Book Plunge: Jesus – Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Did Jesus fail at prophecy? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Just yesterday, I finished reading Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus – Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.” Before I had even started the book, I made a prediction on Facebook. I predicted, as an orthodox Preterist, that not once would Ehrman mention Preterism in his book.

Turns out, I was right.

Makes me wish I’d made a bet with someone….

Honestly, I don’t even think he mentioned dispensationalism or any form of futurism by name. Christian eschatological systems were absent, which is quite odd. It’s why I found this book to be quite a mixed bag. Of course, there’s the usual material about historical methodology, which is fine, but yet while there was much talk about apocalyptic thinking, there was not much looking at apocalyptic thinking.

At the start, Ehrman wants to paint a string of predictions from our time down to Christianity. He first starts with Edgar Whisenant and then Hal Lindsey. Next we go to the Millerites. Then, it’s Joachim of Fiore around 1200. After that, Montanus at the end of the second century. From this, Ehrman concludes every generation has had its own apocalyptic visionary.

Could be, but looking at such a sparse sample in 2,000 years does not show it. It gives the impression that Ehrman has looked at a sparse sample and made a strong conclusion based on it. Of course, his case could be correct still, but the problem is that there was not sufficient evidence given.

Of course, for Ehrman, the first examples of this were Jesus and Paul. So does he make that case well?

Before making his case, Ehrman wants to tell us about the historical method and how he studies the text. It’s at this point that those who read Ehrman frequently, like I do, start to hear repetition going on. If you have read one Ehrman book, you have read all of them essentially. You’ll find the same themes and the same arguments, a number of times they’re even quoted verbatim. (I checked. pages 114-115 quote much of page 241 in the third edition of his NT introduction word for word. Of course, it could be I’m just mistaken and both times he copied from an E document….)

Of course, when reading a book like this, it’s important to note the concessions he makes that most internet atheists would run in terror from. For instance, on page 22, he says the best sources, of course, are those nearest the time of Jesus Himself.” He then says “It turns out, as I’ll show later, that the oldest narrative accounts happen to be the four Gospels of the New Testament.”

Interestingly, when talking about the authorship of the NT, he says on page 43 that the tradition from Papias needs to be considered seriously. Apparently, it wasn’t serious enough that students reading the NT introduction needed to consider it. Ehrman also makes the statement about how Eusebius thought Papias was a man of exceedingly small intelligence, not mentioning that Eusebius said this because of Papias’s views on eschatology.

Ehrman tells us the testimony is 100 years later and looks suspicious. Why? We are told that Irenaeus would want apostolic origins for the gospels. Then why have Matthew, Mark and Luke? Matthew was an apostle, but he certainly wasn’t the most famous one of all! If you’re making up an apostolic name, why not Peter or James? Why would you have Mark be the author of a text instead of just saying Peter? Why would you choose Luke?

And of course, a more fundamental question, when is the source for the claim that Plutarch wrote the works of Plutarch? For all of Ehrman’s suspicions, it is appropriate to just ask the question of other historical accounts of the time that we accept on much less evidence.

Ehrman makes the claim about bias we’ve seen often. On page 89 we read, “Whenever you isolate an author’s biases, you can take them into account when considering his report. That is to say, statements supporting his bias should then be taken with a pound of salt (not necessarily discarded, but scrutinized carefully.)”

Can I not look at this and claim “I’ve seen Ehrman’s bias. He’s a non-Christian wanting to argue for the unreliability of the biblical account. Therefore, I should take his claims with a pound of salt.” Of course, someone could take the same approach with a Christian author. My contention at this point is simply that bias is often an excuse.

Bias can make people color reports, but it can also lead to increased accuracy. Holocaust museums ran by Jews are quite accurate. Does anyone want to deny that they have a bias? Is there any doubt the NT authors had a bias? None whatsoever. Yet how does that lead to the conclusion they would make inaccurate reports? It’s just as arguable that they would realize the importance of their mission and how essential the claims were and want to make doubly sure they were accurate.

On page 195, Ehrman writes that “For events in the ancient world, even events of Earth-shattering importance, there is sometimes scant evidence to go on.” He had earlier said on page 57 that the eruption of Vesuvius was only mentioned by one author. Unsaid is that that was an off-the-cuff remark even. The purpose of the writing was not really to tell about the eruption. If this is the case, what’s the big deal with no one mentioned an empire-wide census on page 39?

When he talks about apocalypticism, he does make the case that I would make in many instances. We need to talk Jesus’s claims about a kingdom coming seriously. We need to realize what he was doing with the sermon on the mount and with miracles. We need to realize that he was showing what the kingdom of God would be like.

The problem is that Ehrman dances all around the edges without really considering what he’s arguing. For him, the end of the world did not come and the kingdom supposedly did not come and so Jesus was wrong.

If Jesus had been thinking about the end of the world, it is a wonder why he would tell people in the Olivet Discourse to flee. If the world is coming to an end, there is really not much place to flee to. Ehrman’s problem is the same one he had as a fundamentalist. Actually, he’s still a fundamentalist which is the problem. He is taking the text literally. He is assuming there must be a grand cataclysmic judgment. (Although to be fair, there was. It was the destruction of the temple, something unbelievably huge for the time.)

Could it be the Kingdom came and Ehrman didn’t realize it?

Could it be that the spreading of the Christian gospel and the name of Jesus being spread through all the Earth is the Kingdom coming? Could it be billions of people on Earth proclaiming that Jesus is Lord is showing that He is king? Could it be that the Kingdom is indeed growing as a mustard seed?

Ehrman has the same problem as he often does. He does not interact with contrary ideas. He has instead made a weak case that only depends on a literal interpretation of the text and therefore says that the case is made.

My Preterist self is not convinced.

Frankly, I’m enjoying being part of the Kingdom and especially love seeing that it demonstrates that Jesus was right.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Note: We will be discussing this book 3-5 EST on Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast. Why not join in? http://www.cyiworldwide.com/deeper-waters.html

About these ads

Tags: , , ,

13 Responses to “Book Plunge: Jesus – Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium”

  1. online forms creator free Says:

    Hi there! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this site?
    I’m getting fed up of WordPress because I’ve had issues
    with hackers and I’m looking at options for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

  2. play house Says:

    I’m gone to convey my little brother, that he should also go to see this weblog on regular basis to take updated from most recent reports.

  3. sleigh cot beds Says:

    Hi! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and say I
    really enjoy reading through your articles. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums
    that deal with the same subjects? Thanks!

  4. joseph maple bunk beds Says:

    I am extremely impressed along with your writing abilities and also with the structure
    to your weblog. Is that this a paid theme or did you modify it your self?
    Either way keep up the nice high quality writing, it’s rare to peer a nice weblog like this one these days..

  5. John Says:

    So what do you do with Matthew’s sheep and goats entering (or not entering) the kingdom? That’s just symbolic for a splitting of communities after the Temple is destroyed? If you are going to be a consistent preterist, don’t you feel you need to interpret all “final judgement talk” as simply being about the Temple? To me that just doesn’t work.

    And clearly Paul expected an “end of the world”…NOT simply the destruction of the Temple. That’s why he instructs people not to get married…the end is near. Jesus is coming. We will meet him in the air and he will renew all things.

  6. apologianick Says:

    Very easily John. The sheep and goats judgment is going on continuously and will until the return of Christ.

    Also, Paul’s restriction in Corinth had to do with a famine that was going on making survival even more difficult.

    • John Marcott Says:

      Aren’t you a preterist? If so, hasn’t Christ already “come” in the destruction of Jerusalem?

      You don’t think Paul expected Jesus to return soon? If the “present distress” is a famine (1 Cor 7) why does Paul go on to say “the appointed time has grown very short”…and “the present form of this world is passing away”? The appointed time for the destruction of Jerusalem? Clearly he is referring to the return of Christ…and he clearly expects it in his lifetime similarly to 1 Thess 4:14-18.

  7. apologianick Says:

    Christ already came. He did not return. There is a difference.

    Paul was open to Jesus returning soon, but he had no way of knowing when. In fact, 1 Cor. 15 indicates to me he was open to a great distance of time.

    The appointed time has grown very short. Appointed time of what? You seem to have some idea, but where is it stated in the text?

    The present form is passing away? Indeed it is! Which means a new form is coming, and that means the world is not coming to an end, but transforming when the age of the Messiah came, and he was right. We no longer live as if this is the only world. We live with a different focus.

    You say it is clear. I say it is read in.

    • John Says:

      Matthew clearly links the destruction of Jerusalem with final judgement scenes (sheep and goats, etc.). Either these scenes are figurative and the final judgement IS the destruction of Jerusalem (in which case Jesus never actually predicted a “return” as is normally thought) OR they actually depict a final judgement/end of the world (in which case the timing of such an event is clearly wrong). You can’t have it both ways. Either the coming of Christ is just about Jerusalem being destroyed or he was wrong. To say he “came” but didn’t “return” is just trying to escape this problem. Nowhere is this delineation made in scripture.

      Paul not only was open to Jesus returning soon…he expected it in his lifetime. He expects to be alive when Jesus returns explicitly in 1 Thessalonians 4. That is not reading in to the text. It is the text. He was wrong.

      What do you suggest “the appointed time” is for?
      The end of a famine? The destruction of Jerusalem? Does that really make sense in that context? Why would Paul council not to get married because the appointed time is soon for the destruction of a building?

      If the “new form” is just the Christian age with access to the Spirit, etc., by the time Paul wrote this it already came. He clearly expects something more dramatic.

  8. apologianick Says:

    John: Matthew clearly links the destruction of Jerusalem with final judgement scenes (sheep and goats, etc.).

    Reply: Your assumption is that the sheep and the goats are a one time deal and it’s done all at once. I have no such assumption.

    John: Either these scenes are figurative and the final judgement IS the destruction of Jerusalem (in which case Jesus never actually predicted a “return” as is normally thought)

    Reply: I have never said the destruction of Jerusalem was the final judgment. That is not a Preterist position.

    John: OR they actually depict a final judgement/end of the world (in which case the timing of such an event is clearly wrong).

    Reply: Jews did not expect the end of the world. No writing shows that. They talked about the restoration of the world. This was the world of the Father. Even Jesus thought the same way. “Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.” “The meek shall inherit the Earth.”

    John: You can’t have it both ways. Either the coming of Christ is just about Jerusalem being destroyed or he was wrong. To say he “came” but didn’t “return” is just trying to escape this problem. Nowhere is this delineation made in scripture.

    Reply: Actually, it is. The word is coming in Matthew and it is used to refer to the end of the age. There is nowhere mentioned a resurrection as is talked about in 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess. 4 which means that two different ideas were in mind. For more on this, listen to the Preterist Podcast. Also, check out the Matthew 24 commentary by DeeDee Warren at the Preteristsite.

    John: Paul not only was open to Jesus returning soon…he expected it in his lifetime. He expects to be alive when Jesus returns explicitly in 1 Thessalonians 4. That is not reading in to the text. It is the text. He was wrong.

    Reply: You’ve never heard of the editorial we?

    John: What do you suggest “the appointed time” is for?

    Reply: You tell me. You’re making a case it means the end of the world.

    John: The end of a famine? The destruction of Jerusalem? Does that really make sense in that context? Why would Paul council not to get married because the appointed time is soon for the destruction of a building?

    Reply: The destruction of the temple would have dire ramifications that would go all the way throughout the Empire. It would also mark the end of the distinction between Judaism and Christianity meaning Christians would be their own movement more and more. Persecution would then increase.

    John: If the “new form” is just the Christian age with access to the Spirit, etc., by the time Paul wrote this it already came. He clearly expects something more dramatic.

    Reply: Paul says it is passing away. The Spirit was there already, but Jesus had not yet been vindicated. When His claims are vindicated, then the world has to take notice even more.

    • John Says:

      Editorial we? Come on. He included himself in the group that would be alive when Jesus returned. Period.

      There are always ways to stretch texts to avoid conclusions you want to get out of. You have to stretch all of the Olivet Discourses, you have to stretch 1 Cor 7, you have to stretch 1 Thess 4. There will come a time when all those texts add up and the evidence will be too much. Paul and the writers of the Gospels (and probably Jesus) expected an end of the world that would happen soon. Not simply the destruction of Jerusalem. A final judgment and renewed world. I tried to avoid it for a long time. I had to face it. I wish you blessings in your ministry and search for truth.

  9. apologianick Says:

    So your conclusion is just to repeat your conclusion? Doesn’t work. I urge you to listen to the Preterist Podcast and also get a book like Gary DeMar’s “Last Days Madness.”

    As for 1 Thess. 4, Paul is contrasting the dead and the living. Paul didn’t know when Christ would return. For all he knew, it might be in his lifetime, but he didn’t know. How could anyone? I think he had that hope, but no knowledge, so it’s quite natural he’d say “We.” It’s an editorial we that contrasts the dead and the living.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,901 other followers

%d bloggers like this: