Any Christians agree with Bart Ehrman?

[cloudyday2]

Specifically are there any Christians who share Ehrman's belief that Jesus expected an apocalyptic battle between the children of light and the children of darkness within his lifetime, etc. Sometimes I think that I am not that far from being a Christian except that I don't believe the traditional history of Christianity.

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.

Bart Ehrman: Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

 

[solid_core]

Specifically are there any Christians who share Ehrman's belief that Jesus expected an apocalyptic battle between the children of light and the children of darkness within his lifetime, etc. Sometimes I think that I am not that far from being a Christian except that I don't believe the traditional history of Christianity.


Bart Ehrman: Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

I many times agree with B. Ehrman during some debates about textual criticism or so, but some his opinions, like the battle between the children of light and darkness, are purely invented.

You know, nobody is perfect, every person has some good info and some nonsense in his pockets.

 

[Of the Kingdom]

If you find Bart Ehrman's ideas interesting, you might find Preterism worth looking into:

PreteristCentral

I agree that Jesus was an "apocalyptic prophet". If I thought that was all that he was, I couldn't justify being a Christian.

 

[solid_core]

Ah, an interesting coincidence, I am leaning to preterism, too.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Of the Kingdom and @solid_core , the problem I see in reconciling preterism with the view that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet is the presence of the Son of Man in the prophecies and the absence of the Son of Man in the Jewish revolts.

 

[solid_core]

the problem I see with reconciling preterism with a view that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet is the presence of the Son of Man in the prophecies and the absence of the Son of Man in the Jewish revolts.

What kind of problem?

 

[cloudyday2]

What kind of problem?

Well, it seems to me that Jesus expected the Son of Man and an army of angels to fight on the side of the faithful Jews against the Romans.

 

[Rachel20]

No, I don't share his opinion. I think he has integrity, but it seems some of his beliefs are a stretch, like Paul not being the author of 2 Thessalonians because of the "thief in the night" scriptures of the first letter. imo he's failing to distinguish the rapture (which has no signs) with the 2nd advent (which has signs). In other words, he's an agnostic but effectively holds post-trib view in order to reject 2 Thess as a Pauline letter!

 

[solid_core]

Well, it seems to me that Jesus expected the Son of Man and an army of angels to fight on the side of the faithful Jews against the Romans.

I do not think so.

I think Jesus was the Son on Man and He said that the Jews will be destroyed by Romans. His disciples, when they were to see Roman armies around Jerusalem, were warned to flee to mountains.

I see no Son of Man fighting on the side of any Jews, in the New Testament. He said He will come to punish the nation as such and take their kingdom away. So, if He was fighing on some side, it was the side of Romans, then.

 

[Of the Kingdom]

the presence of the Son of Man in the prophecies and the absence of the Son of Man in the Jewish revolts.

I agree, 70 AD does not appear to be the second coming of Jesus. I do believe Jesus was crucified and resurrected in the middle of the "seventieth week" of Daniel. Jesus made it clear that a judgment was coming soon, but left it open when the "end of the age" would come.

 

[JSRG]

I agree, 70 AD does not appear to be the second coming of Jesus.

This would only be an issue for full preterism. Partial preterists, which I believe are the majority of preterists, assert that the Second Coming has not yet occurred.

 

[com7fy8]

Specifically are there any Christians who share Ehrman's belief that Jesus expected an apocalyptic battle between the children of light and the children of darkness within his lifetime, etc.

In Revelation 20:7-10 > here, John says, "fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them." So, from this I see how God Himself will do our fighting > Exodus 14:14.

I am satisfied, in any case, that Jesus did not expect his disciples to war with Satan's children, by fighting with weapons and shedding blood and killing people. If someone claims Jesus was thinking like this, that person could be trying to justify using war now in order to promote Christianity. And I do not believe killing people in war is God's way of advancing Christianity. Jesus said,

"If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight" (in John 18:36)

And we can feed in His word, in order to see how to grow in Jesus with one another and love and live in His way.

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds," (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Sometimes I think that I am not that far from being a Christian except that I don't believe the traditional history of Christianity.

Well, there is history which is not of Jesus Christ's church, but history of counterfeit Christianity. Right now, we are seeing how more public people can control what gets reported; likewise, in earlier times it is possible how the counterfeit Christian controllers could have kept the records from showing what Jesus Christ's true leaders and sheep were doing. But in the Bible we can read how Jesus Christ's church has been operating, plus how the Apostles related with people while they ministered > including > "just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children." (in 1 Thessalonians chapter 2:7, see also 2:11). Those great leaders personally shared with people; they recorded in people's hearts, including by means of their personal example. Meanwhile, public attention seekers were . . . doing the public stuff . . . and depending on not so personal tactics, possibly of books so people would not personally get to know them and discover how they really were. The Thessalonians could learn the meaning of the Apostle's message, by actually personally and intimately sharing with them.

Would you throw out all your money if you knew that there is the existence of counterfeit money? I don't think so. But you would be wise to learn how to examine money to make sure of what is real money. Likewise, you do not need to be at the mercy of strangers and how they represent Christianity. But you can pray and personally share with God and discover His word, while actually getting to know really Christian people so you can feed on their example, plus help them with what you are discovering with Jesus. We do things as family, in personal sharing and caring with one another, including with our leaders.

 

[hedrick]

I see two problems with Ehrman’s position. First, he seems to see that as Jesus’ only concept of the Kingdom. But it’s pretty clear that his primary teachings involved bringing the Kingdom now. As for specifics about the future, we’re dependent upon a fairly small number of passages, and I think there are signs of confusion.

The most extended is the “little apocalypse.” Mark 13 is presumably the earliest version. It looks a lot like the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 13:1-2. 5-8 is quite typical apocalyptic, much like you see in the prophets: signs of conflict in the end.

If 5-8 were intended to describe the same thing as 1-2 we’d have the situation Ehrman describes. But the Synoptics seem quite commonly to have combined sayings with the same topic, and sometimes just the same word.

In Luke, things get even more confused. Luke 21:5 ff takes Mark 13:2-13 and add Mark 13:14-23, which again starts with the fall of Jerusalem but moves to the coming of the Son of Man. And we have “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” near the end. Furthermore, Mark 13:30 is followed by “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (13:32)

If this was all said at the same time about the same event, we have the situation Ehrman described. But I don’t see any reason to think it was. It is quite possible, however, that Mark thought the End was coming soon, and this adds to the lack of distinction between near and far future. It’s a bit unclear when Mark was written. Generally it’s thought to be around 64. But even if it was written shortly after 70, Mark could well have seen the destruction of Jerusalem as part of the travails of the end times. However Jerusalem’s troubles started before 70, so even a date in the last 60’s could result in that scenario.

Some scholars see some material in Mark 13 as not from Jesus, added around Mark’s time because people thought Jerusalem was a prelude to the end. I don’t see anything that requires that. Jesus clearly saw himself as acting in the Prophets’ tradition (not that this is all he did, of course), so it would hardly be surprising for him to have taught a scenario for the future much like that found in the Prophets. Jesus was also clearly worried about Jerusalem. It seems quite plausible to me that foreseeing its destruction was part of them. It didn’t even require miraculous powers to expect that. Given the Synoptics’ tendency to combine sayings on the same subject, I think Mark 13 is quite easy to understand, particularly if Mark thought the end was coming soon.

 

[Sketcher]

Specifically are there any Christians who share Ehrman's belief that Jesus expected an apocalyptic battle between the children of light and the children of darkness within his lifetime, etc. Sometimes I think that I am not that far from being a Christian except that I don't believe the traditional history of Christianity.


Bart Ehrman: Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

No, I do not.

 

[d taylor]

Well, it seems to me that Jesus expected the Son of Man and an army of angels to fight on the side of the faithful Jews against the Romans.

Jesus is the Son of Man

 

[cloudyday2]

I see two problems with Ehrman’s position. First, he seems to see that as Jesus’ only concept of the Kingdom. But it’s pretty clear that his primary teachings involved bringing the Kingdom now. As for specifics about the future, we’re dependent upon a fairly small number of passages, and I think there are signs of confusion.

The most extended is the “little apocalypse.” Mark 13 is presumably the earliest version. It looks a lot like the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 13:1-2. 5-8 is quite typical apocalyptic, much like you see in the prophets: signs of conflict in the end.

If 5-8 were intended to describe the same thing as 1-2 we’d have the situation Ehrman describes. But the Synoptics seem quite commonly to have combined sayings with the same topic, and sometimes just the same word.

In Luke, things get even more confused. Luke 21:5 ff takes Mark 13:2-13 and add Mark 13:14-23, which again starts with the fall of Jerusalem but moves to the coming of the Son of Man. And we have “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” near the end. Furthermore, Mark 13:30 is followed by “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (13:32)

If this was all said at the same time about the same event, we have the situation Ehrman described. But I don’t see any reason to think it was. It is quite possible, however, that Mark thought the End was coming soon, and this adds to the lack of distinction between near and far future. It’s a bit unclear when Mark was written. Generally it’s thought to be around 64. But even if it was written shortly after 70, Mark could well have seen the destruction of Jerusalem as part of the travails of the end times. However Jerusalem’s troubles started before 70, so even a date in the last 60’s could result in that scenario.

Some scholars see some material in Mark 13 as not from Jesus, added around Mark’s time because people thought Jerusalem was a prelude to the end. I don’t see anything that requires that. Jesus clearly saw himself as acting in the Prophets’ tradition (not that this is all he did, of course), so it would hardly be surprising for him to have taught a scenario for the future much like that found in the Prophets. Jesus was also clearly worried about Jerusalem. It seems quite plausible to me that foreseeing its destruction was part of them. It didn’t even require miraculous powers to expect that. Given the Synoptics’ tendency to combine sayings on the same subject, I think Mark 13 is quite easy to understand, particularly if Mark thought the end was coming soon.

Those are all good points. An additional point came to mind while I read them. Ehrman was a Christian for at least a decade while he was an academic. As I recall, Ehrman was even a pastor at a local Baptist church. Ehrman probably formed his opinions about the historical Jesus very early in his academic career. How did Ehrman reconcile those views with his activities as a pastor for all those years?

There is a book "Caught in the Pulpit" which claims that a large percentage of the clergy lose faith in seminary and become secretly atheist but continue their roles in the church for various reasons ( Caught in The Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind by Daniel C. Dennett ).

My own solution would be to humanize the historical Jesus so that he can be honestly mistaken in his ideas about religion and eschatology yet still be pleasing to God such that he becomes the Son of Man after his death. That's a heresy of course ("adoptionism" I guess).

 

[cloudyday2]

No, I don't share his opinion. I think he has integrity, but it seems some of his beliefs are a stretch, like Paul not being the author of 2 Thessalonians because of the "thief in the night" scriptures of the first letter. imo he's failing to distinguish the rapture (which has no signs) with the 2nd advent (which has signs). In other words, he's an agnostic but effectively holds post-trib view in order to reject 2 Thess as a Pauline letter!

Hmmm, that is an interesting criticism, but I'm not up-to-speed on some of the concepts you referenced. I would like to understand if you have the energy and time to elaborate, but maybe that is not practical.

 

[hedrick]

Hmmm, that is an interesting criticism, but I'm not up-to-speed on some of the concepts you referenced. I would like to understand if you have the energy and time to elaborate, but maybe that is not practical.

Paul's authorship of 2 Thes is questioned, but not as much as the Pastorals. So this isn't just Ehrman. F F Bruce summarizes one of the major issues in the Word commentary:

"If both letters are authentic, they were evidently sent within a brief interval, one after the other. (Those who view them as sent to distinct groups within the Thessalonian church might conclude that they were sent simultaneously.) Why then should there be so much repetition and overlapping between them? And why, at the same time, should there be a different eschatological outlook in the one as against the other?"

It's not clear to me whether Bruce thinks there's a good enough explanation or not. Ehrman's objection is consistent with this. 1 Thes says that Christ will come like a thief in the night, i.e. without warning. 2 Thes says Christ won't come until various events have happened. It also seems to warn against being upset by an inauthentic letter seemingly from him. That has caused some scholars to suggest that it was a warning against 1 Thes, though what is warning against doesn't really match what 1 Thes says.

I don't think there's any sign of a "rapture" in any Pauline work. What is coming without warning is "the day of the Lord," which is the typical OT term for the end. The thief in the night was, of course used by Jesus for the coming of the Son of Man, with again no suggestion that this is anything other than the end. Certainly Bruce doesn't suggest this as a way to avoid the problem.

Witherington points out (correctly, I think) that in Mark, etc, we also have the end coming like a thief in the night but also signs before the end. This looks to me like a more plausible response than creation of a rapture. Of course it assumes that Mark 13:5 ff go back to Jesus, which some don’t accept. But still, it's odd that two letters from the same author to the same people would be so different in their eschatology. You make your own decision.

-------------

Ehrman went through three stages. He started as an evangelical. In college or seminary, he found inerrancy implausible and adopted a critical outlook though still Christian. He later abandoned Christianity completely. His NT textbook was written during the middle stage. At that point he already thought Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet. I don't think his final beliefs and his original evangelical beliefs shared much in common. But it does look like many of his beliefs were formed during the second stage and haven't changed since.

 

[hedrick]

I’d like to point out that to consider Jesus a failed prophet, I think you have to accept Mark 13:5 ff and parallels as going back to Jesus, even though Jesus talks about the end coming like a thief in the night other places. (You also have to assume that Jesus expected to happen soon, which I think is unlikely.) It would seem odd to consider that this combination makes 2 Thes inauthentic but accept it in Mark.

 

[cloudyday2]

Ehrman went through three stages. He started as an evangelical. In college or seminary, he found inerrancy implausible and adopted a critical outlook though still Christian. He later abandoned Christianity completely. His NT textbook was written during the middle stage. At that point he already thought Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet. I don't think his final beliefs and his original evangelical beliefs shared much in common. But it does look like many of his beliefs were formed during the second stage and haven't changed since.

When the word "Christ" (i.e. Messiah) is embedded in the name of the religion, how does a person reconcile a belief that Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet with a profession of faith in Christianity?

The only solution I can imagine is adoptionism, because that allows Jesus to be transformed by God from the failed eschatological prophet to the promised Messiah.