Loading...Let me repeat what I said at the outset of this thread in order to explain where it’s going now.
A couple of weeks ago I decided I wanted to give a couple of posts on the differences between the understandings of “salvation” in Jesus and Paul; then I realized to explain either one I would have to go over the basic ideas of Jewish apocalypticism; then it occurred to me that it would be useful to address the historical roots and development of apocalypticism; then I realized I couldn’t really do that without talking about the classical prophets of the Old Testament (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.). But then it occurred to me that to do that I’d have to explain what “prophecy” even was in the OT, before the classical prophets.
I’ve seen this as an important discussion, since most Christian readers assume that the prophets of the Bible were mainly interested in predicting the coming of Jesus, or at least the coming of some kind of messiah who would save the people by suffering for them. In fact, that’s not the case. These are not views you find when you actually read these texts in their own context.
And so my most recent posts have been talking about the views found in the prophets, and I took Isaiah to be representative. Each prophet is different of course, because they are all addressing radically different situations – a prophet speaking to the northern kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BCE, expecting an invasion by the armies of Assyria, will have different issues on his mind than a prophet of Judea (the southern kingdom) two hundred years later writing from exile in Babylon, hoping that the nation can return and start again.
Even so, the prophets of the Hebrew Bible do have major similarities. Here is a brief list. Read any of them – Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, take your pick. This is what they have in common.
- The prophets are presented as spokespersons of God, who were intervening in the affairs of the nation of Israel or Judah when things were not going well.
- The prophets are particularly concerned about social and religious transgressions of the people (Some, such as Amos, are more concerned about social issues; others, such as Hosea, are focused more on religious issues—the proper worship of Yahweh).
- The prophets do make predictions, but they are not predicting events that will transpire hundreds or thousands of years after their day. They are speaking to their own situations and must be rooted in their own historical contexts. Their predictions are about what God will do to the people if they do not return to him and behave as he requires, or about what he will do now that he has punished them for their disobedience.
- When they do talk about a coming descendant of David, they are referring to someone to appear soon, in their day, to assume the kingship once more.
- The suffering of the nation rests in the hands of God. Yes, people can and do act in ways harmful to others (that’s a big part of the problem). But the demise of the nation itself will come because of the act of God. He is the one who brings drought, famine, epidemic, economic hardship, and military disaster. If the nation is faithful to God, it will be rewarded. If not, it will be harshly punished.
- God is not simply the God of his people. He is the sovereign Lord of the entire earth, and all the other nations do his bidding. He is the creator of all, and he uses all nations to perform his will.
Off topic question: do you think there is enough material to write a book-length biography of Pontius Pilate? From reading you, I’d have guessed “Of course not–not even close to enough for an article” but someone seems to have done that, and it’s well-received. Have you seen this book? http://www.nypress.com/news/ann-wroes-remarkable-biography-of-pontius-pilate-IDNP1020000620306209996
Well, we don’t have much information unfortunately. But that never stops someone from writing a book. ( I once wrote a forty-page article on a single word of four letters in 1 John once….) With Pilate, we have the Gospels, a few stories from Josephus, even less in Philo, some coins he issued, and a fragmentary inscription that mentions his name. But thatnks for the reference. I had a PhD student once do a dissertation on the later legends aout Pilate; and Helen Bond wrote a book on his portryal in the Gospels. But a full biogrpahy is tough sledding.
What word was that, that you wrote the article on, Dr Ehrman?
LUEI (Greek λύει), which means “to loose.” It is a key word for some manuscripts of 1 John 4:3. My article was not mainly about what the word meant but about whether it was the textual variant to be preferred in the passage.
I’ll order a copy and report back. I’m curious to see what she did, just as a research task, finding enough non-speculative material to work with. I assume she did a lot of work on others in comparable positions, from comparable backgrounds, to Pilate, which of course is pretty speculative. I wouldn’t want to read a biography of Lyndon Johnson that used Teddy Roosevelt as its template.
Very pithy and enlightening summary!
Speaking of prophets, this just appeared in my inbox from ASOR. I think it’s kind of interesting.
https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2022/01/haggai-and-zechariah-books
(I recommend signing up for the ASOR newsletter, BTW.)
With the exception of forgeries such as Daniel, and the Pentateuch which is late as well… Are you aware of any really long-term prophecies? Assuming that it was written by the actual Isaiah, chapter 39 certainly seems to accurately predict the Babylonian exile, over a century in advance.
Other than that, the only long-term prophecy I can think of is the 70 years of Jeremiah. Did those two examples seem to be exceptions? (To the rule that prophecies are intended for the then-current audience.)
I don’t think DAniel is predicting the distant future; it is written by someone living ni the second century BCE who claims to be wriing in the sixth century BCE who then “predicts” what will happen over the next four hundred years (up to the time he was atually writing). Yes, Isaiah 39:5-7 do appear to be written from a laater time (see 2 Kings 24:10-17). But maybe Isaiah actually saw the writin on the wall!
I may be getting ahead of you, in the sense that you will cover this in later posts, but I am curious about the shift between God being directly in charge of the world in the Old Testament (e.g. using Cyrus to send his chosen people back to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple), to the idea that Satan is in charge of the temporal realm, found heavily in the New Testament and as early as Matthew 4:8-10 where Satan offers Jesus control of all earthly nations if Jesus will bow down and worship him. I understand (I think) the idea of views of the afterlife shifting to the ideas of Socrates’ Phaedo, but the shift to the Devil being in charge on earth is not one I have ever seen in Greek philosophy generally. I could be wrong on the last point, as I have only an undergraduate degree in philosophy which makes me an expert on nothing, but I find this shift fascinating and puzzling. How could Satan offer Jesus control over the nations of the earth if you follow the Old Testament view that God has always been in active charge of the world?
It’s an unusually important shift, away from a prophetic perspective to an apocalyptic one. I’ll be talking about it soon in a future post or two.
Concerning the last bullet point…. Are you saying that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, et al, believed that only one God existed or merely that their God was superior to the gods of other nations?
The only text of the Hebrew Bible that is flat-out monotheistic (there is only one God) is 2nd Isaiah (i.e. chs. 40-55; see, e.g., 44:6; 45: 21-22)
How and where (in worship? In front of gathering of people?, directly to the king?, etc.) did the prophets of the Bible communicate their message?
It’s a great question. In terms of what *actually* happened, on the ground, I’m not sure we know. The texts indicate in some places that some oracles were delivered orally and occasioned a response (rarely a positive one). But it’s possible that they were (almost entirely) made in writing. So … who knows?
Thank You!
How and where did the prophets of the Bible communicate their message?
IT’s not clear (at least to me) whether these are records of oral proclamations (as they seem to claim) or are purely written. The earliest proclaimed in the northerm part of the empire; then in the South.
Dr Ehrman,
1. Do you think there is a parallel/connection between pseudo-Sibylline Oracles and these Jewish prophetic writings?
2. The even earlier Sibylline books, which were kept in Roman temples, were a prelude to these Jewish Prophetic writings? (The Jewish writers were pastiching to get some credibility in then newly introduced Hellenistic world?)
1. The surviving Sibyllines are complicated in lots of ways; many of them are thought to be based on Jewish originals that were heavily edited later by Christians. Both (authors and editors) would, of course, have known the prophets of Scripture. 2. No, the original Sibylline oracles were not at all like the Israelite prophets (and most were much later). If you want to read up on the surviving ones, with a brief explanation of the Roman ones (that had been kept in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome until it was destroyed by fire), the best introduction still, I think, is John Collins work, especially his lengthy edition in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James Charlesworth)
How similar and/or different is Isaiah in Greek from Isaiah in Hebrew?
It’s very close overall.
Interesting!
Prof Ehrman,
“God is not simply the God of his people. He is the sovereign Lord of the entire earth, and all the other nations do his bidding. He is the creator of all, and he uses all nations to perform his will.”
If in the view of these prophets, Yahweh was Lord of all nations, could you throw any light on whether these prophets thought all nations were to come to Yahweh through the covenant he establishes with ISRAEL (as in they proselytise) OR that God had unique and probably different covenants with these other nations and didn’t require them to become part of them (ISRAEL).
I am juxtaposing this against the Christian thinking that, all will perish unless they become Christians. Was it same for these prophets?
Those who thought that the nations would come to worship the God of Israel almost certainly thought that this would entail following the covenants of Israel. But none of them explicitly addresses the issue per se.
Yes, I’ve read them.
I really no longer believe that we do these texts justice, with their often carefully selected special narratives, plots and special / archetypal characters if we do not try to search a little deeper than just the literal meaning. There are so many suggestions for me that this speaks of an even deeper theological significance. A simple pointer is just to see that even the prophets use both historical, semi-historical, sometimes probably myths and sometimes most likely non-historical / fictional stories or a combination, and regardless of its historical authenticity, I seem to have a spesific theological meaning.
Using science, and especially psycologycal science, as those who spent the entire scholarship and life studying the “Self” (like Carl G. Jung) and its facets of consciousness and by that suggests that it is the essence of our being, not the physical “shell.” . “Also physics, especially its basis, quantum physics, which among other things suggests that it all/everything comes down to consciousness.
For me, and on these premises, the stories, legends, myths of the Old Testament are read differently, and also the NT, and especially the Book of Revelation, seems to be much clearer to me at least.
I do not disagree with what you write, but I have a hunch that they are trying to convey a deeper theological message, hence my suggestion above. To me, I see a scriptural pattern, and a message about the relationship between the human spirit and God, and in my mind a message from its spiritual source/unity and the return to this unity.
Prof Bart, I have noticed that you use the term ‘Old Testament’ interchangeably with the term ‘Hebrew Bible’. And from time to time, the term ‘New Testament’ interchangeably with the term ‘Christian Bible’. Is there a reason for doing that? I find the use of the term OT is derogatory to the Jewish faith, indicating that the NT has now taken precedence over the OT, which is not the case. The Hebrew Bible remains that of the Tanach, being The Torah, The Prophets and The Writings. The Christian Bible is an add on only, just like The Book of Mormon is an add on to the Christian Bible.
I used to find it derogatory to the Jewish religion too, until I started teaching with Jewish colleagues who used it! Even so, I tend (or try to tend) to use Hebrew Bible when I’m referring to the Scripture of the Jews, and Old Testament when referring to the same books as used by Christians. By “Christian Bible” I usually mean OT and NT together. I imagine I mix up usages, though, even thought this is my intent.
A thought experiment question for Bart:
A trusted colleague tells you that an intact, complete book from the New Testament has been found in a tomb dated around 100 AD. This is most probably an original or first copy of one of the 27 books.
Which book would you most hope it to be and why? What would be your second choice?
Probably Mark, both because it’s our earliest Gospel and my personal favorite.
As I understand it, Christians were not the first to reinterpret the Prophets as predicting events long past the Prophets’ own day, which raises the question: is there any data to go on as to who was?
We can’t know who was first, no, since we have so few writings left. But this was a common mode of interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you look up the Habakkuk commentary, you’ll see.