Historical Jesus: 4 views

[felix dakat]

Here for your consideration are four non-traditional theories of the historical Jesus that I thought you might find interesting. I have read quite a bit of Crossan’s, Borg’s, writings and less of Maccoby’s and Ehrman’s but I find the latter two interesting as well. I’d like to know what you think of their theories.


John Dominic Crossan

Jesus the Wisdom Sage

In the work of John Dominic Crossan, there is a refreshing emphasis on methodology. To this end, Crossan has compiled a database of the attestation for the Jesus traditions by independent attestation and stratification, provided by Faith Futures Foundation in the links above. Crossan in The Historical Jesus explains that his methodology is to take what is known about the historical Jesus from the earliest, most widely attested data and set it in a socio-historical context. The bulk of the common sayings tradition shows itself to be specific to the situation that existed in the 20s of the first century in Galilee in which the agrarian peasantry were being exploited as the Romans were commercializing the area. The historical Jesus proves to be a displaced Galilean peasant artisan who had got fed up with the situation and went about preaching a radical message: an egalatarian vision of the Kingdom of God present on earth and available to all as manifested in the acts of Jesus in healing the sick and practicing an open commensality in which all were invited to share. The historical Jesus was an itinerant whose mode of teaching can be understood on analogy with the Cynic sage but who was nonetheless a Jew who believed that the kingdom was being made available by the God of Israel to his people. The revolutionary message of Jesus was seen to be subversive to the Roman vision of order and led to the fateful execution of Jesus by Pilate on a hill outside of Jerusalem.
In The Birth of Christianity, Crossan re-iterates an emphasis on methodology in laying out his presuppositions about the gospel texts as forming the basis for all of his other judgments about the historical Jesus and early Christianity. Among these are the existence of an early Cross Gospel reconstructed from the Gospel of Peter as elaborated in his tome The Cross that Spoke as well as his belief that the Gospel of John is dependent upon Mark. Crossan also explores the development of two different traditions from the historical Jesus, the Jerusalem tradition in which Jesus is believed to be the resurrected Christ, and the Q Gospel tradition in which Jesus is remembered as the founder of a way of life. For the former, Crossan reconstructs a group in the city of Jerusalem who shared everything in common and awaited the coming of Christ in power. For the latter, Crossan identifies Q, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Didache in which itinerants preach the teachings of Jesus and are supported by sometimes-critical communities. Both traditions are connected in their practice of share-meals and their origins in the historical Jesus.

Marcus Borg

Jesus the Man of the Spirit

Borg makes two negative claims about the historical Jesus: he was nonmessianic, which means that he didn't claim to be the Messiah or have a message focused on his own identity, and he was noneschatological, which means that he did not expect "the supernatural coming of the Kingdom of God as a world-ending event in his own generation" (Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, p. 29). Borg summarizes his view of the historical Jesus in these words: "he was a spirit person, subversive sage, social prophet, and movement founder who invited his followers and hearers into a transforming relationship with the same Spirit that he himself knew, and into a community whose social vision was shaped by the core value of compassion" (op. cit., p. 119). By "spirit person," Borg means that Jesus was a "mediator of the sacred" for whom the Spirit or God was a reality that was experienced. Based on his experience of the sacred, for the historical Jesus compassion "was the central quality of God and the central moral quality of a life centered in God" (op. cit., p. 46). Jesus spoke against the purity system in sayings like "blessed are the pure in heart" and in parables like that of the Good Samaritan. The historical Jesus challenged the purity boundaries in touching lepers as well as hemorrhaging women, in driving the money changers out of the temple, and in table fellowship even with outcasts. Jesus replaced an emphasis on purity with an emphasis on compassion. The historical Jesus spoke an alternative wisdom in aphorisms and parables that controverted the conventional wisdom based upon rewards and punishments. The earliest Christology of the Christian movement viewed Jesus as the voice of the Sophia. The images of Jesus as the Son of God and the Wisdom of God are metaphorical, just as much as the images of Jesus as the Lamb of God and the Word of God.

Hyam Maccoby

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change

Hyam Maccoby writes (8/5/01): "I write on Christian origins from the standpoint of a scholar of the ancient Jewish writings, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Midrashim. My view on Christian origins is that Jesus was a Jewish messiah-figure who had no intention of starting a new religion. The real founder of Christianity as a separate religion was Paul. Jesus died on a Roman cross because he was considered a threat to the Roman occupation of Judaea, not because he was regarded as heretical or blasphemous by the Jewish religious authorities, the Pharisees. His Jewish opponent was the High Priest, who was a Roman appointee, who acted for political, not religious motives, in arresting Jesus. Jesus was not a military figure, but, like Theudas, and some other contemporary messiah-figures, relied on the hope of divine intervention, which he thought would take place on the Mount of Olives."

Bart Ehrman

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

Bart Ehrman compares the historical Jesus to the apocalyptic prophets that have appeared throughout history proclaiming the end of the age. Ehrman argues that since John the Baptist was apocalyptic and since Paul was apocalyptic and since the Palestinian Jewish milieu was apocalyptic, it only makes sense that the historical Jesus was apocalyptic too. Ehrman argues that those documents with elements of realized eschatology - the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Thomas - prove to reflect the softening of apocalyptic expectation at the end of the first century or in the early second century. Ehrman proposes that the teachings ascribed to Jesus make sense as an "interim ethic" that is intended to apply to the short period of under a generation between the time of Jesus and the end of the age. Ehrman also makes sense of the cleansing of the Temple in the context of the eschatological expectations of the historical Jesus. Ehrman believes that the model of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet is the best lens with which to understand the life of the historical Jesus and the history of the movement that continued his legacy.

Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

[Jayson]

If you take the first three, mostly, then you have my standing in approach more or less.
The last one, toss that in the trash. It's actually just flawed to assume that because Paul was something that Jesus was too.
Luke and John don't decrease in apocalyptic sense; they increase.
Matthew (without the added ending) and Mark both largely absent the concept outright.
We also have no idea if John "the Baptist" was or was not an apocalyptic individual.
All alleged writings of this John are far too late coming and of radically different culture to be openly accepted as actually the ideals of the same John.

We have no direct evidence that this figure was akin to Paul in apocalyptic philosophy.
Personally, it would seem very odd to see a Northerner going on about apocalyptic visions.
Prophesy of such was more the taste of the Southern crowd where the recent Persian influences had aided in reconstructing the Hebrew religious order from shattered pieces of tribal law to a politically independent clerical class state system. Divining the fate of the people was pretty much the reason that people like Jesus were listened to in the South at all; because there was an interest eagerly for any way that could preserve the feared demise of their culture.
This wasn't paranoia, this was practical. They had every reason to be afraid of losing their culture after losing it already three primary times before; not to mention all of the very oppressive vassalship issues that had happened for a very long time.

They had not been an independent nation for a very, very long time; and that time in which they were was short lived.

But the Northerners; they were a different breed.
They hadn't the resources of Judah.
They were also more poorly outlined; who was on Hebrew land or not was less understood for them than in Judah.
They had to travel to use the Temple; it wasn't just over the hill.
They were the first point of entry for the Babylonians and Alexander the Great; and were the region where Hebrews appear anthropologically in the Highlands first notably before showing up in Judah.

This is an area of mass cultural sliding around, yet extremely religious to their Hebrew cultured faith.
It is unique because they had to practice and learn the Law without direct governance of the Law.
Winging it had to be permitted slightly more than it would have otherwise been.
And because this is where some very large Mediterranean key ports are located as well, this is a very versed culture that is itself simple - yet surrounded by elaborate displays of luxury of other occupying cultures.
You can see Greek structures from the Galilean sea as one approaches from the southern gully, for example.
Go fishing, see a Greek. Or perhaps a Nesian, or Assyrian, or....

The Egyptians and the Romans both reached the Northern province after the Southern. All others came about the Levant region counter to this approach and ran back and forth constantly over the Northern Levant region.

This is an unlikely backing for prophecy.
This is a likely backing for provoking social psychologies that learn how to preserve their presence with nothing physical to show for it.
How to exist between everything and still be your identity.
To be the authority of ones land without owning the land.
To be a people with an authority inherent in their nature by blood despite all lacking political authority.

But prophecy of doomsdays?
What doom?
They hadn't any wealth to fear losing in the North like the South.
What would they lose that hadn't already been taken?
They had been through plague and nine different primary rulings; 6 of which were within the past 6 hundred years.
This isn't really the grounds for dooms day sayings.
This is the grounds for resilient persistence to keep identity.

So for that, I have to dismiss the fourth.

[felix dakat]

If you take the first three, mostly, then you have my standing in approach more or less.
The last one, toss that in the trash. It's actually just flawed to assume that because Paul was something that Jesus was too.
Luke and John don't decrease in apocalyptic sense; they increase.
Matthew (without the added ending) and Mark both largely absent the concept outright.
We also have no idea if John "the Baptist" was or was not an apocalyptic individual.
All alleged writings of this John are far too late coming and of radically different culture to be openly accepted as actually the ideals of the same John.

We have no direct evidence that this figure was akin to Paul in apocalyptic philosophy.
Personally, it would seem very odd to see a Northerner going on about apocalyptic visions.
Prophesy of such was more the taste of the Southern crowd where the recent Persian influences had aided in reconstructing the Hebrew religious order from shattered pieces of tribal law to a politically independent clerical class state system. Divining the fate of the people was pretty much the reason that people like Jesus were listened to in the South at all; because there was an interest eagerly for any way that could preserve the feared demise of their culture.
This wasn't paranoia, this was practical. They had every reason to be afraid of losing their culture after losing it already three primary times before; not to mention all of the very oppressive vassalship issues that had happened for a very long time.

They had not been an independent nation for a very, very long time; and that time in which they were was short lived.

But the Northerners; they were a different breed.
They hadn't the resources of Judah.
They were also more poorly outlined; who was on Hebrew land or not was less understood for them than in Judah.
They had to travel to use the Temple; it wasn't just over the hill.
They were the first point of entry for the Babylonians and Alexander the Great; and were the region where Hebrews appear anthropologically in the Highlands first notably before showing up in Judah.

This is an area of mass cultural sliding around, yet extremely religious to their Hebrew cultured faith.
It is unique because they had to practice and learn the Law without direct governance of the Law.
Winging it had to be permitted slightly more than it would have otherwise been.
And because this is where some very large Mediterranean key ports are located as well, this is a very versed culture that is itself simple - yet surrounded by elaborate displays of luxury of other occupying cultures.
You can see Greek structures from the Galilean sea as one approaches from the southern gully, for example.
Go fishing, see a Greek. Or perhaps a Nesian, or Assyrian, or....

The Egyptians and the Romans both reached the Northern province after the Southern. All others came about the Levant region counter to this approach and ran back and forth constantly over the Northern Levant region.

This is an unlikely backing for prophecy.
This is a likely backing for provoking social psychologies that learn how to preserve their presence with nothing physical to show for it.
How to exist between everything and still be your identity.
To be the authority of ones land without owning the land.
To be a people with an authority inherent in their nature by blood despite all lacking political authority.

But prophecy of doomsdays?
What doom?
They hadn't any wealth to fear losing in the North like the South.
What would they lose that hadn't already been taken?
They had been through plague and nine different primary rulings; 6 of which were within the past 6 hundred years.
This isn't really the grounds for dooms day sayings.
This is the grounds for resilient persistence to keep identity.

So for that, I have to dismiss the fourth.

I don't know Jayson. The prophet Elijah was from the North (Samaria). Hosea, Amos, Joel and Jonah were all Northern Kingdom prophets too. A number of heavy weights in the Jesus scholarship field have held the eschatological prophet theory including Schweizter and Bultman. Check this out the argument of John Meier.

Meier argues strongly for the baptism of Jesus by John. Meier also argues that the historical Jesus, like the historical John, preached the Kingdom with a future sense, not just a present sense. "Jesus not only presented himself as the eschatological prophet of the coming kingdom of God, not only presented himself as the Elijah-like miracle-worker who made the future kingdom already effective and palpable to his followers, but at the same time presented hmself as a teacher who could tell Israelites how to observe the Law of Moses - indeed, who could even tell Israelites what they should or should not observe in the Law." (p. 1046) Meier states that an Elijah-like miracle-working eschatological prophet is not so readily relevant to us today as a domesticated "kindhearted rabbi who preached gentleness and love" (p. 1045). Yet, Meier says, the historical Jesus was such a prophet.

[Jayson]

Yes, to that kind of prophet, that of leading.
No, to apocolyptic prophecy, which defined the fourth proposition and comes with notes of doom and radical visions.

[felix dakat]

Ehrman begins the support for his theory with two facts:

1. Jesus association with John who was apocalyptic prophet
2. The early churches were apocalyptical communities

Apolcalypticist Jesus taught that an actual kingdom of god was coming to earth.

Mark 1:15 “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news."

This is an apocalyptic image. He’s not talking about heaven. There will be actual rulers. It will be an actual place. The 12 disciples will be judges. People can eat and drink and be thrown out of this kingdom. He was talking about a real physical kingdom. The people in power now are empowered by evil. When God’s kingdom comes those people will be taken out of power. There’s going to be a future judgment and the judgment is going to be universal in scope. Consider Mark 13 where Jesus says
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.” There would be a future judgment. Angels would be sent to gather people together and there would be a kind of cosmic destruction of the present order before the kingdom came.

This idea of a future judgment is the subject of a number of Jesus’ parables. For example Matthew 13, and Gospel of Thomas.
47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This is a parable of judgment in which at the end of the present age the Son of Man will destroy those who have sided with the forces of evil. This is a typical apocalyptical image of what will happen at the end of the present age.
Jesus calls the future agent of the coming judgment” the son of man”. In some of the passages referring to the son of man Jesus does not seem to be referring to himself. He is alluding to Daniel 7: 13-14 where after the four beasts the prophet has a vision of one like a son of man who comes on the clouds of heaven to who is given the glory and power and dominion forever and ever. The son of man is set in contrast to the wild beasts. There would be someone who comes from God that would be human like as opposed to these beast who are destroying the earth. Some apocalyptic authors took this image of one like the son of man to mean an actual individual, a judge, who would come from heaven . That seems to be the way Jesus himself is using the term as the actual title of a future cosmic judge who is going to overthrow the wicked kingdoms of earth. These saying pass the criterion of dissimilarity because Christian wouldn’t have been likely to make up saying in which it is unclear that Jesus himself is the future cosmic judge.

They also pass the test of textual credibility. There were other Jewish writers who were saying roughly the same thing at roughly the same time about a future judgment. For example the apocalyptical text First Enoch chapter 69 “And the son of man sat on the thrown of his glory and the whole judgment was given to him. And he will cause the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from the face of the earth. Those who led astray the world will be bound in chains and will be shut up in the assembly place of their destruction. And all their works will pass from the face of the earth. And from then on there will be nothing corruptible. For that Son of Man has appeared and has sat on the throne of his glory and everything evil will pass away and be gone from before him.”

This passage sounds very similar to what Jesus is saying about a coming kingdom brought in by judgment by this Son of Man. This judgment would involve a serious reversal of fortunes for people on earth. Those in power now would be removed from power. Those who are oppressed now will be exalted then. When God overcomes the sources of evil those empowered by evil will be taken out of power. That’s why Jesus says the one who exalts himself will be humbled and the one who humbles himself will be exalted. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. [Mark 10:31} Luke 13:30} These were apocalyptic realities for Jesus.

This theme of reversal is the theme of some of Jesus’ best known least understood teachings: the beatitudes. What’s important about the beatitudes are the verb tenses.
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Notice the tenses people are blessed now because of what is going to happen to them then. Why? Because there is going to be a reversal of fortunes when the son of Man arrives. It’s in the future kingdom that these blessing are going to take place. Such people have sided with the side that is out of power now. But when God brings in the kingdom it will come to those who are beaten down poor hungry and persecuted. That’s why the beatitudes have the verb tenses they do.
The coming kingdom Jesus talked about did not have to do only with individuals but also governments and institutions. The governments in control now are controlled by the evil forces. The kingdom of God will overthrow those kingdoms. The grand and glorious temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed at the coming of the Son of Man. Animal sacrifices could only be made in the temple according to Mosaic law.

Mark 13
1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.”
There are numerous examples of Jewish prophets predicting the destruction of the temple. Jesus quotes Jeremiah who predicted the destruction of the temple in his own day. The Essenes also believed that the institution of the temple had become corrupt and would be overthrown by God. This particular teaching got Jesus in trouble with the ruling authorities who were in charge of the temple and had the ear of Pontius Pilate. Jesus predicted that this would happen in his own generation.

Jesus spent the bulk of his teaching proclaiming how people should live in preparation for the arrival of the Son of Man. His moral teaching are understood in the context his own apocalyptical teachings. His ethical teachings are meant to show people how to live now in order to escape judgment when the Son of Man arrives. Since it was the humble who would be exalted in the coming kingdom Jesus’ followers should be humble servant not exalted masters. If you want to be great you need to be a slave of others. The weak and the powerless would inherit the Jesus followers should become like children. Since the rich would lose their power at the judgment of the Son of man, Jesus’ followers should give away their material possession which would soon pass away when the kingdom came. It was not the upright that would enter into the kingdom but the sinners. Luke 18:9-14
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Jesus taught that it was the wicked not the righteous who would be brought into the kingdom. Mathew 21:31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

Sayings of Jesus from the earliest sources support the view that he was an apocalypticist expecting the imminent intervention of God in the world. Jesus taught that a day of judgment was coming in which a cosmic figure the Son of Man would arrive in power destroying all who were opposed to God even the leaders and leading institutions of the Jews and rewarding those who had done what God really wanted in accordance with Jesus’ own teachings. The appearing of the Son of Man was imminent and people needed to prepare. That’s why Jesus’ message was so urgent. It’s also why he made his final and fatal trip to Jerusalem at the Passover feast sometime around the year 30. To bring his message to the heart of Judaism in view of its imminent danger

[Jayson]

Ehrman begins the support for his theory with two facts:
1. Jesus association with John who was apocalyptic prophet
2. The early churches were apocalyptical communities

The second point is irrelevant.
What followers do does not inherently suggest any fact about what the individual may have been doing or not.
Yes, the logic would seem valid to think that the teachings of Jesus would be carried out by those early on in an understood fashion similar to how Jesus would have understood them, but that would only be true if we had Hebrew adherents of his same culture and writings from them.
We haven't either of those things. Our earliest groups of Christians that left their dogmatic understandings behind are quite a time after Jesus in regards to generations, and are also in a different culture by the time their dogmas arrive.

In regards to the first point; we haven't a single piece of evidence to support that John was apocalyptic (see my description of this word below) outside of Christian tradition.

Apolcalypticist Jesus taught that an actual kingdom of god was coming to earth.

We cannot assume an inherent apocalyptic attitude of them, but the content accredited to his teachings are quite clearly outlining an actual happening that is being forecasted.


Reading over the rest....perhaps we have a terminological difference of understanding here.
When I say he's not apocalyptic clearly, I am referring to epic accounts of metaphysical doom.

If we are instead keeping within the mindset of his culture and sociology and refer to the actual coming of change, then yes, he was apocalyptic in this sense; temporally apocalyptic, rather than metaphysically apocalyptic.

We can certainly understand that Jesus believed that the conditions he was describing were things which would absolutely happen.
And in reflection, he was correct if we look at it in temporally apocalyptic fashion and maintain his cultural symbolism related to the words he used within the context of his peoples cultural comprehension.

As I said, the Northern practice of religion was quite appropriately interested in transient preservation; preserving what was the essence of a thing regardless of how it was approached or seen.
They were interested in transcending the limitation of physically not being in control, but still needing to exist as an identity.

From this cultural perspective it is more as to rhetoric than prophecy to state that the world around you will crumble and fall apart; that a day of judgement will be upon you during that time and that your true heart will be revealed and determined.

I can't think of a more accurate account of every major societies downfall era in history than this.

He also appears convinced that the pure living breath of the nature of the pure human will approach, an enlightenment, as well.
That regardless of form, the essence of this ideal will be preserved and continued - the pursuits of his ideals of community and morality therein.

This, he absolutely appears to be teaching.

Mythical firestorms of the end of the world and harvesting of souls?
No, I'm not getting that from this rather contextually applicable Galilean Hebrew.

So when I say no to apocalyptic, I am stating no to the epic mythology of apocalyptic literature rather than remarking on the prophetic nature of Jesus' forecast for his society.

[felix dakat]

Mythical firestorms of the end of the world and harvesting of souls?
No, I'm not getting that from this rather contextually applicable Galilean Hebrew. So when I say no to apocalyptic, I am stating no to the epic mythology of apocalyptic literature rather than remarking on the prophetic nature of Jesus' forecast for his society.

Did you miss this?

Consider Mark 13 where Jesus says:
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”

[felix dakat]

Apocalypticists maintained that god was going to overthrow the forces of this world in order to bring in an order of peace and justice in which he himself would reside as king probably through some kind of intermediary. This kingdom would arrive only after a massive destruction of the governments and institutions of this evil age. People who had sided with the forces of evil that are now in control of this age would themselves enter into judgment. Those who had sided with the forces of good and had suffered as a result would be rewarded when God’s kingdom came. Moreover, people would be raised from the dead to face judgment so people couldn’t just die and get away from doing evil. They would be raised from the dead and have to face judgment. The kingdom of God was going to be brought about by some kind of figure from heaven, a cosmic judge who would appear on the clouds of heaven as judge of the earth. This cosmic judgment of God was soon going to happen. According to apocalypticists such as the Essene community who were responsible for the production of the dead sea scrolls, God’s final act of judgment was going to occur in the near future.
Ehrman adduces evidence, some of which I have reproduced above, that shows that Jesus held to some such view. So, it looks like Ehrman has a strong case for the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth like many of his compatriots in the first century was a Jewish apocalypticist.

[Jayson]

Mythical firestorms of the end of the world and harvesting of souls?
No, I'm not getting that from this rather contextually applicable Galilean Hebrew. So when I say no to apocalyptic, I am stating no to the epic mythology of apocalyptic literature rather than remarking on the prophetic nature of Jesus' forecast for his society.

Did you miss this?

Consider Mark 13 where Jesus says:
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”

No, I just don't read anything in that contextually that would be common to a literal proclamation of these events.
These events have culturally symbolic terms which when you remove the context, sure, sound fantastically theatrical and epic.

[felix dakat]

Mythical firestorms of the end of the world and harvesting of souls?
No, I'm not getting that from this rather contextually applicable Galilean Hebrew. So when I say no to apocalyptic, I am stating no to the epic mythology of apocalyptic literature rather than remarking on the prophetic nature of Jesus' forecast for his society.

Did you miss this?

Consider Mark 13 where Jesus says:
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”

No, I just don't read anything in that contextually that would be common to a literal proclamation of these events.
These events have culturally symbolic terms which when you remove the context, sure, sound fantastically theatrical and epic.

You could say that about all apocalyptical literature. The family resembIance of the language, as Wittgenstein would call it, is unmistakable. More importantly, this passage is categorically apocalyptic as defined above.

Ehrman points out that the apocalyptical thrust of Jesus’ message puts a new light on his ethical teachings. It changes our perspective on other words of Jesus which can be accepted as authentic within their own historical context. Many people today consider Jesus to be one of the greatest ethical teachers of all time. With his stress on the law to love your neighbor as yourself and the golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This stress on Jesus as ethical teacher is of course true. Jesus did teach ethics and many of his teachings have come down to us today as perfect examples of how people ought to live. But it’s important for us to understand that the meaning of Jesus’ ethical teachings may have been quite different in his own context from their meaning in ours. In our context ethical teachings assist us in knowing how to get along with one another so that we can build a more healthy and wholesome society allowing us to have peace and prosperity over the long haul.

But, as Ehrman show in the arguments above, for Jesus, there was not going to be a long haul. The son of man was soon to come in judgment and people needed to prepare for his coming by acting in ways that showed they sided with God rather than with the forces of evil that were opposed to him. Jesus’ ethical teachings, in other words, were ethics of the coming kingdom. They both reflected what life would be like in the kingdom and qualified a person to enter into it once it arrived.

In the kingdom there would be no hatred, so, people should love one another now. In the kingdom there would be no oppression, so people ought to work for justice now. In the kingdom there would be no war, so people should work for peace now. In the kingdom there would be no sexism, so people should work for equality now.

Only those who live in ways that are appropriate to the kingdom would be allowed to enter into it when it arrived. It would be a mistake to think that these ethical teachings of Jesus could be understood apart from considering them apart from considering them in relationship to the Jewish law. For in fact, as we’ve seen before, Jesus in fact was fully Jewish in every way. And, he embraced the Jewish law and saw himself as a principle proponent and interpreter of that law. Jesus has to be understood as himself being fully Jewish. Among other things this means that Jesus presupposed in all of his teachings ideas that were central to Judaism at his time which virtually every Jew in his time subscribed to.

Every Jew that we know about in that world subscribed to three major ideas that put them over against the pagans of their environment in the Greco-Roman world. First, Jew were monotheistic They believed in only one God who was the creator of all things. Everybody else of course was a polytheist believing in many gods. Jesus naturally presuppose the existence of one God and since his ministry is almost entirely consisting with Jews, he doesn’t go to any great length to prove there is only one God or to try to exposit on the nature of the one God. He simply assumes that there is only one God as did the other Jews that he is speaking with.

2) Jews in that environment believed that God had made a covenant with his people Israel. He had made an agreement, treaty or a pact with the people of Israel to be their God so long as they would be his people. This covenant, God had made with the people of Israel goes all the way back to the time of the Jewish ancestors. God made a covenant with Abraham that his descendents would be a people of God. He made a covenant with Moses that involved choosing the people and saving them from their slavery in exchange for them keeping his commandment.

3) Jesus also subscribed to the idea of the law. The law of God was given by God to Moses to instruct his people both how to worship him and how to live in community together. Jews accepted the idea God’s law had been given to them as the covenant people of God. And Jesus accepted the law as well. It would be a completely false idea to think of Jesus as somebody who was opposed to the law of Moses or who tried to set up a new religion that was against the law. Jesus did not understand himself as someone who opposed the law. On the contrary, Jesus understood himself as an interpreter of the law. To be Jewish in Jesus’ day meant in part to embrace the law that God was believed to have given to Moses as this law was embodied in the first five books of what we think of as the Hebrew Bible—the Torah. These five books were in existence in Jesus’ day and were seen as scriptural authority by virtually all Jews that we know about. Jesus himself appealed to this law and interpreted it.

The idea that Jesus understood himself as an interpreter of the law and saw the law as important for Jewish life and for what we might think of as ethics is attested throughout many of the early gospel traditions. The idea of Jesus as interpreter of the law is independently attested. One of the most interesting passages with respect to Jesus and the law is found in our earliest account, the Gospel of Mark in chapter 10. This is a story that Ehrman thinks probably passes the criterion of authenticity , and therefore probably goes back to Jesus.

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’[d]”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Ehrman says he is not sure that the entire story as it is framed in Mark goes back to Jesus, but he thinks that the kernel of the story probably is historical though because it passes the criteria of dissimilarity. Christians would probably not have made up a story that said if you want to have eternal; life all you have to do is keep the commandments and then on top of the commandments simply give away all you possessions. Why? Because Jesus thought that the only way to have eternal; life was to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus .There is nothing about belief here. Simply follow the commandments and give away your possessions and you will receive eternal life. If Christians didn’t make up the story then why is it in the tradition? Probably this is a story that goes back to Jesus. It portrays Jesus as somebody who is firmly committed to the law of Moses. What must you do to have eternal life, you keep the commandments.

This teaching of Jesus is consonant with other teachings throughout the gospels. Jesus constantly refers to the law in order to tell people how they ought to behave and in order to explain both the will of God and his own activities. We find these teachings in Mark. We find them in Q. We find them in M. We find them in John. Matthew preserving a tradition that is found in M has Jesus say a person must keep the commandments of God found in the Torah better than the scribes and the Pharisees if they want to enter into the Kingdom. Jesus says don’t think that I came to abolish the law. I cam e to fulfill the law. Not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is fulfilled. Moreover you righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees. Throughout the Gospels Jesus constantly quotes the law and gives his own interpretation of it over against the interpretations of other teachers of his day. The disputes Jesus had with the Pharisees and Sadducees and others were not over whether somebody should be Jewish, or keep the law. The disputes were about the interpretations of the law. Just as in Pharisees the rabbis disputed what the law meant, so Jesus entered into disputes with other teachers about legal interpretation.

In contrast to Pharisees Jesus did not think that scrupulous observance of every single detail of every law was what God was ultimately concerned about. Jesus didn’t’ think that a person should actually break the law. There is very little evidence that Jesus ever did break the law let alone that he wanted anybody else to break it. . Jesus thought it was possible to keep the law technically speaking without really doing what God wants. Jesus tried to show them what it was that God really wants.

In contrast with the Sadducees Jesus did not think that adhering to the laws concerning how to sacrifice in the temple would bring a person into a right standing before God.

In contrast to the Essenes Jesus did not think that maintaining one’s own racial purity by separating oneself from the rest of the world was ultimately what God wanted. In all these disagreements the issue was never over whether or not God’s law should be kept. The question was how it should be kept and what it meant to keep it.

For Jesus as for other Jewish teachers of his day what ultimately mattered was that people of God keep the very heart of God’s law namely the commandments that you should love God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength [Deuteronomy 6:4} and that one should love one’s neighbor as oneself [Leviticus 19:18] According to an ancient tradition found in Mark 12:28-34
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[b] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”
32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

[Jayson]

I can agree with pretty much all of that, and do, and have absolutely no problem stating that the metaphysical doom and gloom of modern Christian theological apocalyptic envisioning was not the discussion at hand.

I never once stated anything that counters anything in that write-up really.
The only thing I would say is a premature assumption is to assume that the apocalyptic symbols were meant in the literal fashion.

[felix dakat]

I can agree with pretty much all of that, and do, and have absolutely no problem stating that the metaphysical doom and gloom of modern Christian theological apocalyptic envisioning was not the discussion at hand.

I never once stated anything that counters anything in that write-up really.
The only thing I would say is a premature assumption is to assume that the apocalyptic symbols were meant in the literal fashion.

Of course. modern doom and gloom is not what Ehrman means by apocalyptic. We wouldn't expect to find anything truly modern in literature from @ the first century. Jesus apparently thought the apocalypse would occur in his own life time. I wouldn't rule out figurative meaning entirely. Certainly the parables are figurative. But Ehrman's interpretation that Jesus expected a real physical kingdom ruled by God in his lifetime is well supported as shown above.

[Jayson]

But Ehrman's interpretation that Jesus expected a real physical kingdom ruled by God in his lifetime is well supported as shown above.

As do I, however, I don't agree on the magical belief he attributes to Jesus (the Pauline following).
I disagree with his assessment of what the physical kingdom ruled by the father was in the context in which it arrives.

I disagree due to what these concepts referred to in Hebrew culture (Jesus); not Hellenistic culture (Paul).

The "kingdom" is a terrible translation of what refers explicitly to the authority of ruling power; such as when we think of the "kingdom" of Roman Catholic power - how far its rule reached, as opposed to any actual land or structure itself directly.
The physical presence is the Hebrew people, which inherit this authority in themselves by their covenant.
To which, the coming of the rule of the Father is the united pure approach of the Hebrew people living by what Jesus saw as the true moral consequence of living by the spirit of the Father.

I don't see a good way to contextually draft an historical Jesus that thought a physical land of Godia (or whatever) would plop down on Earth and God would be sitting in the Palace chilling out and ruling over the land with the occasional parade, after first demolishing everyone from the planet that was some caliber of "evil".

[felix dakat]

As do I, however, I don't agree on the magical belief he attributes to Jesus (the Pauline following).

What magical belief? What Pauline following?

I disagree with his assessment of what the physical kingdom ruled by the father was in the context in which it arrives.

What does that mean?

I disagree due to what these concepts referred to in Hebrew culture (Jesus); not Hellenistic culture (Paul).

Which is what?

The "kingdom" is a terrible translation of what refers explicitly to the authority of ruling power; such as when we think of the "kingdom" of Roman Catholic power - how far its rule reached, as opposed to any actual land or structure itself directly.
The physical presence is the Hebrew people, which inherit this authority in themselves by their covenant.
To which, the coming of the rule of the Father is the united pure approach of the Hebrew people living by what Jesus saw as the true moral consequence of living by the spirit of the Father.

OK

I don't see a good way to contextually draft an historical Jesus that thought a physical land of Godia (or whatever) would plop down on Earth and God would be sitting in the Palace chilling out and ruling over the land with the occasional parade, after first demolishing everyone from the planet that was some caliber of "evil".

It's specifically the Son of Man as a representative, not God per se. If you think that was purely symbolic rather than literal then I understand your opinion, but I don't know that such is the case. If so, can you support your opinion?

[Jayson]

Boil it down to the simplest response...

If so, can you support your opinion?

Yes I can.
The best way to go about this takes some patience, as it requires me asking you questions and working from your answers.

To start with, what does Son of Man mean?

[felix dakat]

Boil it down to the simplest response...

If so, can you support your opinion?

Yes I can.
The best way to go about this takes some patience, as it requires me asking you questions and working from your answers.

To start with, what does Son of Man mean?

I already answered that question. In some of the passages referring to the son of man Jesus does not seem to be referring to himself. He is alluding to Daniel 7: 13-14 where after the four beasts the prophet has a vision of one like a son of man who comes on the clouds of heaven to who is given the glory and power and dominion forever and ever. The son of man is set in contrast to the wild beasts. There would be someone who comes from God that would be human like as opposed to these beast who are destroying the earth. Some apocalyptic authors took this image of one like the son of man to mean an actual individual, a judge, who would come from heaven . That seems to be the way Jesus himself is using the term as the actual title of a future cosmic judge who is going to overthrow the wicked kingdoms of earth.

[Jayson]

Do you think the term is originated in the book of daniel and exclusive to prophetic use?

[felix dakat]

Do you think the term is originated in the book of daniel and exclusive to prophetic use?

There is no way to know conclusively. But it is the first use of the term in the Bible that I am aware of and I think Jesus was alluding to it when he refers to the Son of Man in the passage I sighted above.

[Jayson]

I have two more questions to aid in clarification before I start responses, if you don't mind:

1. You wrote previously that you think that Jesus was eluding to (approximately) a specific supernatural individual by the use of the term, "son of man". What causes you to think this?

2. You wrote previously that some apocalyptic authors understood the term, "son of man", to refer to a specific supernatural individual. Outside of the CE texts which became the New Testament canon, and the other various texts which did not become part of the canon, what culture, or sub-cultures, are you aware of in the Hebrew culture before, or during, the arrival of Jesus that understood the term, "son of man", to refer to a specific supernatural individual?

[felix dakat]

1. You wrote previously that you think that Jesus was eluding to (approximately) a specific supernatural individual by the use of the term, "son of man". What causes you to think this?

I don't recall either Ehrman or myself using the term supernatural. It seems to me the whole idea of supernatural would be anachronistic as far as the perspective of Jesus is concerned.

2. You wrote previously that some apocalyptic authors understood the term, "son of man", to refer to a specific supernatural individual. Outside of the CE texts which became the New Testament canon, and the other various texts which did not become part of the canon, what culture, or sub-cultures, are you aware of in the Hebrew culture before, or during, the arrival of Jesus that understood the term, "son of man", to refer to a specific supernatural individual?

Again I don't think I said "supernatural". "Supernatural" seems to open up a whole dualistic can of worms that irrelevant to Jesus' prophetic vision. Ehrman does use the word "cosmic" which could mean simply that Jesus expected an event of universal rather than merely local scale. And the indication is that the "son of man" was to be the representative of God and therefore in some sense divine.

It seems to me that when Daniel said "one like a son of man" he probably that in his dream the figure looked like a human being. Then when Jesus picked up the term he meant the same thing or nearly so. So when, in other Gospel verses Jesus is said to refer to himself as the Son of Man, this implies that he is the coming representative that Daniel was dreaming about. Those verses are less likely to be historical though since they don't pass the test of dissimilarity.

[Jayson]

I'd like you, if you could please, to revisit the two previous questions with the added clarification that by "supernatural", I merely meant that it is anything but "natural" to descend from the clouds in a literal fashion, or be a cosmic savior of any caliber.
Not just beyond normal; beyond human potential - beyond the nature of what a human is capable of doing.

I didn't really mean that you stated any of this, I was translating; ergo, "approximately".
I want a clarity of what the Jesus is that we're talking about here.
Are we proposing a divine Jesus of super powers, or are we more grounded?

[felix dakat]

I'd like you, if you could please, to revisit the two previous questions with the added clarification that by "supernatural", I merely meant that it is anything but "natural" to descend from the clouds in a literal fashion, or be a cosmic savior of any caliber.
Not just beyond normal; beyond human potential - beyond the nature of what a human is capable of doing.

I didn't really mean that you stated any of this, I was translating; ergo, "approximately".
I want a clarity of what the Jesus is that we're talking about here.
Are we proposing a divine Jesus of super powers, or are we more grounded?

As I said before, Jesus wasn't talking about himself. He was talking about one like the son of man prophesied in Daniel. That entity is closely identified with the Eternal God or literally"the ancient of days" in Daniel. How Jesus envisioned coming on the clouds or God's eternal reign I'll leave to your imagination. But, we can be reasonably sure that he wasn't making a distinction between scientific rationalism and theistic supernaturalism that came some 1500 years after he lived.

[Jayson]

OK...would this make more sense to ask to you then?
(I'm just trying to find our common lexicon)
1. You wrote previously that you think that Jesus was eluding to (approximately) a specific cosmic individual by the use of the term, "son of man". What causes you to think this?

2. You wrote previously that some apocalyptic authors understood the term, "son of man", to refer to a specific cosmic individual. Outside of the CE texts which became the New Testament canon, and the other various texts which did not become part of the canon, what culture, or sub-cultures, are you aware of in the Hebrew culture before, or during, the arrival of Jesus that understood the term, "son of man", to refer to a specific cosmic individual?

[felix dakat]

OK...would this make more sense to ask to you then?
(I'm just trying to find our common lexicon)
1. You wrote previously that you think that Jesus was eluding to (approximately) a specific cosmic individual by the use of the term, "son of man". What causes you to think this?

2. You wrote previously that some apocalyptic authors understood the term, "son of man", to refer to a specific cosmic individual. Outside of the CE texts which became the New Testament canon, and the other various texts which did not become part of the canon, what culture, or sub-cultures, are you aware of in the Hebrew culture before, or during, the arrival of Jesus that understood the term, "son of man", to refer to a specific cosmic individual?

No I didn't say a specific individual, I said an actual individual.

"There would be someone who comes from God that would be human like as opposed to these beast who are destroying the earth. Some apocalyptic authors took this image of one like the son of man to mean an actual individual, a judge, who would come from heaven . That seems to be the way Jesus himself is using the term as the actual title of a future cosmic judge who is going to overthrow the wicked kingdoms of earth. These saying pass the criterion of dissimilarity because Christian wouldn’t have been likely to make up saying in which it is unclear that Jesus himself is the future cosmic judge."

Ehrman didn't suggest that Jesus expected a specific person,but he expected that person to represent God as judge of humanity. Christians came to identify Jesus as the Son of Man that Daniel and Jesus prophesied as I'm sure you are aware.

[Jayson]

OK....
1. You wrote previously that you think that Jesus was eluding to an actual cosmic individual by the use of the term, "son of man". What causes you to think this?

2. You wrote previously that some apocalyptic authors understood the term, "son of man", to refer to an actual cosmic individual. Outside of the CE texts which became the New Testament canon, and the other various texts which did not become part of the canon, what culture, or sub-cultures, are you aware of in the Hebrew culture before, or during, the arrival of Jesus that understood the term, "son of man", to refer to an actual cosmic individual?