Loading...
Heaven and Hell: When was Heaven and Hell Invented? (QUESTION):
If I were to ask the average mainstream Sunday morning Christian why they are a Christian I would probably get an answer (other than to meet friends in church) such as this, “To be saved and go to heaven when I die.” When I look at the obituaries in the newspaper, I so often see a statement assuring me that “Mable is with Jesus now,” and was advised by a bumper sticker yesterday, “Heaven or Hell: It’s Your Choice.”
If Jesus’ message was as you and others state, “repent now for the Kingdom of God is just around the corner,” affirmed by Paul and the early church…how did we get this fast-track-ticket-to-heaven in contemporary popular Christianity?
I cannot find that explicitly in the New Testament (except for some hints in the Gospel of John). How did we get from the Apocalyptic Jesus to the Pearly Gates?
RESPONSE:
Ah, this is a great question, and as with all great questions, it does not have an easy answer! I give a short version of the answer in my book Jesus Interrupted, in the chapter on “Who Invented Christianity,” where I discuss the “invention” of heaven and hell.
When was Heaven and Hell Invented?
I don’t mean, of course, that anyone actually invented them, but I think the idea that such places exist were not the original ideas of Jesus and his followers, but were later developments among Christian thinkers in later times. And since these ideas did not exist at one point among Christians, and then later became very much Christian ideas, then in that sense, SOMEBODY came up with them (or lots of somebodies), and that would involve their “invention.”
Heaven and Hell – Who Invented Heaven and Hell?
So if the short version is in my book, let me give you a hopelessly abbreviated version here.
The starting point: I’ve argued for many years now that Jesus was a Jewish apocalypticist. This is not just my idea – it’s been the majority view among scholars of the New Testament for over a century. But some scholars disagree – which is why I (and others) have had to argue the point.
Jewish apocalypticists were dualists, who believed that there were two fundamental components of reality, good and evil. God was of course over all that was good. The devil was over all that was evil. When Jews started thinking apocalyptically – about 160 years before Jesus during the period known as the Maccabean Revolt – is when they first came up with the idea of the Devil.
God has the power of angels, and life, and righteousness on his side. These are all cosmic forces in the world; the Devil has the power of demons, and death, and sin on his. All things—and everybody – participates in this dualism, and so is either on the side of God and good or the Devil and evil. There is no neutral territory.
When Was Heaven and Hell Invented – Cosmic Dualism
This cosmic dualism got worked out in a kind of historical scenario, where it was thought that there were two “ages” on earth: the present evil age, controlled by the Devil and his minions, and the future good age, to be controlled by God.
Apocalypticists
At some point in the very near future, God was going to overthrow the forces of evil and bring in a good kingdom here on earth. A utopian state in which there would be no more pain, misery, or suffering, no more war, epidemic, starvation, or natural disaster. God himself would rule supreme.
Apocalypticists did not think that we would *develop* as a species and improve our lot so as to bring in this kingdom. This current age is controlled by forces greater than we can imagine, and only a violent act of God, at the end of this age, would bring about their destruction and the appearance of the new kingdom…where good would prevail.
And when would that climactic act of history occur? Very soon. “Truly I tell you, some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power.” The words of Jesus: Mark 9:1. Or as he says later about the end of all things: “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place” (Mark 13:30).
Apocalypticists had a kind of horizontal dualism – one that could be traced on a time line between this wicked age of sin and death and the future age of righteousness and life, with a major break between the two ages, a break soon to occur. Eternal life would be lived – here on earth – in that future utopian kingdom.
World Above and World Below: Where Did the Concept of Heaven and Hell Come From?
But what happens when the end never comes? When the expected destruction of the forces of evil never takes place? When contrary to expectation, God does not intervene in history to make right all that is wrong? What happened in Christianity is that believers *reinterpreted* their earlier beliefs and *reconfigured* their dualistic outlook. In short what happened is that the horizontal dualism (this age/the age to come) got flipped on its axis and became a *vertical* dualism. Where the contrast now was between the world the world below (hell) and the world above (heaven).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, you better join, OR YOU’LL NEVER KNOW!!!
Hi Bart , I have been waiting to hear about this subject for a while now and this was a great post – thank You.
However , just a question please , quote : ” What happened in Christianity is that believers *reinterpreted* their earlier beliefs and *reconfigured* their dualistic outlook.”
Did Paul not talk about Heaven “above ” in his writings? I am sure he talked of the “rapture” in one of his letters and said that those who are still alive on the last days will be taken up in the sky and so shall the dead rise ; does this not show us an early “pauline” understanding of Heaven or is that more central to the ancient belief in a 3 level heirarchy of the planet ie described as “third heaven”? in my understanding this still alludes to a vertical dualistic position or not so? please comment.
thank You Sam
Yes, I think Paul is already in the process of reinterpreting things — possibly more toward the end of his life (e.g., Philippians) than the beginning of his ministry, as he began to realize that he may not be alive to see these things happen. So in a sense he becomes a kind of transitional figure.
Thank you for providing an answer to this question. The issue of heaven seems to be #1 among almost all Christians since that’s why we become believers…to get to heaven…a place of bliss….right? That’s what my friends tell me. I’m not so sure.
I’m currently writing an on-going series of “streams of consciousness” that I call “Musings of a Church Mouse” and posting the drafts to Facebook to see what comes back at me. Currently I am starting thoughts on “The Lord’s Prayer” which I consider to be a beautifully condensed statement of Jesus’ message and mission.
Right now I’m stuck on the opening line: “Our father, in heaven….” I guess I haven’t gotten very far into this !! Well, I’m OK on the “father” portion of that prayer and even on the “Our,” but “heaven” still has me stumped…Jesus is saying that there is a place called heaven and that God is in there. I would guess that Jesus is referring to the UP-ness of heaven (in a three tiered world view) and that’s where God will come from to establish his reign on Earth at the end times…which many still believe will come someday, yet the notion is also that heaven is a spatial place where believe go at death. All very confusing.
I like your “temporal” and “spacial” distinction regarding this issue, and perhaps I should first do some writing for my Facebook musings on the apocalyptic mission of Jesus before I deal with the location of “heaven” yet, in the Lord’s Prayer” Jesus says God the Father is “in” a place called “heaven.” That’s what Christians believe and that’s where they say we go when we die. That is, I guess, a comfort to those who believe in that.
My son, who’s a minister, thinks I’m not believing in what the Bible says…well, I am trying to understand all of this ! He says, just believe…he seems to think that I don’t trust in the supernatural…I don’t trust God.
Jesus also said that the Kingdom of God is “within” us…I need to do more study of that as well. That would be more of a mystical dimension to what God’s Kingdom and heaven is…although all of this may be simply metaphorical since finite minds can not grasp an infinite concept.
I studied a bit of NT Greek and use an interlinear Greek-English Bible, but that really doesn’t help much with finding unbiased definitions of the words related to “heaven” and “in” (where is “in” ?) and “within” and such…All very confusing.
I see all of this in two ways, trying to hold onto my faith and understand it:
1) Salvation (another word I don’t truly understand) is “going to heaven rather than to hell (up or down..spatial) when we die (temporal)
2) or the message of Jesus is apocalyptic and that God will come down to rule on Earth someday.
I have a different view…a third view…I have come to appreciate Scot McKnight’s writings on what he calls the “Jesus Creed”…to love God with all our essence and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
In that sense, God’s kingdom has come, through us, and what we do to show our love for God, our “neighbor” and our environment, here and now, not some day in the future whether “up” in heaven or “down” at the end times.
To me that is a way to Love God, Follow Jesus and to serve our people and our environment in which we live. That is the only way I can make sense of all of this. If I go to heaven, so be it. If I don’t, so be it. At least I can work to help make this planet a better place right now.
Blessings.
Just to add to my last question , Paul did not seem to have the same thoinkings as Jesus that the kingdom was to be on earth as in the earth all humnas lived on ; it seems pretty clear that he believed that the kingdom would be above ? so the idea that all beliefs about a heavenly kingdom in the sky developed after Paul isnt entireky refective of Paul’s own alleged perception of the kingdom according to his own writings? please comment, thanks Sam
Yes, I think it’s harder to figure out Paul’s eschatology than Jesus’, since Paul already had started thinking of “up” and “down” in reference to Jesus and the kingdom (as in 1 Thes. 4:13-18)
yes so in reference to the fact that Paul had already began believing in Heaven above as it were , I think it is right to say that , although “most” of the ideas about haeven or hell were developed later (70ce onwards) , the root of the theology was laid down under Paul ; and its more based upon an ancient understanding of 3 tier planet rather than a new spiritual dimension where we go after death ( a later development) , my point is that as early as Paul the idea is there!
Before the birth of the apocalyptic movement, weren’t most Israelites universalists, in that they believed everyone, good and bad, went to Sheol at death? Neither heaven nor hell, Sheol was conceived as a shadowy, nebulous place where both sinner and saint went after death.
Yes, in the OT period most Israelites seemed to think either that the soul went to Sheol or that there wsa no existence after death.
I would add that most Jews these days do not believe in God, heaven or hell. Many do, of course, but most don’t.
“When I look at the obituaries in the newspaper, I so often see a statement assuring me that “Mable is with Jesus now,” and was advised by a bumper sticker yesterday, “Heaven or Hell: It’s Your Choice.” ”
It seems that whenever I am focussing on an idea or thought, I see that idea all over the place.
I was reading the obituary of a local man this week and saw something I have never seen in any other obituary.
Something to the effect that one of the highlights of his life (he was only 59) was taking a trip to Israel with Hal Lindsey. He had been the art teacher when my daughter was in high school.
Then this comment here on obituaries. I seem to get more than my fair share of synchronicity.
“What happened in Christianity is that believers *reinterpreted* their earlier beliefs and *reconfigured* their dualistic outlook. In short what happened is that the horizontal dualism (this age/the age to come) got flipped on its axis and became a *vertical* dualism, where the contrast now was between the world the world below (hell) and the world above (heaven).”
I suppose you noticed that this forms a cross. Is it possible this was not an reinterpretation, but were concepts that always existed side by side? The horizon has always been in a relationship with the earth and sky.
Bart, as always, great post. Thanks for this. As I’ve said before, Christians of all kinds today are still reinventing and reinterpreting their faith in order to make it fit with reality.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the preterist view, which is popular in some evangelical/fundamentalist Christian circles. It basically states that the apocalyptic prophecies of the New Testament were not failed prophecies….but rather they were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. I think it’s pretty obvious that this preterist view is bogus and fatally flawed.
Would you agree that the preterist movement in some Christian circles is a contemporary example of Christians attempting to reinterpret their faith in order to rescue Jesus and the Bible (their “holy book) from failed apocalyptic prophecies?
Yes, I suppose so. The Preterist view goes way back in history — it’s not jsut a contemporary view. It’s hard for me to see that 70 CE is the fulfillment of all that Jesus predicts, though. (Where’s the kingdom?? As one wag put it, Jesus preached the kingdom, and what we got was the church)
i think most fundies would say the “kingdom” came at calvary and the prophecies were all fulfilled when Jesus rose from the dead , however that doesn’t account for Paul’s insistence that the end of the age would come in his time!
“The Preterist view goes way back in history…”
Who first espoused this view? Was he/she a partial for full preterist?
Not sure. But it’s the standard view in interpreters like Jerome.
Oh, and by the way, I seem to remember you saying that you were a colts fan, but are now a broncos fan. So, from that, I have to infer that you are a Peyton Manning fan. Am I right? If so, what happened yesterday against the Ravens?!?!?!?! Peyton is one of the all time greats, but he loses a LOT of big games.
Hope you don’t mind this comment that is COMPLETELY off the subject. 🙂
Yes, it was a sad weekend. Go Pats!
“And since these ideas did not exist at one point among Christians, and then later became very much Christian ideas, then in that sense, SOMEBODY came up with them (or lots of somebodies), and that would involve their “invention.” ”
Here’s another one. Where in the Bible does it say that we are to invite Jesus into our hearts and have a personal relationship with him – i.e. the sinner’s prayer? I wonder if doing this is not what makes it so difficult to deconvert. I mean, you just formed a relationship with your inner conscience, so how do you deconvert yourself from yourself.
Yes, that’s not in the Bible!
nor are mass crusades where millions of dollars are raised ! lol
Great post! This is a subject I’ve long wondered about.
“and was advised by a bumper sticker yesterday, “Heaven or Hell: It’s Your Choice.” ”
I got behind one once that said “Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?”
It was years ago, but it still makes me laugh – which pretty hard to do.
My favorite is “JESUS IS COMING AND BOY IS HE PISSED!”
If the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 AD, am I wrong to think that all the disciples were dead by that time? I’m asking because it would seem strange that the author of Paul would write that Jesus said “Truly I tell you, some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power.” The author must have known that this prediction didn’t come to pass, so why keep it in writing? If the words of Jesus were based on oral tradition, you would think they would get tweaked along the way.
My sense is that Mark thought the prediction was fulfilled by the event of the Transfiguration that he recounts in the next story.
Very interesting topic. I will reread that chapter of your book.
Is Judaism today a descendant as well of these apocalyptic Jews of the 1st century? If so, who and when did they stop believing in hell?
What can you said about the Gehenna, as it is mentioned in the NT and the OT?
No, apocalyptic Judaism came to be stamped out; Judaisms today stem from a non-apocalyptic form.
Gehenna is only in the NT: it refers to the trash pit outside of Jerusalem where fires were constantly burning.
Many people – liberal Christians, conservative Christians and non-Christians – find Jesus’ teachings e.g. Sermon on the Mount, morally attractive. Jesus’ ethical teachings are often read as timeless truths. Would you say when Jesus is understood against his apocalyptic context, instead of coming out as a great moral teacher, he looks more an eccentric and crazy man with fanatic ideas?
Well, I don’t think he appeared eccentric and crazed in his own day, but rather normal. But whenever you transplant someone into a different world and context, they look very odd indeed!
didnt his family and friends think he was mad when he first started saying he was the messiah in mark??
They think he has gone out of his mind, but it is not because he is proclaiming himself the messiah.
if his family really didnt think much of him isnt it strange that james is such a major early christain figure? why do you think he changed his mind after jesus death? could he have been along before that?
Yes, it’s very strange! I think he must have had a vision of Jesus after his death. (Which is what Paul claims)
Do you think another reason why the notion of heaven and hell is so pervasive in churches today is the problem of bible translation: the “hell” Jesus often referred would not have been understood in his day as a postmortem state, and the gospels’ concept of “kingdom of heaven” is often misunderstood as the place believers go after death?
Could be!
What you’ve done here is something superior as an answer to a question. It’s exceptional and you are to be commended for a job well done!!! I don’t think anyone could have done better in such a short span of time and space. D.C. SMITH
If I understand things correctly, the Jews and the earliest Christians didn’t really have a concept of the afterlife– which is one of the reasons that apocalypticists believed in a bodily resurrection of the flesh to mark the end times. Is that correct?
The pagan religions, on the other hand, tended to have some extensive concepts and mythologies built around the afterlife. The psychopomp is a very common deific stereotype, amongst polytheist pantheons. Since we know that the vast majority of Christians that arose in the early centuries were Gentiles from pagan areas, is it likely that the concepts of Heaven and Hell were amalgamations of their new apocalyptic worldview with their ancestral views of an afterlife?
I think it’s all very complicated. Some Jews and Christians did have a concept of the afterlife. Resurrectoin itself is such a concept: an afterlife to be lived eternally in the body.
Yes, some pagans also had views of an afterlife, but many did not. From what we can tell from funerary inscriptions, most pagans believed that htis life is all there is. But I think you’re right that the Jewish views of Jesus’ and his followers did come to be influenced by pagan notions once Gentiles came to be so prominent in the religion.
Professor Ehrman, what do you think Paul’s referring to when he talks about being “taken up into the third heaven” in 2 Cor 12:2-4? From what I’ve read, it seems like it’s a reference to Aristotle’s geocentric cosmology, and the third heaven is actually the third planet from the Earth, Venus.
A lot of ancient people believed that there were multiple layers to the heavens (not just Aristotelians, but also middle platonists, Jewish apocalypticists, Christain Gnostics, and so on), with the highest being reserved for God himself.
Apparently Paul thought so, since he refers to someone who was taken up to the third heaven (2Cor12:1-5)
Very interesting Bart, I’ve wondered about the understanding of Heaven and Hell in early Christianity. What about these two quick objections that come immediately to mind?
1). With the idea of the devil being relatively recent (160 years prior to Jesus) how do we think first century Palestinians thought about evil forces or powers being subservient to Yahweh, yet still relevant and viable forces to be reckoned with (e.g. 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1-2; Psalms 82)?
2). I think the picture of an Apocalyptic Jesus is very, very convincing. However I struggle with the idea of a reinterpretation or reconfiguration of belief systems in light of a catastrophic collision with reality. I hope I can offer this example for clarification:
Perhaps I was in a completely monogamous and loving relationship with my wife and wished to remain so for the rest of my life. Then one day an event occurred and I was confronted with undeniable proof that my wife was not only unfaithful, but nothing like the wife I had thought she was or hoped she would remain to be. Now in light of this evidence, would it be feasible for me to reconstruct my ideas of our marriage and reorient my paradigms to embrace this new idea of a wife, or to let reality crash into my life and move on?
I know the analogy will fall apart at many levels and I certainly don’t intend to be crass or remove the idea from context, but in essence, is it possible to contend that such a personal and unexpected turn of events would create the impetus for reconfiguring established hopes and beliefs?
Thanks.
Big questions! On the first, “the satan” does appear in other texts (Job, e.g.), but you’re right, there he is one of God’s council members in the divine realm, and unlike the apocalyptic view of the devil, was working with God, not in opposition to him. And yes, I think you can indeed reinterpret an apocalyptic mythology in light of a different (modern) mythology. I think this is what happens when many thinking Christians are confronted with the modern world: they do not throw away their religion, they interpret it in light of their present experience.
What happened to the Serpent in the Garden of Eden? Seems live the devil and/or Satan was around from day one, no?
Well, he was condemened to crawl on his belly from then on, and that’s why we have snakes!
First: I’m in my early seventies, and way back when I was a child, I read a Catholic claim that people thought Jesus had made prophecies that didn’t come true because they were confusing what he’d said about the Last Judgment with what he’d said about the destruction of the Temple.
But in general, I–an agnostic raised Catholic–found that Catholicism said little or nothing about that “Last Judgment,” or a supposed second coming of Jesus. It’s always puzzled me that those concepts, and the “resurrection of the body,” are mentioned in the prayer called the Apostles’ Creed. That whole business seemed unnecessary, as I saw it, because the Catholicism I knew taught that everyone who lived and died, or ever had lived and died, went immediately to heaven, hell, purgatory, or limbo. Your explanation of the evolution of the ideas makes it much clearer!
I’ve long entertained the idea that nothing, including theology exists in a vacuum. My theory is that the Jewish exile in Persia introduced the dualism of Zorastorism into the mix and the later strains of good & evil, heaven & hell in apocalyptic views in the Levant were a product of this lineage.
Songster
I am a new member on the Bart Ehrman Blog. As such I have been perusing the various posts, and was excited to see your post of Jan 21st on the Invention of Heaven and Hell.
In my studies of the ancient history of the Middle East, the area of Zoroaster and the worship of Ahura Mazda gained my enthusiastic attention immediately, because it was all new to me. I share your theory that the Jewish exile in Persia had a strong effect affect on their belief system, but in a slightly different way. As I studied, given below are some of the thoughts I read. As Dr Ehrman notes often, some are legend, some tradition and some historical. I just want to share them with you.
-Zoroaster was at first a priest, and then became a Prophet. Tradition says that at age 30, he was by a river, and had a vision. He was taken by Ahura Mazda into the Heptad, “The Seven”.
-This is where the belief of heaven and hell enter the picture. Zoroaster introduced the idea of a last judgment for both men and women. Those who supported the good were promised paradise, while hell awaited those who promoted evil. Before the exile, the Jewish belief was that everybody went to a shadowy place called Sheol. The Jewish belief in Hell is post-exilic.
-Ahura Mazda was the Supreme Deity, the only “Uncreated” god, but not the only one…at first. Ahura Mazda created people and gave them free will, Because of this, the world was divided between followers of truth or or followers of the lie, falsehood. Later, Zoroaster had become a true monotheist. For him Ahura – Mazdah was quite literally the one and only God
-While under Persian rule, Persia was tolerant, more so than any of those prior. They did not persecute alien cults, unless they were thought to promote nationalistic threats of revolt. This being the case, new concepts entered easily and were accepted in even the most orthodox Jewish circles:
– The religion that we know as Judaism originated not in Judea, but in the Diaspora.
– Through the Jews, Zoroastrianism entered Christian theology.
I agree with what Professor Ehrman noted above:
“…Jewish apocalypticists were dualists, who believed that there were two fundamental components of reality, good and evil. God was of course over all that was good; the devil was over all that was evil (when Jews started thinking apocalyptically…”
.and
“…God has the power of angels, and life, and righteousness on his side – these are all cosmic forces in the world; the Devil has the power of demons, and death, and sin on his. All things—and everybody – participates in this dualism, and so is either on the side of God and good or the Devil and evil. There is no neutral territory…”
What I disagree with is the sentences in between the two notes above, saying that they first came up with the ideas during the Maccabean Revolt:
“…about 160 years before Jesus during the period known as the Maccabean Revolt – is when they first came up with the idea of the Devil…”
I think it was there and all around them long before that thanks to Zoroaster and the Diaspora
First of all, big fan of your books and your blog.
I was curious – I’ve seen many claims in recent days, by Catholics, and other devout religious folks, that Jesus talks more about Hell than any other figure in the Bible. However, I know your claim, from your books, is that the concepts were invented long after he died, since Jesus believed the new Kingdom would appear on Earth, and soon.
I’ve seen some indicate that the thinking of these Catholics/Christians who believe Jesus talked frequently about Hell, was largely due to misrepresentations of several Greek words. Can you comment on this? Why is there such a disconnect between folks among how much (if at all) he ever talked about any Hellfire?
Well, Jesus occasionally will talk about “gehenna” (the trash heap outside Jerusalem) and talk about “being cast into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” — but it’s not his favorite topic and he talks MUCH more about the coming Kingdom of God. If you’d like to see where the Christian idea of “hell” comes from (not the thing Jesus was talking about), you may want to look at my book Jesus Interrupted, the chapter called “Who Invented Christianity?” where I talk about it.
What is your view of the authors intent at Rev 5:10 where it speaks of “reigning on earth”? This thread was originally about the concept of good Christians ultimately going to heaven and how the idea developed. Does this verse contradict the concept of Heaven in the afterlife? As i understand it– the Word “epi” literally means “on” or “upon” –but in the genitive of subordination it refers to “what” or “who” they have authority over—nothing to do with “where” they are reigning from (be it heaven or earth).
Thank you
I’m not sure if this answers your question, but Revelation does not conceive of “heaven” the way modern Christians do. For Revelation, it will involve a new, re-created earth, where people will live forever.
I know this may seem like a strange question–
The reason I’m asking is because of a particular sectarian interpretation I know of — which says that Revelation is describing a small elect group which rules in heaven as Kings and Priests “over” the earth (the rest of us) as shown at Rev 5:10. The “epi” is here translated “over” not the commonly used “on” or “upon” to make it read–and they rule as kings and priests “over” the earth.
So if I’m understanding Revelation correctly– while this may be a technically accurate way to translate the verse, the book of Revelation is saying that these Kings and Priests are actually ruling “on” or “over” this new re-created earth from that new earth itself, not from a separated heaven.
Thanks for you help.
The problem with that interpretation is that it is *all* the saints who will rule “upon” the earth (not over it). That’s additionally clear from the rest of the book. The saints inherit the New jerusalem when the new heavens and earth arrive.
I know that I’m kind of late to this post, but I was watching your video on, “How Jesus Became God”, at the Coral Gables Congregational Church, and in part one of three, you talk about Jesus being a Jewish apocalypticist. I’m on board with you so far, but then you say that this thinking started around 150 years BCE, and, “When you read the Old Testament, there is no devil.”
What is your thinking then on the seducing serpent in the Garden of Eden? Does the serpent represent the devil, or was there other thinking at the time of this writing as to the meaning of the serpent?
The serpent is not the devil in Genesis. It’s an actual serpent!
As obvious as that is, and the fact that there is no mention of the devil in Genesis, I would bet you that many Christians replace the serpent with the devil in their understanding. Just taking a one person survey of my wife, she too believed the serpent was the devil.
I can guess you’re a very busy guy, but I would like to suggest a topic for your next book – “Early Christianity and the Devil – How the Devil came into being.” You can use this title if you like.
Kidding aside, I think it would be a very interesting topic and offer you many opportunities for debates, as if you need more debates – just a suggestion.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is there any scholarly consensus on Luke’s account of the resurrection, with regards to Jesus’ comments to the thief, “today you will be with me in paradise”?
Does this concept of an immediate “place” after death coincide with the “horizontal” timeline that Jesus, his earlier followers, and Paul probably believed in? Or is this just something that scholars can only guess what Luke meant in this passage?
Thanks
Yes, it seems to refer to an “intermediate state,” a place people go to await the final resurrection of the dead.
I have always thought that the “kingdom of heaven” is a state of mind and that living according to the law of God (live god and your neighbour) is the thing that will help you, in this life, avoid the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” that results from living a foolish life. Could the coming age be the age after the cross and “heaven and hell” just be “states of living in this world”?
Ah, that would be a theological question! I don’t think the authors of the NT saw it this way, but whether it really *is* that way is another issue….
Where the idea that Peter is on the gates of heaven with keys and let’s you in, or not – is coming from?
It’s only in Matthew, so possibly he came up with it.
This one was a powerful one. Thank you. I’m a Full Preterist and agree 100% that the Christians misinterpreted the gospel. Thanks for confirming so much. It’s a relief to have a teacher as yourself agree with statements that the FPs have been making for the last few decades.
Hi Bart, thanks for all the illuminating articles. Two questions if you have a sec:
a) do you think Jesus believed in Satan/the devil in a comparable sense to how later Christians would come to believe?
b) in Mark 8:33, Jesus tells Peter to ‘Get behind me, Satan!’. Do you think this phrase is meant to reference the devil figure or is Jesus calling Peter an adversary?
Thanks a lot.
1. I’m not sure there’s only one later Christian view, so i’s hard to say; 2. I think he meant something like “the embodiment of evil.” But yes, Jesus certainly did believe in a real Satan, and thought Peter, in what he said (about Jesus not being supposed to die) was siding with him.
Hi Bart,
I have been rethinking your ideas on heaven and wonder whether you have considered the late Roman mosaic evidence from Frampton and elsewhere.
‘The mosaic designs at Frampton appear to have been laid out to describe a form of quest…. The purpose of this quest was evidently a victory over death, as promised in various references to the eternal soul and the design of these mosaics alluded to the accomplishment of eternal life that obtained from a synthesis of contrasting elements…..The most important of these were those drawn between ethereal spirit (Pegasus-Cupid) and the chains of matter (as represented in references to Neptune and the oceans). This dualistic message was reinforced and made specific to Christian teaching by the placement of the chi-rho facing the mask of Neptune at the focal point of the room.
‘This is the feature that best establishes the Gnostic identity of the rituals conducted here. A key element of Gnostic and Orphic worship was the concept that the spirit was held captive in hostile matter, and that salvation involved liberating the soul from mortal chains. This salvation was the accomplishment of a higher mystical knowledge.’
You have considered Gnostic texts extensively – what do you think of this artistic evidence?
All the best, Andrew.
My view is that artistic evidence is never self-interpreting and it’s meaning in almost all instances is very heavily disputed: it rarely gives us any clear cut and obvious “message” the way a text does. NOt sure how widely read you are on this kind of thing, but if you are, think of the massively different interpretations given to the tauroctonies connected with the Mithraic cult.
Hi Bart,
Was then the “invention” of the devil meant to explain the suffering at the actual time they living (who would be subsequently defeated by God right after) and then was reinterpreted by Christians to make it part of their religion ? I mean, the Jews at that time did not mean to warn people living 2000 years later that suffering is due to the devil, it was something meant to last some short time until God defeats it (which again was supposed] in those years?
Yes, that was a Jewish view, and is the one that Christians adopted too. They did not think of the Devil as a being who would be relevant centuries later, but to explain what was happening in their time.
Thanks Bart! Do you think that that idea was influenced by books such as “the book of watchers” and “Jubilees” as real revelations?
The Devil doesn’t show up there; but the line of thought in the Watchers certainly leads to the idea of the devil.
Hi Bart,
Thank you so much for this post, this (almost) answers a question that I’ve been asking myself for a while now. There’s just one thing that still baffles me though: when Heaven and Hell became the new interpretation of Jesus’ teachings on the Apocalypse, why was the more literal Second Coming/Last Judgement also kept as part of Christian eschatology? Wasn’t it made completely redundant? Or should this new interpretation imply that they thought that the Kingdom of God had come? Could any particular justify Jesus’ prophecies (“this generation will not pass away…”)?
It’s a great question, and I’ve thought aboutt it a lot. I’mnot sure there’s a clear answer. My best guess is that the doctrine of the end of time/coming judgment/resurrection of the dead was so firmly rooted in the tradition that it just stayed there without most people much subscribing to it. Some evidence comes in writings of church fathers who oppose a “chiliast” interpretation of the near end, which acknowledges that it was still wide spread. And even today, those who recite the creed in church every Sunday repeatedly claim tht ath they believe in “the resurrectoin of the dead.” But if you ask them what they actually mean they will normally just look puzzled.