 generations from Enoch to arrival of the messiah and the last days. Do you know if this is true? If it is, do you think there is any apocalyptic significance to the fact that there are 70 generations from Enoch to Jesus in Luke?
I’m afraid I don’t know! I wish I did!
If we do not have the “original” words of Jesus, the “true” eyewitness account of his life in writings, then there is no way to tell if his entire message was replaced with the views of apocalypticism and its what we are stuck with as the gospels of our day ??
Most any thing is *possible*. What we look for is evidence and plausibility.
In the middle, Jesus’ ministry was hopeful. He gives sight to the blind and heals the lame to put an end to God’s rejection of those who have a blemish. Second, he would free captives. Third, he campaigned for the Son of Man’s Kingdom of Righteousness.
John the Baptist and Jesus were ministering to those who could be inspired to get right with God and make the cut. Repent for the [king] and the kingdom of God is at hand, the kingdom of Heaven is near.
So far, the Apocalypse is a good experience for those who have followed the instructions of John the Baptist and Jesus; and, the Apocalypse is a bad experience for those who have not followed the instructions of John the Baptist and Jesus.
When did the Apocalypse become a bad experience for everyone? When John was killed, when Jesus was killed, when Stephen was killed, when the Jewish Revolt failed, when the Second Jewish-Roman War failed, and when the Third Jewish-Roman War failed, when the Power (God) of the kingdom went dark; when the Landowner of the Promised Land took away the land from the authorities of Judea who had his prophets and son killed and gave it to the Romans even though the Kingdom of God was to supplant the empire that worshiped other gods before the God of Israel.
We must disagree with your argument Dr. Ehrman: the apocalypticism at the beginning is quite different from the apocalypticism at the end. In the former, there was salvation and a happy entry into the kingdom of the god of Israel; in the latter there was a tragic entry into the kingdom of the god Jupiter, the kingdom of the Romans who used the spoils of their victory over the Jews to build the Roman Coliseum and tragically taxed the Jews for the benefit of Jupiter’s temple.
Dr. Ehrman, you say, Jesus’ ministry started apocalyptically with his association with and baptism by John, and it ended apocalyptically. We disagree with you because you present one category when there are actually two. The God of Israel is still on the throne, Temple Judaism is still the religion, and people would make the cut, gladly going into the kingdom of Israel. Contrast that with the historical Apocalypse: God has left his children; the God of Israel is defeated by God of Rome; a Roman Temple guard raises his army skirt and makes farting sounds at the people; with the blood and body “Communion” instituted by Jesus seen in light of Leviticus 17: 10, Jesus becomes an atheist, no longer wanting to seek God’s face, no longer wanting to embrace Jerusalem and be a part of those people because the authorities of Jerusalem gave him to Rome for an early kill in the Apocalypse.
So it is established that Jesus began as an apocalypticist. Can you say when he realized himself as Messiah?
I don’t think we have any way of knowing, unfortunately.