In the section on the teachings of Jesus, Ehrman takes the sayings in the Gospels attributed to Jesus that are obviously apocalyptic and states that these are the core of Jesus' teaching. Then he takes the other sayings of Jesus and fits them into the same picture. No modern critical scholars doubt that the "kingdom of God" is the central focus of the message of Jesus. The big debate has always been over what does Jesus mean by the "kingdom of God"? Obviously Ehrman takes it as referring to an apocalyptic event that brings the direct reign of God to earth.
Other scholars are not so sure. Some like John Dominic Crossan interpret the kingdom in terms of what we would call the development of an alternative society in a counter-cultural movement. In other words, for Crossan (and those who believe as he does), Jesus never expected there to be a dramatic cataclysmic shaking of the physical earth in which God would inaugurate his kingdom (this is Ehrman's position). Likewise, Crossan would not accept the view of many modern scholars that God would do something dramatic to overturn the current world order (the Great Reversal) in the near future. Scholars like Crossan would much rather view Jesus as the one who came to proclaim the kingdom is present in those circumstances in which God's rule becomes a reality, but not that God would ever intervene in some dramatic, coercive, cataclysmic fashion, either in the near to distant future.
Like many other New Testament scholars, Ehrman states that Jesus taught there would be "a total reversal of the social order" (page 146). However, Ehrman states that Jesus expected this to happen very soon (but many scholars are doubtful that Jesus actually expected this to happen in his own lifetime). The key to this is the Son of Man sayings. The on-going debate among Jesus scholars on this topic centers around two questions. 1) When Jesus uses the phrase Son of Man, is he using the word generically to refer to a human being, or does the phrase refer to a human-like divine judge (as in Daniel 7:13-14)? 2) Does Jesus ever apply this term to himself or does he mean someone else? Scholars who believe in a non-apocalyptic Jesus (like Crossan) say that Jesus never uttered a Son of Man saying in which Jesus expected a divine judge.
Ehrman is convinced that Jesus expected such a divine judge and expected him to come soon, but that person would not be Jesus himself (Mark 14:62) (page 145). However, when I read Mark 14:62 it seems to me that since Jesus is affirming he is the son of the Blessed One, that he might also believe he will be this Son of Man. Though for Ehrman, since it is important for his interpretation of Jesus that Jesus expect this during his own earthly lifetime, and since Jesus is a failed apocalyptic prophet, there is no way that Jesus could be referring to his own impending return as a divine judge in Mark 14:62. However, this is exactly the interpretation this verse has traditionally received (before the arrival of modern historical criticism), that Jesus was speaking of his own return. It is on account of this traditional interpretation of Mark 14:62 that most modern historical critics believe the saying was placed in the mouth of Jesus by early Christians. (Remember one of the tenets of the historical critical method is that no one can predict the future, just as no one can perform miracles.)
E. P. Sanders offers a competing interpretation of Jesus as an eschatological prophet, proclaiming that the culmination of human history was near at hand, also believing that Jesus expected God to do "something big" real soon. Sanders also is convinced that Jesus expected the kingdom to happen in a dramatic way in the near future. But contrary to Ehrman, instead of the "cosmic signs and universal destruction" that Ehrman believes Jesus expected, Sanders believes Jesus was really expecting that God's dramatic intervention would be a renewal of the earth, in which all things wrong would be made right, and the key for this is the 12 disciples and the restoration of the 12 tribes of Israel. Sanders reasons that if Jesus expected restoration of the 12 tribes then he also expected the restoration of society, and then the "great reversal" would be about all things being made right rather than the destruction of the physical world and punishment of the former oppressors. So, the expectation of cataclysmic destruction on the scale envisioned in the Book of Revelation is not necessarily the only way to interpret Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. Sanders looks to the prophecies in Isaiah in which restoration is the main theme of God's future dramatic actions, and supposes that Jesus easily might have been expecting the same thing (see Isaiah 55). While Sanders' proposal has not received a wide following, it is an interesting alternative to Ehrman's interpretation of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet of an imminent end with cosmic signs and universal destruction. Most historical critical scholars say Jesus expected something to happen, and might also label Jesus an eschatological prophet (proclaiming what will happen in the end times), but such scholars are often reticent to say what Jesus expected to happen and when he expected it to happen.
Ehrman uses Jesus' apocalyptic perspective as the lens through which to interpret Jesus' other sayings. But even when he does this in his discussion of Jesus' other teachings on page 147, he does not sound much different from other New Testament scholars who do not believe Jesus had an apocalyptic mindset. When Ehrman writes: "Those who began to implement the ideals of the kingdom, where there would be no sin, hatred, or evil, had in a sense begun to experience the rule of God here and now" (page 147, col 2), he is saying what just about every other New Testament scholar would say about the presence of the kingdom (reign of God) in the ministry of Jesus and in the lives of his followers.
Ehrman's use of the title "Apocalyptic" death of Jesus to mark the discussion of the Jesus' crucifixion is a curious choice of words in that what Ehrman says in this section is basic "main stream" historical critical scholarship on the topic, and I do not find anything particularly "apocalyptic" about it. But it is a good presentation on this topic with which I find no fault.
No comments:
Post a Comment