Loading...We are fast approaching the end of this series on “The New Testament in a Nutshell,” in which I explain in summary fashion each book of the Christian (“new”) Scriptures. As is natural, we end with the final book of the New Testament which, as is also natural, is a detailed account of how the world as we know it will end, the book of Revelation. (Please note! It is not “Revelations” but “Revelation.”)
The Revelation of John, also known as the Apocalypse of John or just the Apocalypse (“apocalypse” is the Greek word for the Latin term “revelation” – both mean an “unveiling,” a “disclosure,” a revealing”) is the most mystifying and at-first-glance bizarre book of the New Testament, one of the the least read (people generally find it too strange), and the most widely misunderstood (since those who *do* read it take it to mean something other than it does).
If I were to summarize it in fifty words, I could probably do worse (and better, for that matter) than this:
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
Please note! It is not “Revelations” but “Revelation.”
The church I grew up in always emphasized this so I always remember! 😉
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
I was reading an older post on the blog about Walter Bauer where you highlight things you disagreed on him with.
Are you aware he claimed Galilee was predominantly gentile during Jesus time and that Jesus did not see himself as the Jewish Messiah.
We’re you aware of these views he had? and what do you make of these views he had?
Thanks.
Yes, I’d say those were common views a century ago. There has been a lot of archaeological research since then; I think Mark Chancey’s books on Galilee pretty much quash the idea that there were a lot (let alone a majority) of gentiles there. As to not claiming to be teh messiah, I used to think that too. But there are lots of reasons for thinking otherwise, one of which is that he was tried and executed precisely for making that claim (to be the future king).
Is anyone else seeing posts that are truncated? Since the denigration of angels post I’m not getting the full posts. They cut off where it thinks I’m not a member, but I can still log in and out, and post messages.
Any help or ideas?
Click the link for Help and Jen will advise you.
jhague. – A quick google search shows it’s Revelation not Revelations.
Don’t believe everything your church told you. 😉
In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, you argue that Jesus stood firmly in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition.
But what stands out to me is that in nearly every earlier apocalyptic text, God’s judgment includes some kind of condemnation/destruction of the temple, or the promise of a purified one to replace it.
Even the Book of Revelation, written after the destruction, still follows that same pattern: the earthly temple is gone, replaced by a heavenly one, and ultimately there’s no temple at all because God Himself is the temple.
If Jesus really was an apocalyptic prophet, wouldn’t we expect him to pronounce judgment on the temple? That seems almost essential to the apocalyptic message itself.
That’s why I’ve always wondered why so many critical scholars still treat Jesus’ sayings about the temple’s destruction as things the Gospel writers either made up or included/emphasized after 70 CE to make him look prophetic (vaticinia ex eventu). But if this was the standard script for apocalyptic prophets before him, why should it surprise us (or be treated as historically implausible) that Jesus said the same? Wouldn’t such pronouncements be not only authentic but expected within the very worldview your reconstruction attributes to him?
He did pronounce judgment on the temple. He repeatedly indicates that it will be destroyed, and the “cleansing” incident is an enacted parable of the coming destructoin.
My question isn’t whether Jesus predicted judgment on the temple or foretold its destruction.. we both seem to agree that he did. What I’m asking is this: if apocalyptic preachers were expected to pronounce judgment on the temple, why do critical scholars still treat this prediction as a key factor in dating the Gospels? I’ve often heard it argued that, even if Jesus genuinely made such a prediction, the Gospel writers included it to highlight his prophetic foresight. But if condemning the temple was a standard feature of apocalyptic preaching, wouldn’t that alone explain its inclusion without having to assume it was written after the event?
Ah, right, good question. Mark Goodacre made an argument once that struck me as convincing, that later authors who want to show that someone made prophetic predictions, if they want to insist on the point my bringing it up repeatedly (as you get in the predictions of the destructoin) it’s only with a prediction that they know came true. They don’t record *other* predictions of Jesus that did not come true, only ones that did (e.g., about Peter, and Judas, etc.). That suggests they repeat this one several times precisely because they knew it happened and it verified Jesus’ insights.
Given how often Old Testament apocalyptic prophets pronounced judgment on Jerusalem, and considering Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet himself, I’m actually surprised by how little the New Testament says about his message concerning Jerusalem’s destruction. Wouldn’t you agree that in the Old Testament, this theme is constant and central, yet in the Gospels, Jesus only speaks of it explicitly in the Olivet Discourse and symbolically in the fig tree episode/temple cleansing? Rather than emphasizing it repeatedly, it almost seems as though the Gospel writers toned down or omitted much of what the historical Jesus may have said about it.
But if the evangelists only included predictions they knew had already been fulfilled, that raises another question: does Mark’s statement “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power”suggest that some of Jesus’s original followers were still alive when the Gospel was written?
Because Mark thought that some of them were still alive and would see it happen.
If Mark’s main objective is to record prophecies of Jesus that were fulfilled, he appears to do this in two distinct ways: (1) by including predictions that had already come to pass (such as Peter’s denial), and (2) by recording predictions that had not yet been fulfilled (like the death of the disciples in Mark 9:1). Given that pattern, how can we tell whether Jesus’s prediction of the temple’s destruction in Mark reflects an event that had already occurred by the time of writing, or one that was still expected to happen?
Jeremiah earned the nickname “terror on every side” because he relentlessly proclaimed a message of impending doom and destruction. If Jesus belonged to that same line of apocalyptic prophets, it’s hard to see why some scholars assume the Gospel writers weren’t simply recording him in that familiar prophetic mold.
Furthermore, you don’t seem to base your dating of Mark primarily on Jesus’s predictions. So why specifically place it in the late 60s or 70s rather than, say, the late 30s to 50s? Or why not simply acknowledge the uncertainty and say it was written sometime in the mid to late first century?
My point (Goodacre’s point) is that the destructoin of the temple is alluded to more than once, and that kind of emphasis is what shows it is probably later. Peter’s denial certainly was written later, not on the spot, and the story is set up to show it was true. So too with the temple.
Care to discuss the Christology present in Revelation? In the vision of God’s heavenly throne room in chpts 4 & 5 a clear distinction is made between the “one on the throne” and the “Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered”. The Lamb takes the scroll from the One on the throne. But in the vision of the New Jerusalem in chpt 22, we see “the throne of God and of the Lamb”. Assuming this latter is not just clumsy greek, God and the Lamb are distinguished but seem to share the divine throne.
Not Nicene Trinitarianism obviously but some sort of exaltation theology perhaps?
Yes, Christ is a distinct person. But both he and God on the throne claim to be the Alpha and the Omega. The author of Revelation was not a particularly sophisticated theologian, and it’s not clear what his overall view of their relationship may have been. But they both are portrayed as unified in purpose and power.
I have a question on the Gospel of John. This gospel describes Jesus as a pre-existing divine being (the Word) who became flesh. But it does not mention any virgin birth of a divinely sired baby. Without the virgin birth, how did John imagine the incarnation to have happened? Did Jesus simply materialize in the world as a baby? Or as a full-grown man? What can we know about this?
Ah, good questoin. Actually John’s view of incarnation is at odds with the idea of Virgin Birth (even though Christians have long conflated the two by saying the creed “became incarnate through the Virgin Mary.” When you read the Virgin Birth narratives, they indicate that Jesus becomes the son of God at and because of his conception — esp. in Luke (The annunciation: The Holy Spirit will come upon you SO THAT the one born of you will be called holy the Son of God). He’s God’s son because of his conception, and it is how he came into being. In John Jesus is not Son of God by conception but from eternity past, In the Beginning. It’s only when both views are accepted as authoritative that they idea of an incarnation via Virgin birth comes into being.
If I may piggyback on Katharina’s question.
Twice in John’s gospel the author has someone identify Jesus as the “son of Joseph”, once by a sympathizer and again by enemies. In neither case does the author take the opportunity to hedge or qualify the claim. Why create a problem for himself by even bringing it up unless the author accepted that Joseph was Jesus’ father? Should take this as a hint that perhaps the author saw the incarnation of a pre-existent divine being as compatible with a normal biological birth?
Thanks.
Yes, it was a point noted by scribes, who sometimes changed the text so it didn’t mention Joseph as his “father”! But father could mean lots of things and there are lots of ways to interpret the text. Joseph could be his step-father (I called my step-uncle my uncle all the time). Or is adopted father. Or, more likely in my view, is what you suggest: he author may have thought that Joseph was indeed his earthly father, that the Word of God became incarnate the way every human being becomes incarnate, through the sex act. The only reason we are averse to this idea is that we think Mary had to be a virgin. But this author didn’t think so. Or at least he never said so. And these verses seem to indicate he did not.
The fact that the universe is ostensibly destroyed in chapter 6 is evidence that the kind of apocalypticism found in early Christianity is more ideological than physical.I’m not convinced the author was merely touting the destruction of God’s enemies.It is evident the author is promoting a view of Jesus’ Messiahsip which was subversive of the normative expectation (Warrior-Conquering-King).The Gospels collectively remember Jesus’Messiahsip as being fundamentally at its core a spiritual dimension which is in the physical represented through physical and political suffering.The book of Revelation uses these images of a warrior-king to subvert the actual nature of what a Conquering-Messiah should be,and frames it within the sacrificial suffering example found in Jesus.No clearer is this than in chapter 6 when the one worthy to open the scroll is expected to be the Lion of Judah, the Davidic Conqueror,but is in reality slain as a lamb.The entire dramatic table of events is understood this way, as conquering is equivocated with the defeat of the enemies of God,not in the physical spaces but in the war of souls, as the end results in the earth being filled with followers of the Lamb.I found Meyers'”The NonViolent Apocalypse” and”Jesus,Revolutionary of Peace” by Bredin compelling.
I totally agree with you Talmid Yoshi.
Dr. Ehrman, a classic mistake that nearly all people make in explaining John’s description of the city is, that it has streets of gold. But John only describes the city as having one street. It’s likely because he’s using it as a metaphor of Jesus, one way, clean and pure. “I am the way.”
I wish Dr Ehrman would make this synopsis public as I don’t believe most people are aware of how this book of the Bible is now influencing government policy to the extent that we are now engaged in an expanding war in the Middle East. The President has called upon apocalyptic preachers and pastors to pray with (over) him in the Oval Office.