(34 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...I am trying to set up what I want to say about Jesus’ view of the afterlife, and am finding that it requires a good bit of background information. I have already done two things: shown what he taught about the coming kingdom and explained that his teaching (about the kingdom and everything else) is very different in John from the Synoptics. Scholars are almost unanimous that given these differences, the older sources (the Synoptics and the accounts they built on, e.g., Q, M, and L) are more likely to be accurate about Jesus’ words than the later and heavily theologized John. Now I need to explain more broadly, if in very brief form, the major elements in Jesus’ preaching/teaching. For that I have borrowed from a post a few years ago, as follows:
**************************************************************
We could obviously have a year-long thread on the topic of what it was Jesus taught during his itinerant preaching ministry. Many people have written very long books on the subject – and the books just keep comin’ out. If you want a more extended discussion of my views on the matter, you can see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I include bibliography of other works to consult. For my money, among the best and most influential have been John Meier, E. P. Sanders, Dale Allison, and Paula Fredriksen – all of whom agree that Jesus is best understood as an apocalyptic preacher.
Here let me summarize under several rubrics what I think we can say with reasonable reliability about Jesus’ preaching:
The Kingdom of God: Jesus’ preaching was principally about the coming Kingdom of God. Like other Jewish apocalypticists, Jesus did not mean by “Kingdom of God” what…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It doesn’t cost much and every penny goes to helping the needy. You benefit, they benefit, the universe benefits.
U don’t beleive g-d but want to be a spokesman for his inspiration, what are u drinking ? Luv & warmth mic
I’m not sure what you mean that I want to be a spokesman for his inspiration! But as to drinking, I prefer Southern Rhone reds. 🙂
Nice! But do you splurge on Châteauneuf-du-Pape???
Yes indeed. Had a nice one last week for my birthday!
Lol
Candlestickone, It appears you don’t know much about Bart Ehrman.
Bart,
You explain: “People will be able to enter into the kingdom; other people will be thrown out of it; there will be eating and drinking there…”
In your personal view, if the Kingdom of God was destined to be a utopian world, then why would Jesus believe that food and drinks would be a part of it? It seems to me these things are requirements to sustain life in the face of entropy. And, further, the objection to this is usually the food and drinks will be there for our “enjoyment.” Excuse me? Anytime there is DESIRE, it means there is something unfulfilled in the mind/body of the desirer. And in the present context, it signifies that there is something about this coming kingdom that isn’t perfect at all (hence desire).
Do you agree with any of this?
Even Adam and Eve ate and drank before that rather disastrous moment with the forbidden fruit. Desire can be good, not just bad.
Thanks, Bart. But I suppose we see things differently here. And it is true about Adam and Eve. The same logic applies for them, however, too. If the coming kingdom is believed to be a perfect utopia, then I don’t see how one can “add” something good to a world that is already perfect.
I’m not disagreeing with your logic. I’m saying it’s not the logic used in these texts.
It’s best not to focus too heavily on literality with His symbolic, metaphorical Kingdom teachings. The actual onset of the Kingdom will bring a higher-dimensional state of being. So, “eating” and “drinking” are earthly representations of something transpiring at a higher level.
But it is correct to say that this all deals with either fulfilled or UNfulfilled desire. To truly REIGN in transcendence is to partake of an existence in which every imaginable desire is fulfilled. Nothing that is desired will be unfulfilled, and nothing that cannot be fulfilled will be desired. (Ponder that.) This will be the reward for those who have overcome the snares of the earth-construct through self-discipline and Kingdom compliance. (Basically, those who have lived a life in accord with the Bible’s “red-lettered” instructions.)
However, those who have lived an indulgent or malicious lifestyle will be excluded from that transcendent state of being (Luke 13:25, Rev. 22:15, etc.) throughout the Kingdom Age.
It is CHRISTIANITY that has muddled the true message of the Kingdom with its blood atonement/eternal hell tenets. (“Jesus did all the work so you don’t have to do any. Just believe in Him!”) The age of Christianity has interrupted the grand revelation of Kingdom Truth, but as the age of Christianity is drawing to a close, it is time for the true Kingdom message to once again begin being revealed.
Was the mustard seed considered to be the smallest of all seeds to jews in the first century? I have seen an argument before about if Jesus was God (omniscient) he should have known that this statement was false.
Apparently so! I too had problems with that passage when I held to inerrancy!
Do superlatives not sometimes have a rhetorical function in Greek, as in English. If I say, “Bart is the best of men,” I don’t mean, and few would think I mean, “Bart is the very best man in the world.” Could Jesus not have meant that the mustard seed is very small indeed, as seeds go?
Yup.
A number of statements are inconsistent between the gospels, which is why I rely on Matthew more than Mark or Luke. Would the sayings of Jesus in Matthew present inconsistency within itself? Mark is as out on a limb at the conclusion as the great commission makes perfect sense to the rest of Jesus’ teachings to be “that prophet” we are to hear *if Peter’s words in Acts 3 have relevance.
Are you asking if Matthew could be internally inconsistent? Yes indeed!
The universe benefits, Dr. Ehrman?! You know I’m all for you and your work but that just might be going a little far. It was good for a laugh though. 🙂
Ha!
It’s a large nutshell, but I think you crammed everything in there just fine.
But is the Kingdom a place on earth, or the entire earth? Did Jesus himself ever think it out that far? I would think he started out thinking it would be mainly or entirely his fellow Jews, but there are numerous signs that he was changing his mind about that as he went on. Faith was what mattered, not franchise. Certainly not race, which is to say family–family is an earthly thing. The Kingdom is on this earth, but not of it. So blood relationships don’t matter anymore.
Maybe he thought it would start in Palestine, and then expand outwards? Or God (or the Son of Man) would just find all the people throughout the world who had the capacity for that kind of faith, that kind of goodness. Maybe there was going to be a place on earth set aside for those who didn’t make the grade, or maybe they were just going to disappear (to where?)
And if sin had been abolished–did he believe, as Augustine did later on, that sin was the reason for death, so all in the Kingdom would live on in bodily form forever?
It’s easier to say what he didn’t believe than what he did believe. But I agree, he didn’t believe the goal was some heavenly plane. The goal was here. Live for today, or there’s no tomorrow. Live every day as if you’ll be judged for it at dusk.
There have been lots of utopias imagined by human beings, not all or even most religious in nature (to be sure, Thomas More was a notoriously, if not excessively devout Catholic). Always pretty vague about how it happened, and none of them terribly convincing.
This is the one that says we get to the promised land by making ourselves worthy of it. You enter the Kingdom by behaving as if it’s already here. God will transform the world when we transform ourselves.
Since we didn’t do that, it could be argued Jesus was not proven wrong. Except in his timetable.
He seemed to think there would be people *outside* the kingdom; but maybe just at first? It’s hard to say….
I’m far from convinced he could have explained it in any great detail. He wasn’t Joseph Smith, or L. Ron Hubbard. He wasn’t going to come up with this elaborate scenario where everything was spelled out. Because he wasn’t conning anybody. Except, maybe himself.
“God will transform the world when we transform ourselves. Since we didn’t do that, it could be argued Jesus was not proven wrong.”
Except there is no ‘we’. By acknowledging that some will be left out of the Kingdom, he is acknowledging that it’s an individual reward or punishment. By it’s very nature, the Kindom wasn’t an ‘everybody or nobody’ thing.
Since Jesus believed that those who belonged to the Kingdom of God would not taste death, I’m wondering if he meant that once Judgement took place, no one would ever die again, and he would rule on earth for all eternity.
Yes, that’s my sense.
Follow-up to my last thought–Did Jesus believe the resurrection would bring the dead out of Sheol? And when Judgement was implemented to the wicked, they also went to Sheol for eternity? Heaven was for God and his angels, earth was for people.
1) Yup; 2) My sense is he thought those not coming into the kingdom would be annihilated.
And those (annihilated) would be any and all who did not follow the Torah, i.e. gentiles (perhaps with exceptions for faithful converts like the Canaanite woman in the “dogs” verse)? I guess my point is (ironically) that the vast majority of the “church” in his name that followed would not have made into his kingdom?
A lot of information in this post, and I agree that Jesus’ preaching touched the above 7 headings. Though many, many of the details are conjectures which I don’t think are supported by Jesus words from the Gospels.
Take your ‘Beginning of the Kingdom’ paragraph, you make excellent points
>Already people are seeing what the kingdom would be like.
> the kingdom is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds,
>but which becomes an enormous bush.
>The kingdom is manifest in a tiny way now,
if this is the case, [I mean if this is what Jesus believed], why force a rather odd interpretation [which is NOT clearly expounded by him] that God needs to preform some kind of magical supernatural miracle sending a angelic superhero to bring the Kingdom to completion ???
Better is to take the analogy of the mustard seed little further
if the kingdom has started as a seed it will progress automatically to its full completion as Jesus’ message and example is spread. there is certainly no supernatural / cataclysmic event between the moment the plant is the tiny seed till the time its can enormous bush, in fact there is no discernible moment when we can say decisively yesterday it was a seed today it is a bush.
Additionally the kingdom is coming without signs to be observed.
A guy coming on a cloud is a pretty obvious sign if you ask me.
The Kingdom/seed analogy is very important in understanding what has been going on in the big picture of the revelation of the Kingdom. Jesus Himself compared His historical time of preaching the Kingdom to the scattering of good seed (Mat. 13:24). But it is important to note that in that same parable, He said that people would be ASLEEP after that time. This slumber is what transpired after He left the world, in which it was to be “night.” (John 9:4-5). The world has been asleep and oblivious to Kingdom Truth throughout the Church Age.
Just as seeds must be buried in darkness in order to LATER reap a harvest, Kingdom Truth has been in darkness and “unseen” for the last 2,000 years. However, we are now transitioning to the dawn of a new (“third”) day; the “end of the age,” which is also the time of the HARVEST (Mat. 13:39). The point must be re-emphasized ad nauseam that the age of Christianity has been an INTERRUPTION of Kingdom Truth during a time of darkness.
This was actually laid out prophetically in the narrative of Jesus’ own crucifixion and entombment. For 2,000 years, a salvific necessity of Jesus’ death and entombment has been broadcasted to the world through Christianity. But this was NOT the true message of the Kingdom! A blood atonement death and resurrection was not a part of His message about the Kingdom 2,000 years ago. Thus, the INTERRUPTION of Jesus’ crucifixion and entombment in a historical sense was merely a microcosm, or miniature preview, of the interrupting AGE of Christianity that has put forth a necessity of His crucifixion and death. Divine Intelligence has laid this out in grand templates:
Christ walked as a man > Christ crucified and entombed > Christ exits the tomb and soon ascends
True Kingdom message > Age of Christianity’s blood atonement death > True Kingdom message restored
Kingdom Truth preached > Kingdom Truth buried in darkness > Kingdom Truth restored/Kingdom revealed
Kingdom Truth has been entombed for 2 millennia; the seeds scattered 2,000 years ago were buried. But we are now in store for a “resurrection” of Kingdom Truth!
Seeds sown > Seeds buried in darkness > Harvest time
We are approaching the time of the harvest, when Kingdom Truth is to be restored; this, by way of abolishing the entombing Christian institution with irrefutable Truth (Luke 21:15)! However, a respected voice of prominence in Biblical matters is a VITAL element in bringing about this monumental transition of the ages.
For my money, the quote that I think best characterizes Jesus’ actual, historical preaching is this one paragraph purportedly transmitted by Papias:
“The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, ‘I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.’ In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man.”
This, to me, sounds exactly like something a 1st century Jewish apocalyptic preacher would have said. In fact, if before I’d ever heard of Papias you were to tell me that that paragraph comes from the Talmud, I would have believed you. That’s how Jewish it sounds.
His teaching to love one’s neighbor as oneself continues to inspire today. An example is The Matthew 25 Movement. Individuals and organizations can go online and sign the pledge ” to protect and defend vulnerable people in the name of Jesus.”
Jesus teachings could be summed up like this; in the afterlife, you will be among people most like yourselves.
Interesting post Dr Bart I could see clearly now the difference between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John. While the former focuses on kingdom of God coming down on earth the latter focuses on heavenly kingdom. John 24:2 In my Father’s house there are many abodes; were it not so, I had told you: for I go to prepare you a place;
That explains the gnashing of teeth: people on the inside are feasting; those on the outside are starving.
But they were the ones who used to feast while others starved. Symmetry.
I tend to focus on Jesus’ teaching vis-a-vis *behavior* rather than apocalypticism; e.g. “love your neighbor as thyself”, the Beatitudes, and exhortations at the Sermon on the Mount. Anyway, I would wonder about the “Kingdom”. Will people age? Will there be reproduction and evolution? Any animals? Plants? Will they not die either? No cockroaches or poison ivy please!
My view is that his ethical teaching needs to be understood in light of his overarching apocalyptic concerns. Following his ethical injunctions could allow one to enter the coming kingdom.
why do you you prefer to look at it that way rather than
following Jesus ethical instructions would make substantial the Kingdom of heaven? ( thereby removing the requirements of supernatural events)
Because he is explicit that the kingdom will be brought by means of a cataclysmic act of judgment with the arrival of a cosmic judge from heaven.
So…as I see it, Jesus’s call to his followers to “love thy neghbor as thyself” is tainted, because their *reason* for doing it is to assure *their* entrance into the Kingdom.
That’s how (I see) many religious people’s motive are; even if its unclear to themselves…they want to be good people to either get rewarded (enter heaven, prayers answered), or please their god…or ensure they are not punished -go to hell. (plus not too mention that many also think they are “better” than others by being good)… I think many religious people would NOT continue to live as “good” people if it meant that it would go un-rewarded and un-recognized in any way.
Even perhaps the historical Jesus would probably NOT campaigned on these virtues; if not only, he knew there was NOT going to be an Apocalyptic ending, but especially if he thought there was NOT going to be any kind of kingdom/reward or saving of his (poor/oppressed) Jewish people.
(imo)
Bart, I was wondering what your thoughts were on NT Wright’s arguments about the ‘immanence’ of the Kingdom. Wright argues that in passages like Mark 9 and Mark 13, Jesus is using classical Jewish eschatological symbolism to describe events which would be ‘earth-shattering,’ not necessarily the end of the world as we think of it today. I believe that he views these passages as generally about the inauguration of the Kingdom [which took place in his death, resurrection, and enthronement (which is what Dan 9 is about, the enthronement of the Son of Man in Heaven)]. Do you think such a reading (where the focus is on the Son of Man being enthroned, both in the resurrection and in 70 CE), and not on the ‘end of the world’ is plausible?
I can see why he would think that Jesus didn’t really mean it literally, since if he did, he was obviously wrong! But that in itself is not a good reason for thinking that he didn’t mean it.
Definitely, and I’m wary of a lot of scholarship which comes from believers for that very reason. I suppose you could say I like to apply the criterion of embarrassment to modern scholarship. That being said, the conclusion being convenient for the scholar isn’t a good reason for thinking it’s wrong either. For example, I think his point about Daniel 7 being about the enthronement of the Son of Man in Heaven is undeniably true. Combining that with the fact that the Gospel authors present Jesus as being enthroned as a consequence of his Resurrection makes me question the ‘delayed parousia’ and ‘failed second coming’ narrative that I see a lot today.
Hi, Doc. This may be a little off topic but what influence did the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch have on 2nd temple Jews and first century Christians (for myself I consider first century Christians to be another sect of 2nd temple Judaism)? Were these books popular amongst the common people of the day? Thanks.
Enoch was popular among Christians (and Jews). I’m not so sure about Jubilees
“Jesus referred to [this divine figure] ***(as did some others)*** as the Son of Man – in reference to the vision that the prophet Daniel had in which the wicked kingdoms of earth, represented in his dream by wild beasts, were overthrown by “one like a son of Man” (see Daniel 7:13-14).”
My question concerns “as did some others”. If I understand your discussion of this point with Larry Hurtado, you admitted that there is no evidence of anyone else using the Son of Man title in such a way prior to Jesus himself using it this way in the gospels. So why repeat this claim here?
The title is, of course, absent from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Paul’s letters or any other extant contemporary literature. If any of the Q statements about the Son of Man date back to Jesus himself, there is in them no clear reliance on the text of Daniel. As far as we know Mark was the first to clearly relate Jesus and the Son of Man to the book of Daniel. Do you really think that Mark faithfully preserves something of Jesus’ own Danielic theology of the Son of Man?
You must have misunderstood me. It does get used this way, e.g., in 1 Enoch.
I don’t think so. From your own link to the earlier discussion:
“I think this is how Jesus used the term [Son of Man]. ***Whether it was widely used that way or not before his time, by other Jewish preachers, I don’t know. We don’t have evidence that it was.” (The closest analogy is 1 Enoch.) Did Jesus coin the title himself? I doubt it, ***but I don’t really know. And either does anyone else!””””
The problem with 1 Enoch is that none of the parts that mention, in different ways, some kind of Son of Man, are witnessed to until Medieval times in Ethiopic translation. The Qumran Aramaic Enochic texts and the Oxyrhynchus Greek fragments lack these Similtudes of Enoch entirely. One can choose to assume that this usage was already current among Jesus’ contemporaries, but (as I thought you already admitted) there is no evidence of anyone else using the Son of Man title in such a way prior to Jesus himself using it this way in the gospels.
Yes, the Similitudes were not found at Qumran. But they do show that it is not anomalous for a first century Jew to speak of a cosmic Son of man.
If one believes the crucial passages in the Similitudes were written very early in the first century, prior to the ministry of Jesus. But even with that supposition, one has to consider whether or not Son of Man really is a title in the Similitudes AND the fact that this figure is also considered to be the Messiah. You believe that Jesus (and his disciples during his ministry) believed Jesus to be the Messiah but NOT the Son of Man.
The book of Thomas the Contender is one of my favorites.
Also, The gospel of Thomas is one of my favorites.
Since you are familiar with Nag Hammadi library. I feel it is relevant to post this. Once again Professor, thank you for your hard work and dedication. You are appreciated and we are thankful.
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
(1) And he said, “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.”
(2) Jesus said, “Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.”
The savior said, “Brother Thomas while you have time in the world, listen to me, and I will reveal to you the things you have pondered in your mind.
“Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself. And I know that you have understood, because you had already understood that I am the knowledge of the truth. So while you accompany me, although you are uncomprehending, you have (in fact) already come to know, and you will be called ‘the one who knows himself’. For he who has not known himself has known nothing, but he who has known himself has at the same time already achieved knowledge about the depth of the all. So then, you, my brother Thomas, have beheld what is obscure to men, that is, what they ignorantly stumble against.
Now Thomas answered and said to the savior, “Tell us about these things that you say are not visible, but are hidden from us.”
Hi Bart, how do you tie in Jesus’ preaching of the coming kingdom of God with his own prediction of the son of man dying and being raised from the dead? Would this not in a sense be contradictory?
I don’t think those sayings about teh coming death of the son of man actually are authentic teachings of Jesus. I explain why in a number of places — for example my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Given this apocalyptic scenario I wonder why the gospel was called “good news” — assuming that was part of the historical Jesus’ statements? That is, if when the Son of Man comes, the vast majority of people living at that time were going to be torched that does not seem like good news? I assume the notion that most would go to hell is also part of the historical Jesus’ beliefs?
It was great news for those suffering now who were going to be massively rewarded!
See Larry Hurtado’s post today: “The Son of Man”: An Obsolete Phantom
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/the-son-of-man-an-obsolete-phantom/
Yes, Larry often uses that rhetorical strategy of “Yes, that’s what people *used* to think, but anyone who is current no longer thinks so.” ???? I wonder whom he is thinking of though. Off hand I don’t know any serious scholar who argues that “the Son of Man” was a widely used title in the first century.
It would be interesting for you to discuss Larry’s points and references to the scholarship of others and not merely dismiss these views as merely a rhetorical strategy.
Sorry, I probably wasn’t being clear. I’m saying that I agree with his point that Son of Man was not a widely used term to refer to the future cosmic judge of the earth in the first century. But I disagree that there are a lot of scholars who argue otherwise. Offhand, I don’t know of any, and I’m wondering whom he is arguing against. (Another attempt to be clear: He *says* that the scholars who think that Jesus used the term in this way [wrongly] claim that the term was widely used in this way at the time; I’m saying I don’t think that scholars do make that claim) (I’m happy to learn otherwise!)
“… He *says* that the scholars who think that Jesus used the term in this way [wrongly] claim that the term was widely used in this way at the time; I’m saying I don’t think that scholars do make that claim) …”
I think you’re missing the point and avoiding the substance of the discussion. Hurtado only says there used to be scholars in the past who claimed or assumed the title was widely used. How widely used or well known the title was is merely a matter of degree and largely irrelevant. Hurtado here is merely disagreeing with “scholars [such as yourself] who have posited that when Jesus used the expression ‘the son of man’ he was referring to some other, future figure, not himself.” His point is “there is no evidence for the supposed use of ‘the son of man’ as a fixed title for any figure in second-temple Jewish tradition.” Previously, you seemed to admit that we do not know if Jesus himself coined the title or someone else did. But now you’re backtracking on that admission a little bit. You claim that I misunderstood your earlier position to be that “there is no evidence of anyone else using the Son of Man title in such a way prior to Jesus himself using it this way in the gospels.” Instead you say that 1 Enoch did. The weakness of this position, from Hurtado’s reading of the scholarship in this area is twofold. 1) We do not know that this part of the composite work of 1 Enoch was in fact written prior to Jesus’ use of this term, and 2) it is not really a fixed title in 1 Enoch. There are, rather, variations in its usage in the Medieval Ethiopic text that are glossed over in English translations of the Similitudes.
I don’t think he’s disagreeing with me about whether I think the son of man was a common term in antiquity for the future cosmic judge of the earth (although he seems to *think* he’s disagreeing). We agree on that question (there’s not extensive evidence that it was used a lot this way). Where we disagree is that he appears to be claiming that people like me think Jesus used the term this way *because* or *in light of the fact that* it was a widely used term. That’s not at all what I think or what I’ve ever claimed. That’s why I objected to his use of the straw man. I decidedly don’t think Jesus used it this way (simply) because it was a widely known use of the term (in this way) at that time.
Nope, that is not what he is saying here. The straw man is of your own making
Not sure I’m communicating very well here. I’m saying that if he is claiming that the *reason* I think Jesus used the term this way is that I think the term was *commonly* used this way, it simply is not true. I’m not sure he’s talking directly about me in any event. Hey, it’s not all about me!
“Not sure I’m communicating very well here. I’m saying that if he is claiming that the *reason* I think Jesus used the term this way is that I think the term was *commonly* used this way, it simply is not true. I’m not sure he’s talking directly about me in any event. Hey, it’s not all about me!”
But he is not claiming that. He is not saying that you (or others) currently think Jesus used the term this way because you think the term was *commonly* used this way’. The issue is merely whether or not 1 Enoch should be cited as an instance of this title existing at all prior to the time of Jesus. Not only are the Similtudes possibly to be dated later than Jesus, but even in the Similtudes this is not really a fixed title, but rather three different Ethiopic expressions that should not be considered a title at all.
I’m afraid that’s exactly what his point was. Here is what he says:
The reason that it no longer has the same appeal is that this view rested on the accompanying and likewise once widely-held assumption that “the Son of Man” was a well-known title for an eschatological redeemer figure….
NOTE: “this view rested on the … assumption”
“So far as I know he’s not talking about me. But what I’m saying is that he’s wrong that people still hold that view.”
Where does Hurtado supposedly say that scholars currently still hold that view??? As far as I know, the only scholar he ever publicly suspected of still holding this view was you, back in 2014, but you corrected him on this and he immediately accepted your correction (see my earlier link). But you are still accusing him of using a strawman tactic rather than attending to the substance of his critique of the actual position that you yourself defend, which he clearly states does not assume that the title was widely known at the time of Jesus’ teaching. Perhaps you can point to where he uses this as a strawman for scholars that supposedly still hold this view? Better yet, why not respond to the substance of his critique, which he bases on the work of other scholars? Namely: Not only are the Similtudes possibly to be dated later than Jesus’ teaching, but even in the Similtudes this is not really a fixed title, but rather three different Ethiopic expressions that should not be considered a title at all, rather merely denoting that the Elect One, is described as being human, being one of the sons of men.
Sometimes I wonder if you and I are reading the same text. Below he refers to “scholars” who hold this view, “still.” I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me about this. He thinks there are scholars hold this view and he explicitly says that it is “still … found among scholars who haven’t kept abreast of analysis of the evidence” I’m saying that’s not true. At least if I’m one of the scholars he is talking about. I am abreast of the scholarship, as you might imagine. Again, here are his exact words. (I won’t be continuing this discussion: I’m not sure why you keep saying that he doesn’t say what he explicitly says)
“Some have pointed to scholars who have posited that when Jesus used the expression “the son of man” he was referring to some other, future figure, not himself. This is a view that once was quite widely shared, and so will be found frequently in older commentaries and studies, and may still be found from scholars who haven’t kept abreast of analysis of the evidence over the last several decades.”
Rhetorical strategies are common to pretty much all writers, not just writers of history–certainly all writers who are worth reading. As with all strategies, some are more efficacious than others, but they’re impossible to avoid. You have to keep the reader’s attention, and get your point across. The Hurtado strategy is rather similar to an oratorical device Jesus himself reportedly used–“Others have told you this–but I tell you something new.” Multiple variations. This way, the reader/listener is paying attention because the writer/speaker is promising to provide new information that will change your perception of a certain thing.
Given the contrary teachings and presented historical facts and supporting Hebrew Scriptures as found in the four gospel accounts there should be no doubt of the need to revisit them in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls evidence of the Scripture in Jesus’ day – to have the best understanding of what he was teaching. By the time canon was set, all the gospels were worked over to favor Roman teachings, rather than abiding in the Teachings of Jesus being in harmony with the principle of living by “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”
Prophecy of the Kingdom was not a place where only spirits dwelt, but was a land of the living where children were born – wasn’t it? Have you read in the DSS record otherwise? I have no doubt that all of Paul’s books and letters, as well as Hebrews, should be set-aside if we believe the word of God in the Torah, Prophets or Psalms – and the account of Matthew is head and shoulders above the other gospel accounts.
The coming destruction of the first order of Judaism Temple worship was destroyed as Jesus said it would be. Joel 3 presents a time when they would be scattered to the far ends of the earth, and this was after the retelling of the matter Jesus taught of God desiring and seeking those who would worship Him in spirit and truth – according to the manner of life and faith that God decreed from Sinai to all present = Jew and Gentile – which Jesus also affirms when directing disciples be made of all nations.
“This gospel of the kingdgom” – his teaching of the Doctrine of God – was to be taken to the whole world as a testimony – not that all would believe? – and then the end would come and I highly doubt Jesus believed Israel would repent. It seems Jesus was “that prophet” spoken of by Moses and also the one who would make the Torah honorable for gentiles to keep (Is. 42), and the one who would ascend to the ancient of days (God) in Daniel. When saying “unless you believe that I am he”, it couldn’t have been that he was teaching he would rule on the throne of David in Jerusalem and cast out the Romans in that time,
If Jesus was “that prophet”, it is with profound peril anyone would take the word of Paul to have set aside a single thing he taught – and all churches major in Paul – which is the source of Christian’s disbelief.
First of all, you do realize most Jews (and effectively all converted gentiles) never read any of the Old Testament books, and certainly not the Dead Sea Scrolls, right? They may have heard selected passages spoken aloud, or they may not. They don’t have bibles in their living rooms (or in motels). And they wouldn’t be able to read them if they did.
It’s not clear to me what point you’re making, but the fact that Christianity prospered and grew, when its central texts frequently contradict each other (and only intermittently agree with the Old Testament), is testament to the fact that people tend to overlook such things when in the grip of religious belief.
The Old Testament frequently contradicts itself. That didn’t stop Jews from holding to their faith under great oppression and violence over the ages.
When we see Jesus make a prophecy that comes true, we have to bear two things in mind–
1)The words may have been put in his mouth after the fact, and we know that sometimes did happen.
2)Anyone can make a prophecy that comes true. It didn’t require supernatural perceptions to know that the temple might be destroyed, the Jewish people scattered. In Jesus’s lifetime, the first temple already had been destroyed, and the Jewish people already were scattered. The Romans were hardly the first people to conquer and occupy Palestine. Is Jesus seeing the future, or commenting on the past? It can be hard to distinguish the two, sometimes. Difference with Jesus would be that he believed history was coming to an end. And like all who predict this (Hegel and Marx come to mind), he was proven wrong.
I thought Paul also held to Christ teachings ? Whether from Paul’s pen or not , someone did instruct someone potentially named Timothy ( pseudo Paul to pseudo Timothy ) in 1st Timothy 6:3 ..” If anyone teaches another doctrine and disagrees with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ AND with Godly teaching , he is conceited and understands nothing. Instead he has an unhealthy interest in controversies and semantics out of which come envy, strife , abusive talk , evil suspicions and constant friction between men of depraved mind who are devoid of the truth. These men regard godliness as a means of gain .
Again whether this is from Paul’s pen or not , it does resonate as good instruction . In Deuteronomy where Moses indicates The Lord your God will send a prophet from among your brethren , like unto me , His words will you hear ( aka obey ) That does seem to indicate that Christ was able to reinterpret/redefine the Torah by God’s instructions. ( You have heard it said an eye for an eye …but I say ..etc.) Also , any significant change always impacts change in other areas as well. Thus the old covenant and new covenant. Jesus told the disciples that they could not bear all of the things he wanted to share with them nor would they have understood until after the resurrection . ( For example the inclusion of the gentiles . ) I think Jesus provided mid-rash through Paul.
“I’m afraid that’s exactly what his point was. Here is what he says:
The reason that it no longer has the same appeal is that this view rested on the accompanying and likewise once widely-held assumption that “the Son of Man” was a well-known title for an eschatological redeemer figure….
NOTE: “this view rested on the … assumption”
No, that is merely an accurate description of this view once held in the past (note the past tense). Part of his criticism (not insuperable) of your view, in which he fully acknowledges that you do not hold that this assumption (thus, no strawman), is that if the the Son of Man title was not widely known at that point, Jesus’ disciples’ would not have readily understood what Jesus’ was talking about in reference to some future apocalyptic Son of Man. See your 2014 discussion with him here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/ehrman-on-jesus-amendments/
The more important criticism of the view your expressing now is that 1 Enoch should not be cited as an instance of a titular use of ‘the Son of Man’ expression existing prior to the time of Jesus. Not only are the Similtudes possibly to be dated later than Jesus’ teaching, but even in the Similtudes this is not really a fixed title, but rather three different Ethiopic expressions that should not be considered a title at all.
So far as I know he’s not talking about me. But what I’m saying is that he’s wrong that people still hold that view.
Dr Ehrman above you say
> I decidedly don’t think Jesus used . . .
> [the term ‘son of man as a cosmic figure]
> (simply) because it was a widely known used
> . . .in this way at that time.
Can you then explain those reasons that lead you to conclude he used the term this way?
I think you take the very apocalyptic sayings [sun moon darkening, earth shaking, angels gathering, son of man on clouds] around Mark 13:24 to be both historical and also literal .
as far as these verses being historical; they don’t seem to me to pass criteria of dissimilarity, or multiple attestation {Luke and Matthew copy these verses pretty much word for word], or even contextual credibility { assuming no or minimal use of son of man in this way at the time]?
do most scholars take these verses as historical? for instance John Cobb doubts them to be.
on the other hand even if they are historical I think they probably aren’t literal
for example if the sun is darkened and moon doesn’t give light how is it possible that ‘they’ see the son of man on clouds.
anyway if there is other evidence beyond Mark 13:24, I would like to know it.
I explain at some length in my book Jesus: Apocalpytic Prophet of the New Millennium. But yes, these kinds of apocalyptic predictions were known from teh time, and there are solid reasons (including multiple attestation) for thinking Jesus made them.
I asked about the use for the Son of Man title a while back and read Hurtado’s article. I want to put my two cents in here.
Larry said that there were recent comments that pointed to scholars (he didn’t say which scholars) who posited Jesus was referring to an eschatological figure when he used the phrase, Son of Man. Larry said anyone who believes that is not staying abreast with the latest scholarship.
Larry misunderstood Bart a few years ago when it came to the titular use for Son of Man. They don’t disagree on this point. Neither believe it was a widely used title.
They disagree on what Son of Man means. Larry says it’s self-designating. (I previously asked about Vermes’s view. It seems to be the same as Larry’s—a circumlocution for the term “I”) Bart’s saying it was eschatological in nature, and that Jesus was referring to a cosmic Son of Man. One reference being Daniel.
This is the part I’m not understanding Robert here—I Enoch. Robert, you seem to be asking Bart if I Enoch should be cited as a titular use for Son of Man then saying he’s wrong about not using using it as a title while simultaneously saying it’s wrong to use it for a title. As far as I can tell, Bart never said Enoch was an example for the title but was the closest analogy for it. You’re saying it’s impossible even as an analogy because Larry has pointed out the evidence for the title not being in use until well after Jesus’ lifetime.
What I think this may go back to is Larry not understanding how Bart can say that Jesus believed the Son of Man to be a cosmic figure without the title itself. How were the disciples supposed to understand what Jesus was talking about if he didn’t use a title to represent his meaning?
Hi, Patty.
Hurtado’s view of the meaning of the ‘son of man’ phrase in the sayings of Jesus, with some variations, is in line with the views of Geza Vermes, Ragnar Leivestad, and Maurice Casey; likewise, he has similar views to George Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam on the use of the similar (but multiple) Ethiopic phrases that appear in in 1 Enoch.
I’m not saying that Bart’s view of Jesus’ use of the Son of Man phrase is wrong or impossible, but I have encouraged him for a while to deal with the substantive issues raised by the scholars above that make his view somewhat problematic. I would rather that he deal with these substantive issues and thereby strengthen his position than merely dismiss Hurtado’s views as a strawman.
We could certainly have that discussion if you’d like to shift the focus. There certainly are scholars who think the term is a circumlocution. And there are others who think it is not. I’m among the latter.
Personally, I don’t think anyone can say with any confidence, as our sources for Jesus’ words are to a large extent dependent upon Mark, whose focus is inextricably linked to his own contemporary events, eg, the destruction of the Temple, which Mark saw as part of the end-times in which he interprets the role of ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7. If there was a Q document, it is only known through a Matthean or Lucan lense. The best I think we can do is to try and understand each source in it’s own historical context. Thus, also we can try and understand other literature of this period, eg, the Similitudes of Enoch, which Michael Knibb also dates to the end of the first century CE. When you appeal to “others” who supposedly spoke of the Son of Man in similar ways to Jesus, the best you can do is point to the Similitudes of Enoch. Back in 2014, you admitted that, for all we know (though you doubted it to be the case), Jesus himself might have coined the Son of Man title himself. I think you should have at least stuck with that position, given our lack of real evidence. My position is more skeptical, as I don’t think anyone can demonstrate that Jesus himself used the son of man phrase as a title for himself or some other figure or merely as a periphrastic reference to himself. Plausible portraits can be painted by either side, but portraiture is, well, portraiture.
I’ll reply here since your comment hasn’t been moderated just yet. It’s definitely not true that there’s no recent scholarship in favor of a cosmic son of man figure. Several sources are listed in How Jesus Became God. I’ve read in other places that there’s really no consensus for the term.
I haven’t read Hurtado’s essay, but I have read a couple of Vermes’s books. Some things stood out that didn’t make sense to me—
He made this statistical-type analysis for the Synoptics but didn’t take into account each author’s viewpoint and how those views changed over time. He treated them as a whole then came up with percentages.
He pointed out two son of man sayings from Mark and Luke (from the same source I’m guessing) where Jesus uses the word “I” and correlated them to Matthew who changed it to say “Son of Man” and gave it as his evidence for Jesus referring to himself. —Obviously, Matthew changed the saying because he thought Jesus was the Son of Man.
He said Enoch is now dated to the 3rd century because of the “attestation of…preexistence, concealment and revelation of the Messiah.” —Um, Paul??
Daniel 7 and I Enoch aren’t referring to a humble Messiah. —No kidding since Jesus didn’t know he was going to die. Unless Vermes is suggesting Jesus thought of himself as a martyr?
Son of man is Aramaic so it must be understood in an Aramaic context. —So why is bar nephele (son of the cloud) okay to consider as Galileans being influenced by the Greeks but not son of man from somewhere else?
He used evidence from 150 AD for his argument but suggested Enoch shouldn’t be used for a different argument because it’s 2nd or 3rd century.
I really couldn’t follow Vermes’s line of thinking. Bart said he’s finished with this convo, so maybe it’s best to just let it go!
“I’ll reply here since your comment hasn’t been moderated just yet. It’s definitely not true that there’s no recent scholarship in favor of a cosmic son of man figure.”
Nor would I say there is no such scholarship. But, scholarship must respond to the positions of other reputable scholars, which is what I’ve been encouraging Bart to do in support of his position, but which admittedly may not be possible in books and blogs intended for popular audiences.
Follow up to my last comment:
I just read Hurtado’s essay. His rationale came across more clearly than Vermes, to me at least. A very complicated and hotly debated subject apparently.
Unbelievably complicated.
Excellent concise statement of the principles of his preaching. I wish more Christians understood how little (if any) Christian doctrine comes from Jesus’s teachings and how much from the OCD – blighted Saul (Paul). When I (like Jesus, a Jew) mention this to many Christian friends, they are flabbergasted.
Did Jesus himself believe he would be a martyr before the coming of the Kingdom? Or was the prophecy of his own death added after the fact?
After the fact, in my judgment.
Dr. Ehrman, this question may irk you. I have a feeling you will deem it unworthy of a scholar. However, I am curious and must ask: when Jesus was
arrested, do you think he lost faith? Likewise, when he was hanging on the cross, do you think he thought he may have been wrong? It’s impossible to know, of course, but I’m asking if your reconstruction of the historical Jesus was likely to have kept the faith the way his disciples apparently did after he died? Of course, they kept the faith because they experienced (in some way) the resurrection. Please forgive me if this question seems beneath you and thank you for taking the time to read it.
I don’t think we have teh sources of information that can tell us anything about this. My sense is that he was not expecting to be crucified, since he thought the kingdom was coming and he would be appointed the king. So my guess is that he was massively confused. But there’s no way to establish his state of mind at the time.
Thank you. I thought that would be your answer. It’s logical. I suppose I’m curious whether Mark or John had it right. Of course, it’s unknowable. In my mind, the fact that none of his followers were taken in may show that he at least didn’t betray any of his disciples or supporters. Then again, John Dominic Crossan (whose work I admire though I respectfully disagree with his thesis) says the Romans never went after the followers of a non-violent movement. Only the leader.
I think John is more obviuolsy slanted to a theological view, but Mark is also slanted, just less obvoiulsy. So I’m not sure i would say one or the other is “right” in general; it depends on which aspect of the story you have in mind.
“Sometimes I wonder if you and I are reading the same text. Below he refers to “scholars” who hold this view, “still.” I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me about this. He thinks there are scholars hold this view and he explicitly says that it is “still … found among scholars who haven’t kept abreast of analysis of the evidence” I’m saying that’s not true. At least if I’m one of the scholars he is talking about. I am abreast of the scholarship, as you might imagine. Again, here are his exact words. (I won’t be continuing this discussion: I’m not sure why you keep saying that he doesn’t say what he explicitly says)
“Some have pointed to scholars who have posited that when Jesus used the expression “the son of man” he was referring to some other, future figure, not himself. This is a view that once was quite widely shared, and so will be found frequently in older commentaries and studies, and may still be found from scholars who haven’t kept abreast of analysis of the evidence over the last several decades.”
Now you’re mixing up the position that was supposedly the false substance of the supposed strawman, ie, now, a) whether or not Jesus used the expression to refer to some other, future figure, not himself, or, as you previously claimed, b) whether or not scholars still claim that ‘the Son of Man’ was not a widely used title to refer to the future cosmic judge of the earth in the first century. But, I agree it is a stupid argument that is not worth continuing. From the start of this discussion, as well as back in 2014, I was trying to encourage you to deal with the scholarship that Hurtado does cite rather than dismiss Hurtado’s position as a strawman.
Whether Jesus actually used the term in this way or not is a different question. My view is that this judgment needs to be made on the basis of an analysis of the texts, not on the basis of the question of whether it was, previous to Jesus, a common term used in this way or not.
The texts themselves do not really tell us how Jesus used the term but how Mark, Matthew, and Luke used the term. But, if you want to speculate as to how Jesus may have used the phrase, you also have to ask whether or not he expected his words to be understood by his listeners, which does relate to whether or not the phrase would be commonly understood at the time. If his usage was uncommon or even unique, one might presume that he may have endeavored to develop a more elaborate teaching about such usage. That’s why I said Hurtado’s criticism of your specific position is not insuperable.
My question was merely about the “others” who supposedly used the Son of Man title in a similar way prior to the time of Jesus.
Yes, of course. You need to ask the same thing of 1 Enoch, if you think it was the first to invent the term this way — did the author expect his readers to know what he was talking about? SOMEONE invented this use of the term, and expected their audience to understand! (Which isn’t implausible, since it’s an allusion to a well-known passage in Daniel)
“You need to ask the same thing of 1 Enoch, if you think it was the first to invent the term this way — did the author expect his readers to know what he was talking about? SOMEONE invented this use of the term, and expected their audience to understand! (Which isn’t implausible, since it’s an allusion to a well-known passage in Daniel)”
No, the same difficulty does NOT exist in the Ethiopic text of the Similitudes of Enoch, and presumably also not in an Aramaic original. There is no single term or title in the Ethiopic text. There is initially a very clear reference to the text of Daniel, including both a description of God comparable to Daniel’s Ancient of Days with white wool hair and, in that context, reference to another figure “whose face was like the appearance of a man.” This is a very clear reference to the figures in the text of Daniel and does not require any previous understanding of some kind of Son of Man title. That same figure is then referred to subsequently in three different ways (ie, not as a fixed title), all roughly equivalent to ‘that son of man guy’ mentioned earlier (walda egwala emmaheyaw; walda be’esi; & walda sabe’) or merely a vocative reference to Enoch, comparable to God’s address to Ezekiel as ‘O mortal one’. In an Aramaic original of the Similitudes, even if one assumes a fixed Aramaic term used in all these instances, and there’s no reason to assume such, this would most likely just be the normal Aramaic way to indicate a human figure, namely the figure already introduced from Daniel 7. There is no comparable explicit reference to the text of Daniel 7 in any of the Q ‘son of man’ texts (the closest is Q 12,40, ie, not very close at all). Not until Mark do we find any clear quotation of the text of Daniel, used 3 times in a way that is surely redactional.
My point is that someone at sometime began using the term Son of Man as an eschatological reference connected to Daniel 7, and that person fully expected his readers/hearers to know what he was talking about. If it wasn’t Jesus, it was someone else. And there are very good reasons for thinking that Jesus himself did use it that way.
“My point is that someone at sometime began using the term Son of Man as an eschatological reference connected to Daniel 7, and that person fully expected his readers/hearers to know what he was talking about. If it wasn’t Jesus, it was someone else. And there are very good reasons for thinking that Jesus himself did use it that way.”
But, just so we’re clear, you really cannot point to anyone else who used this terminology in this way prior to Jesus. You believe others did but cannot actually point to others. Perhaps the Similitudes of Enoch can be dated prior to the time of Jesus, or perhaps it is a later witness to an earlier traditional interpretation, but this is by no means certain. So far, so good?
My problem with this line of reasoning is two-fold. These hypothetical others who had this interpretation prior to Jesus function to lend credence to a one hypothetical interpretation of Jesus words, among others. It further presupposes that that the gospel writers and/or their prior tradition misinterpreted this hypothetical interpretation of Jesus words and substituted their own. Without opposing any of this on substance, I cannot help but seek methodological refuge in William of Occam and say perhaps the very best we can hope for is to simply try and understand how Mark used (whether inherited or created) this pesher exegesis of Daniel as a way of interpreting the meaning of Jesus in his text, which is the very first text that we certainly know included this developed line of thought. We certainly know that others used such pesher interpretations of prophetic texts to interpret the significance of Jesus and the teacher of righteousness. But, even if we must speculate and choose among various potential interpretations of Jesus’ possibly authentic sayings, at least we should be very clear when we say that others also held such views prior to Jesus. Maybe. Maybe not.
I should have pointed out before that I did deal with all this, and espeically with Larry Hurtado’s claims (about me and others) ealrier on the blog. I’ll repost it soon, but for now, it’s here: https://ehrmanblog.org/the-son-of-man-and-jesus/. On your point here: if we agree that Mark used son of man in an apocalyptic sense, then that shows that it did indeed get used this way. I’m simply pointing this out to say that the argument that Jesus could not have used it this way because no one would know what he was talking about doesn’t work. With that argument you could say that Mark could not have used it this way.
“I’m simply pointing this out to say that the argument that Jesus could not have used it this way because no one would know what he was talking about doesn’t work. With that argument you could say that Mark could not have used it this way.”
As I’ve already mentioned, I do not use that argument, and I also doubt Hurtado intended it as an insuperable critique, just a difficulty. Whereas Mark makes multiple quotations of the text of Daniel decades later, you are reading such back into the hypothetical Q source and ultimately to the theology of Jesus himself. Again, not at all impossible, but something of a burden to address. My point here is that if you want to lend credibility to the interpretation that this was Jesus’ own theology by claiming that others also were already expressing this Son of Man theology prior to the time of Jesus, such a claim is not at all certain and is itself another hypothesis. It is possible, but by no means certain, that the Similitudes of Enoch predated Jesus.
I too agree that “Son of man” was not a reference to himself.
You are no doubt familiar with this (Patterson/Meyer) “Scholars Version” translation of the Gospel of Thomas phrase 86:
“[Foxes have] their dens and birds have their nests, but human beings have no place to lie down and rest.”
The simple substitution of “human beings” for the traditional “Son of man” turns the phrase on its head. Now it makes sense whereas traditionally with Jesus referring to himself it is nonsense.
We can apply this to the Prophesies of Jesus of his own crucifixion. As in the above phrase he’s not talking about himself. Now the Crucifixion become congruent with the Muslim Quran, another man, not Jesus, crucified (I’m not Muslim)..
I suggest the crucifixion phrases were added later, perhaps soon after the crucifixion, so to make sense out of the senseless act. Another man, not Jesus, misidentified and crucified. Now the 500 witnesses in Acts are not witnessing anything out of the ordinary. But because of the confusion, Jesus bows out, his mission ended.
This scenario is told in the 1970’s era metaphysical Jane Roberts book “Seth Speaks”, an advanced “gestalt awareness” entity beyond the grave speaking through Jane.
As for Jesus’ real message, I dare to suggest it is the same message of self-awareness as taught by Masters appearing throughout all recorded history. People fear life beyond the physical body, and so spin myths around the teachings.
I’m relatively new to the blog, so am not sure if this question has been addressed previously (and I hope this is the appropriate topic in which to pose it), but the question occurred to me: what was the “Bible” of Jesus of Nazareth? My assumption over the years had been, “of course, the Old Testament,” but was it the OT as it has come down to us? I recall a comment from years ago that Jesus quoted more often from Deuteronomy than the other “Books of Moses.” That creates more questions: which of the scriptural quotations attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels were authentic, and which were inserted from the Septuagint by the gospel writers; and for that matter, was Jesus literate, a reader of the “Law and the Prophets?”
I also seem to recall the Jesus Seminar dismissing out of hand (“black letters”) any quotations of Scripture by Jesus.
As a reader of your books and listener of your Great Courses, I understand that much is uncertain, but it’s a matter of what the evidence supports.
Anyway, I’d be most interested in your thoughts and knowledge on this question!
Jesus appears certainly to have had the Torah and the prophets (both former and latter, in the Hebrew Bible), along with the Psalms, and possibly a few of the other books that made up the “writings.” Maybe I’ll post on this in response to your question (I’m pretty sure I’ve dealt with it before)
Thanks, I will look forward to it!
Dr Ehrman,
if I understood correctly, the Historical Jesus believed in the devil and taught the resurrection of the dead and the eternal life like the other apocalyptic ones?
Thank you!
Yes, that’s my view.
A few questions:
Did Jesus believe that the son of man would be the one to rule over the kingdom of God?
Do you think he actually proclaimed in Mark 14:62, while on trial, that the high priests would see the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven? Or was this added later?
If the Romans considered calling oneself the messiah to be the most dangerous term a Jew could make did the high priests in Jerusalem consider that saying the son of man coming within their lifetimes to be the most offensive term made by Jesus?
Was there any title Jesus used for himself or religious blasphemy he made that was key in making the high priests want to hand him over to the Romans for execution? Or were they just mad that he was making general attacks against the aristocracy and upper class as part of his apocalyptic message and wanted to punish him for it?
It’s easier if you ask just one question at a time! But for now. 1. He probably thought the Messiah would (i.e. he himself) 2. I don’t think we know what he said at that time, but the idea that the Son of Man wold come in his lifetime probably cgooes back to Jesus; THREE: no, there was nothing offensive about saying the prophecies of Daniel were soon to come to fulfillment. 4. No, there is no word of blasphemy in the trial — which makes it historically suspicious. I’m not sure there was a “Jewish” trial, historically.
Thank you!
Hey Bart,
I am still a little bit confused when you say in Mark 4 Jesus is talking about a earthly kingdom that God would establish. I’m confused because you say that the blessings of the Kingdom of God will grow like a mustard seed. However, before this specific parable we see the parable of the sower and the parable of the growing seed. It certainly seems that Jesus is talking about the faith in the hearts of those who believe in his message, and not an earthly Kingdom. Would this mean that Mark had correctly predicted the growth of faith in Jesus in the centuries to come? Could you explain this to me so I can better understand it?
The parables do not appear to be about the same thing. The mustard seed is about how the Kingdom has a tiny beginning (in Jesus’ ministry) but will end up being massive (when the Son of Man arrives); the sowing of the seeds is about how very few people are able to hear and undersand and accept the gospel message. Jesus apparently didn’t think there were centuries to come. The kingdom would arrive before “some of you [the disciples] taste death.”
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree with John P. Meier that traces *only* four parables back to the historical Jesus?
(the mustard seed, the evil tenants of the vineyard, the great supper and the talents)
Thanks in advance
Not really. I’d say it’s pretty hard to know or to count them.