(22 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...I have been providing necessary background to the question of whether Jesus could have considered himself the messiah, and have done so by trying to situate him in the world of first century Jewish apocalyptic thinking. We now need to move to a summary of Jesus’ teaching given that apocalyptic framework.
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.
I recall your earlier post on the Son of Man and I for one would like more from you on why you think Jesus didn’t call himself the Son of Man. He calls himself that in every Gospel although Paul never mentions it.
Yes, I need to ask that to the list of things to do soon!
Dr. Ehrman,
After all the reading on the historical Jesus I’ve done over the past several years (including at least 5 or 6 of your books), I’m pretty much convinced that this is the Jesus of history: a doomsday preacher and prophet bent on getting himself and his hand-picked followers into the presently arriving kingdom of God. And it appears to me that Jesus’ message was not as universal as later christians make it, seeing as how so much of what Jesus purportedly said was couched in mystical, almost occultic language. That is to say he seemed to be intentionally imitating the mystery religions (esp. the pagans) that were common during that time and place by reserving his prophecies and preaching only for those selected few who could “get” it, cf. “Seek and you shall find” and a man finding a hidden treasure in a field, buying the field and digging up the treasure. He’s really big on the pretense of divulguing hidden knowledge, something that is the stock-in-trade of conmen and charlatans. When a message is ostensibly secret it makes the receiver feel special and, therefore, the receiver tends to value the message more. That’s basically what Jesus seems to be doing, pretending that he is imparting some secret knowledge and, therefore, he gains the loyalty and respect of his disciples.
Anyhow, what I’m wondering is, if this is the message Jesus is preaching, and this is the message his disciples are receiving, then when Jesus died before any of this doomdays stuff could happen, what are we to say about how the disciples reacted? It seems they had only two options: realize that Jesus was wrong and move on, or assume this is all part of the plan and to try to figure out what to do next. It seems the disciples chose the latter option.
My view is that the first option is right, and remained right until the point at which the disciples came to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and that absolutely changed everything.
Yes, but how much of their belief in Jesus’ resurrection was actually based on the visions and how much was what psychologists would consider the defense mechanism of actively denying a painful reality and grasping at all possible justifications for denying that painful reality? I would think that if the disciples were truly, at first, convinced that Jesus was wrong they wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of finding reasons Jesus wasn’t wrong. So in that sense they saw their visions of Jesus as the continuation of a lesson that was still incomplete upon Jesus’ death.
Visions are caused by all sorts of factors: sometimes people see things because they are really there (that would be a veridical vision) other times because of psychological states they are in when the thing is not really there (a nonveridical vision). There are all sorts of states that can create visions. The disciples — a couple of them, at least — were ocnvinced they saw Jesus alive afterward. They had no reason to doubt what they saw (and what they heard others saw).
I tend to agree with you on this, at least it reconciles some issues in my own mind, however there’s so much that is wrong about it. I have great difficulty believing that his body was turned over to anyone before it literally fell – or, more likely, rotted – off of the cross. We seem content to step over the malodorous malarkey that is the character of Joseph of Arimathea; a man that steps out of nowhere, from a town no one has ever heard of nor can locate, in order to get Pilate (PILATE no less!) to hand over the body of a poor, uneducated, Jewish malcontent so they can observe some Hebrew law about burial. I can not see Pilate of all people, sent back to Rome for his brutal, inhumane, treatment of the local population, just allowing this to happen. The disciplines all went back to attending services at the Temple after Jesus dies, and 40 or 50 years or so later a writer tells us, voila! a resurrection occurs. I’m sure that changed everything except that Jesus was supposed to be fulfilling prophecy about a coming Son of Man, a Messiah, etc. and his execution should have put the whole idea to an end.
Bart, this brings up a question I’ve never settled in my mind. You’ve said Paul was reacting to the disciples’ early claims that Jesus appeared to them (which means Paul’s later conversion vision didn’t “invent” the gospels’ later accounts—a point well taken). But here’s my question: In Galatians Paul seems to mention a period of seventeen years before he went to Jerusalem for a second time after his conversion. I know some scholars say it was fourteen years (they say the three years in Galatians 1:18 should be included in the fourteen years in Galatians 2:1). In your view, how many years was it—fourteen or seventeen?
A quick related question: In your view, what is the most likely date for the Galatians 2:1 visit?
P.s. I won’t even bother asking you about how this visit relates to Acts (but you can volunteer the extra answer if you’re feeling charitable!).
I think Paul was converted around 33 CE. Three years later, ca 36 CE, he made his first trip to Jerusalem. 17 years later, ca, 53 CE, he went the second time. But I’m not dogmatic on whether it was really 17 years or 14 (14 gets you the nice round number 50 CE, which is useful for Paul’s chronology)
I don’t believe Jesus was saying that only he and his followers would attain the Kingdom–this would be one tiny Kingdom–more of a Hamlet of God, really. He thought all people of faith would be there, and not only Jews.
One of your best…as with the Scriptures, frugal in words, powerful in truth, simple enough for the most stubborn of minds….
Dr. Eheman,
Do you think that Jesus had a view of Yahweh that differed significantly from that of the average Jew of his time? I have difficulty reconciling some of Yahweh’s commands, such as the one to kill all of the civilians in the villages that Joshua and others conquered, with the command of Jesus to love one’s enemies. Did Jesus really think that Yahweh had flooded the whole world, killing women, children, babies, (and kittens), or could he perhaps have interpreted the story of Noah metaphorically?
My sense is that Jesus had a traditional understanding of Scripture as a literal explanation of what had happened in the past.
There’s a lot we can never know, but this I believe–he genuinely cared about people–when the leper says “You could heal me if you wanted to” he says “Of course I want to.” He wanted people to have a better life, and as a poor and little-educated man, the only means he had at his disposal was faith–not just in God, but in the ability of ordinary people to become more–for the last to be first. He was, in that sense, a true revolutionary, in the best possible sense of that word.
Maybe he began to think he was Messiah because he wanted so much to believe he could change the world for the better–and perhaps, by sacrificing his life, trigger the change. And when it didn’t happen…..
Sometimes it makes me want to tremble.
This was supposed to be a response to your response to me below–sorry about that.
if Jesus had a “traditional” or literal understanding of the bible, and it would be difficult to imagine that he didn’t, what has been your experience on how Christians that don’t have a literal understanding of the bible reconcile this idea. That Jesus (God) believed literally in some of the more difficult to believe stories of the Old Testament, but they don’t?
My sense is that Jesus believed literally in all the stories of the Bible.
But why would God need anyone to rule in his place? And did Jesus think there would be no death in the Kingdom? That he and everyone else would enjoy physical immortality? If Jesus thought of himself as a man, not an aspect of God, this seems like a contradiction. He clearly thought anyone could perform the same miracles he believed he had performed, if he or she had enough faith. In the Kingdom, everyone would have the same faith, therefore everyone would be equal–since it was kingship itself, the rich having power over the poor, that had created the evil state of the world they lived in.
Did Jesus really believe he’d be a king sitting on a throne, ruling for all time? Or merely a temporary regent, a figurehead, entirely subordinate to God, chosen to help transition all who were worthy into the new state of existence? And did he believe in an afterlife? Not all Jews did, of course. Paul believed in the physical resurrection of the dead, as a Pharisee. Was the earth simply going to be part of heaven now? If so, then how could he meaningfully be king when God ruled both realms directly? Was he really aspiring to be Herod to God’s Caesar?
The problem with religious language is that the literal and the metaphorical can blend together to the point where you can’t tell where one begins and the other leaves off.
Yup, that’s a huge problem. What Jesus htought about such things in detail is, in my judgment, impossible to know.
Need to Prepare.
I so appreciate Amy Jill Levine and what she has to say about who it is who gets into “Heaven” or, shall we say, God’s Kingdom on earth, according to the teachings of Jesus. So as you allow me to, Bart, I am providing the clip in which she makes clear, as do you, how it is that Jesus expected his followers (even us) to prepare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6-FMWnbTvE
The point I wish to stress starts at 22:00 and ends at 27:00, or thereabout.
It is only an 8-minute video: one cannot get to 22 minutes.
If Jesus preached about a coming Son of Man, and his followers post resurrection quickly identified Jesus himself as this coming Son of Man, why is there no trace of this title in Paul’s writings? Maybe it developed later in Q interpretations, or, if Goodacre is right about Q, maybe Mark was the first to connect Jesus with one like a Son of Man from the book of Daniel.
My sense is that Paul didn’t use the title (though he used the concept, e.g., in 1 Thess 4:14-18) because it would have made very little sense to the gentile audience to which he was writing.
No less than ‘Christ’ would have been nonsensical to Paul’s Gentile audience.
Good point. The difference is that Christ was becoming an actual name.
I have never been convinced of that. It is frequently asserted, but I have never seen any good arguments put forward for why ‘Christ’ should be considered (almost) a name in Paul’s letters. It seems like good Jewish titular usage to me. Perhaps you could advance a credible argument?
Well, if Christ does not have the article in Greek then it’s hard to see how it is a title. (as in “Jesus Christ,” as opposed to “The Christ”)
But the article can be left off in Hebrew and still be titular. See, for example, 4Q252 5:3-4:
עד בוא משיח הצדק צמח דויד
until the coming of Messiah, the righteous branch of David
This is still quite common in Hebrew and among Jews speaking other languages today.
Yes, the issue I raised had to do with Greek, since that was the language of Paul and the other NT writers.
Of course, but Greek influenced by ideas and usage absorbed from Hebrew and Aramaic texts, traditions, and usage. You already admit that the term Xristos in Greek did not ordinarily carry anything like the meaning it had in Hebrew and Aramaic. Paul’s usage reflects earlier Jewish usage at Qumran, as I have cited, and later Jewish usage in the Talmud, where it is also said that ‘Messiah’ is used as a name (Jewish Encyclopedia, Messiah), but obviously this usage in no way detracts from the titular sense of the term in the Talmud. With respect to the inadequacy of Nils Dahl’s Greek criteria for questioning the titular character of Paul’s use of Xristos, see Matthew V. Novenson (2010). Can the Messiahship of Jesus Be Read off Paul’s Grammar? Nils Dahl’s Criteria 50 Years Later. New Testament Studies, 56, pp 396-412.
In Hebrew and Aramaic, son of man actually has a meaning, while in Greek son of man is a meaningless expression. The expression comes from the Hebrew “ben Adam”, which means literally a son of Adam, but usually means, figuratively, a human being–i.e. all human beings are the descendents of Adam. The Hebrew version appears throughout the OT with this meaning of a human being, or, as in the case of Ezekiel, a being that appears human. The expression was then carried into Aramaic as “bar nash” or “bar enash”, which literally means a son of a man, but, again, figuratively means a human being. Sometimes in Aramaic bar enash can be an indirect way of refering to the speaker, kind of like how in English we might say “When a man’s hungry, he eats,” which is to say “If I’m hungry, I’m going to eat.” Some scholars think that Jesus was using Son of Man as an indirect way of refering to himself (e.g. Geza Vermas), and some scholars think Jesus is refering to Daniel’s Son of Man–some think both. The fact of the matter is that, again, this expression only makes sense in the semitic languages and is meaningless in Greek, so it’s likely that the original Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the gospel were riddled with references to the son of man, and so the men who later composed the Greek redactions preserved the semitic sense of son of man by transliterating it Son of Man in the Greek, most likely for the sake of consistency, and not because a Greek reader would know what “son of man” means.
Two questions:
1. How does Islamic apocalypticism differ from that described above? Was the Islamic version copied from the Christian version?
2. Is Christianity best understood as a religion that copied pagan myths or are there distinctive features in it, such as a virgin birth, that were not present in pagan myths?
Thanks.
1. I don’t know! 2. Yes, like every other religion, Xty is both like the religions of its environment and unlike, in having some distinctive features of its own. Some pagan religions knew of women who conceived through gods, but none knew of any who did that while remaining a virgin.
I can detail a bit of the Islamic perspective if anyone is interested. Wouldn’t want to start an off topic discussion without permission though.
There are definitely similarities. Most Muslims agree on a certain end time events.
Give them!!!
Hi Bart. I probably shouldn’t admit this to you, but I have just read Earl Doherty’s book “The Jesus Puzzle” for the second time, and am now rereading your book “Did Jesus Exist?” for the third time. (I don’t mean I have read and reread them one after the other. I have read a lot of other books in between). I must say I did find Earl Doherty’s book very well written and well argued. One of the things I found quite compelling is the idea that the Jesus stories reflect the experience and traditions of a community rather than just being some kind of biography of one amazing lower class itinerant preacher. To what extent do you think the sayings of Jesus in the gospels reflect the wider views and traditions of his community rather than being all his own work.? From Paul we learn that James and some of Jesus’ brothers for example were part of the same movement. Perhaps they didn’t start out as disbelievers as suggested in some of the gospels. Perhaps they always shared the same outlook. What do you reckon?
Yes, it is a standard scholarly view that the words of Jesus reflect the interests and views of the communities that circulated his sayings after his death. The historical task is to figure out which of the sayings may actually go back to Jesus himself given that circumstance. I deal with that at some length in my forthcoming book Jesus Before the Gospels.
Well, this is certainly ONE view of the teachings of Jesus – and it certainly mirrors the view of (modern) Christian fundamentalism, to be sure, or perhaps what one we would hear from a former Fundamentalist.
Where are his OTHER teachings? What weight are we giving THEM? None?
Every teaching of Jesus isn’t a nail that needs an “apocalypse” to hammer it home. Jesus surely meant to drive home the idea that Jews had disobeyed God and that a judgement was coming. This was 1) no different than what the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible had done and 2) had the benefit of being true, based on his reading of Judean society in the AD30s. (Assuming, of course, his words were written before, or spoken before, AD70, which Mark surely was, and there’s no reason to believe an early version of the Logia of Jesus didn’t contain them.)
But he also had MORAL teachings, and I believe he intended to set up a “school” of Judaism, which perhaps had universal appeal even to Gentiles, but perhaps not. Modern Orthodox teachings pooh-pooh his teachings as either irrelevant or part of another “dispensation,” but these are later theological interpretations. There’s no reason to believe – and great reason TO believe (i.e. the inclusion in Q) that these teachings were KEY to the kingdom which Jesus was seeking to usher in. Noting, of course that Mark speaks in the language of URGENCY and NOW-ness – the Kingdom wasn’t far off, it was present WITH Jesus.
No, I’m afraid this understanding of Jesus’ teachings is not at all what Christian fundamentalists think about the matter.
Bottom line, Dr. Ehrman, Jesus wasn’t “just” an apocalyptic preacher, and yes, this is the only thing Fundies see when they read about Jesus’ ministry, and that’s his only role, to them.
Fascinating things to ponder as always!
How do we handle Jesus’ words in Luke 17:20 – “the kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed…”
Also, (not to sound argumentative), but there seem to be ample instances of Jesus speaking of the “Son of Man” in the past tense or in a way that seems very clearly to refer to himself. Would you suggest that these references are things that Jesus never actually said?
Yes, my view is that these sayings (including Luke 17:20) are not things he really said. I’ll have to explain in a future post.
If one really thinks about it, Jesus was telling people to show compassion for others, and do what we’d consider “good works,” for a basically *selfish* reason: so they themselves would be admitted to the Kingdom!
Or a *humble* reason…perhaps this is the way they thought of it. For the sake of the Lord who made them, no showing off nor arrogance but out of the compassion he placed in their hearts.
If stars are watchers; and watchers are subordinate entities; and angels and demons are subordinate entities; and constellations are collections of stars personified into characters; Aren’t all of these characterizations destroyed each and every morning with the coming of dawn? Aren’t they present in the darkness and destroyed by the return of the almighty light? Can’t the Kingdom be a zone within the pathway and journey of the sun and the arrival of the new kingdom simply be the new home of the sun; a new demarcation point on the backdrop of the cosmic canvas? Can’t the milk of the word be misunderstood by the uninitiated?
Interesting idea. I’m not sure anyone in antiquity thought of it this way.
It explains a lot when you re-read it with this presupposition. You have to begin by investigating the methodology of time keeping. Names of Days and Months. Why is October not the eighth month, September not the seventh, December not the 10th, then move backwards from there. If you haven’t incorporated these questions into the mix, you’re drinking milk.
Err, because in Ancient Rome, March 1 was the first day of the year….the beginning of the campaign season (Mars…). Make mine a milkshake!
I think you graduated from milk. So no milkshake.
OT: I keep thinking about something that has nothing to do with theology…but might suggest that a Gospel reference is believable, and even that “Joseph of Arimathea” could have claimed Jesus’s body.
Bart has said he’s not aware of any mention of breaking of legs during crucifixions prior to the Gospels. But the Wikipedia article on crucifixions includes this paragraph, about practices in “ancient” Rome itself:
“The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.”
This refers to Rome…and possibly, a much earlier date. But if it’s true, it’s interesting that no one guarded the bodies after the victims had died. One might infer that no one would be likely to want them (filthy, bloody, stinking, and probably nailed to the crosses); but if they cared enough to remove them, they could have them.
If the “leg-breaking” part of that tradition had endured till the time of Jesus, it might also have been customary for crosses to be left unguarded once the victims were dead. Perhaps especially in a case like Jesus’s: the “guards” might have been soldiers who’d accompanied Pilate to Jerusalem, and would leave with him.
The source Wikipedia cited for that quote: Retief FP, Cilliers L (December 2003). “The history and pathology of crucifixion”. South African Medical Journal 93 (12): 938–41. PMID 14750495.
Obviously, that isn’t a primary source. I tried to access the article online (to learn whether it in turn was footnoted), but couldn’t get beyond the Abstract.
I did learn that the principal author, Francois P. Retief, is a Research Fellow in the Department of English and Classical Culture, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
The University’s website enables you to send messages to staffers, including your name and e-mail address. I tried asking Prof. Retief – very politely! – if he could let me know the source for the statements in that article; but that was several weeks ago, and he hasn’t e-mailed me. There could be a number of explanations: possibly, that he’s simply too busy to reply to someone who acknowledged being just an interested layperson – not even a college student, let alone a professional.
Maybe if others were to try?
My guess is that the author’s “source” will be the Gospels of the New Testament!!
Jesus’s message from Deuteronomy 6:4-6 is: “You should love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength.” But how are people supposed to love the Lord, aka YHWH.
How can people love someone or something they do not know?
The comeback to that question usually is: “If you love someone, then you do what that someone asks of you.” Therefore, people are obliged to keep the commandments. However, wouldn’t that be a manifestation of obedience, not love.
The message in Deut. 6:4-6 is to love YHWH — fully committed and with passion and power, not merely to obey.
How do scholars and/or theologians explain in practical terms the fulfillment of this commandment so central to both Judaism and Christianity?
It is obviously interpreted very widely indeed. But it is usually thought that for the ancient Israelite, God *was* “known” — and loving him meant acting faithfully toward him as he had acted faithfully toward his people….
Re “knowing” God…
When I was a schoolgirl, we had to learn and recite this passage:
“Who made me?
“God made me.
“Why did God make me?
“God made me to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this life, and be happy with Him forever in Heaven.”
Looking back on that even a few years later, I could see that we *weren’t* being given an opportunity to “know” God. And how could anyone be expected to “love” a Being who’d created him or her even partly to *serve* Him – presumably, with no choice in the matter? Sounds like *slavery* to me!
Can you help me understand under what sect of Judaism Jesus and his followers would have gotten their understanding of the devil? In Jewish thought, and the Jewish scriptures, The Satan is a messenger from God (an angel) who has no actual free will, and only does God’s bidding- as in tempting people to see if they will stay loyal to God. This is a much different idea than in Christianity where Satan becomes an enemy of God, and represents evil toward humanity.
The idea of Satan as a devil was found in various forms of Jewish apocalypticism.
hello Bart
there are many people argue that the message of jesus was not universal he was prophet for the jews and one can see that in the gospels . how do you interpret what jesus said in mathhew and mark
Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Matthew 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It is usually understood that during his public ministry Jesus was dealing only with Jews. After his death, his disciples decided then to take his message to gentiles.
I agree, the summary of this particular subject has so many different angles and subcategories. I agree with Bart and MMamed. He was a local preacher that never preached outside of his community. To further paraphrase what you have written in your books his disciples did not understand the concept of Son of Man totally. They did not understand him to be the literal son of God. He did not see himself as the definite article “Son of God” “Son of Man”. Xty has an issue defining him as the indefinite article vs definite article of God. You in fact have show similar people or angelic beings taking these titles as well. So here is my final point. The disciples gained this new found belief according to the gospels after the death with visions that he was more than previously thought. So if they were to go and teach the Good News that he would return in their lifetime there is NO way the entire world could obtain such information. This had to be only a local phenomenon. Remember the core of Xty is understanding Salvation only through the blood of Christ. We can’t have it both ways. There are ppl today that still do not know of Xty even with the invention of the internet. The disciples cannot be put into a position to spread a global message with the limited understanding of the person they thought Christ was only after his death. Is it better to have a near complete understanding of your boss/leader prior to spreading the knowledge to your subordinates. Leadership is key and must be CLEAR. What company would operated like this? Would Steve Jobs run apple like this? “Go and teach ppl the limited understanding of who I am” should be your next book. Simple and short.
This would have been easier if he preached from DAY ONE: I’M THE CHRIST, THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF MAN, AND ALSO YOUR GOD. THESE ARE THE THINGS YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND SPREAD FOR ALL HUMANITY. We never will see that type of immediate proclamation from him.
There was never clear mission of statement regarding ALL OF HUMANITY. He was in fact a local preacher. Remember your salvation is depending on you accepting something that was never fully understood. Thats my bottom line. I can see why ppl are atheist and/or agnostic.
I can’t say I’m fond of the notion that Jesus only intended salvation for a tiny cadre of elite people. He clearly wished everyone could be saved, but people had to save themselves, by altering their lives, and anyone who lived a good life could be saved. You’re acting as if there’s some contradiction between personal inner individual salvation and an outer world-wide universal conflagration, but suppose Jesus saw them as one and the same? And really, isn’t that true? Don’t all the changes people make to the real world around them begin from changes that occur within their hearts and minds?
It seems like you’d rather Jesus didn’t give a damn about the vast majority of humankind than that he might simply be WRONG sometimes. Why can’t he just be a good man who did his best, and failed? And in failing, inspired a movement that lives on to this day?
Jesus is alleged to have told his disciples that “some of you standing here shall not taste death till you see the son of man coming in his kingdom.” The pat answer that I get from most all evangelicals is that this was fulfilled at the transfiguration, as a “type” of coming. How would you respond to that, Bart?
The prediction is NOT “you will see my true identity.” The prediction is “you will see the kingdom of God.” They never saw that. And more important, he says “you will see the kingdom of God *having come in power*.” They *certainly* didn’t see *that*!
I just thought of this and I wanted to get your opinion on this. Mark 13:9, the section that states “and you will be beaten in synagogues” strikes me as likely a post-Jesus anachronism. I think Jesus the apocalyptic prophet would have focused his teachings on persecution from Romans, not their fellow Jews (God’s people who will be vindicated).
The more I look at it, the more Mark 13:9-13 seems like it could be a response to persecution that Christians are already facing when Mark is being written (persecution that Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger all mention). It seems like this could be less authentic teachings of Jesus and more a warning for Christians at the time (Mark 13:11 seems like instructions for Christians who may worry about facing this persecution – assurance that God will provide them with what to say should they stand trial).
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that at least this section (Mark 13:9-13) could be a reaction to events that took place *after* Jesus’ death, or do you think it more likely is a reflection of something Jesus probably taught?
Yes, absolutely, parts of the apocalytpic discourse (in Mark and Matthew especially) have been “updated” in light of later events.
Was Jesus called Yeshua ben Yosef or Yeshua bar Yosef?
bar would be the Aramaic.