Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

The right kind of book, according to Ehrman, is one that portrays Jesus roughly as Albert Schweitzer did, as a first-century Jewish apocalypticist: "This is a shorthand way of saying that Jesus fully expected that the history of the world as we know it (well, as he knew it) was going to come to a screeching halt, that God was soon going to intervene in the affairs of this world, overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment, destroy huge masses of humanity, and abolish existing human political and religious institutions. All this would be a prelude to the arrival of a new order on earth, the Kingdom of God." Ehrman's is a historical-Jesus book, a very smart, humble, and humorous popular summary of Christian and secular evidence of Jesus' life, work, and legacy. He believes that apocalypticism is the true core of Jesus' message, and that comfortable middle-class complacency among scholars, clergy, and laypeople has forged a counterfeit, domesticated, "ethical" Jesus to cover up their befuddlement about his misprediction of the apocalypse. The book will frustrate many readers because it offers no real guidance regarding what one should do with Jesus' apocalypticism. Its project--to prove that Jesus was wrong about the apocalypse--may even appear destructive to some. Yet the argument is convincing enough to induce among careful readers a constructive experience of confusion. Jesus makes readers ask the very question it appears to ignore, in a newly humble way: how, then, should we live? A serious matter, but considering humanity's endless string of wrong answers and infinite capacity for self-delusion, worthy of some good belly laughs, as well. --Michael Joseph Gross

Product Description
In this highly accessible discussion, Bart Ehrman examines the most recent textual and archaeological sources for the life of Jesus, along with the history of first-century Palestine, drawing a fascinating portrait of the man and his teachings.
Ehrman shows us what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament (and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter), Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet--a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within the lifetime of his apostles and that a new kingdom would be created on earth. According to Ehrman, Jesus' belief in a coming apocalypse and his expectation of an utter reversal in the world's social organization not only underscores the radicalism of his teachings but also sheds light on both the appeal of his message to society's outcasts and the threat he posed to Jerusalem's established leadership.

To me, Ehrman's arguments are far more persuasive than those of members of the Jesus Seminar who believe that Jesus was not an apocalypticist. Ehrman does not push unorthodox views, but presents consensus views of Bible scholars to the general public. Ehrman emphasizes Jesus' Jewish environment during the first century. He explains that Jesus was not unique except in his supposed resurrection. Christianity is based not on the actual resurrection of Jesus, but on belief in his resurrection. Written sources claim that healings and exorcisms were accomplished by other Jews in ancient times, and by Hebrew prophets. Ehrman also points out the diversity of Christian views during the first and second centuries. As any scholar taking a true historical approach must, he makes no evaluation of supernatural events. A special treat is Ehrman's sense of humor. A must read for those wishing to understand the historical Jesus, as opposed to a theological Jesus.


Good Introduction to Historical Jesus   August 3, 2003
William Alexander (Los Angeles, CA United States)
77 out of 86 found this review helpful

This is an effective, well-written, and concise presentation of who the person of Jesus of Nazareth who walked and preached in 1st century Palestine actually was. There are a lot of historical Jesus works out there and it is easy to get lost and the author makes a great point that many scholars simply mold Jesus into a person of their time and place: a 60's radical, a social reformer, a magician, etc. Ehrman asserts that traditional scholarship since the 19th century is correct: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was expecting the present world to end in the very near future and be replaced by the kingdom of God. His healings, exorcisms, and exortations of radical, self-less love and care for the poor, destitute, and forgotten (the dregs of society), demonstrated that Jesus firmly held to the belief that God was a compassionate, just Judge who was going to turn the social, political, and religious order upside down in this new kingdom. This view is consistent with the traditional Jewish view of God, that primarly viewed Him as concerned with justice and righteousness that was most particularly demonstrated in an individual's/society's care for the widow and the orphan and fits nicely with the apocalyptic context of Jesus' day: people expected and believed God to radically alter history at any time. Jesus appears to have been non violent in this view, he didn't seek to effect the kingdom of God via a people's revolution but instead expected it to come about via a supernatural miracle of God. These arguments are well demonstrated and persuasive.

Caution, however, is called for in some of these assertions. Ehrman too quickly dismisses the work of more recent scholars who have discovered new insights to Jesus from careful study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the study of Church father writings that shed some doubt on some of these conclusions. He flat out gives no consideration to Crossan's views that Jesus was primarly concerned with ethical eschatology and not apocalyptic eschatology. Although some of Crossan's arguments aren't particularly strong, I find it generally true that Jesus was ethical as well as apocalyptic. It could very well be that Jesus believed that the establishment and/or growth of a renewed ethic among the people would hasten the apocalyptic end of the present state and help to usher in the new kingdom which would, after all essentially be an ethical kingdom. I find no support, however, for Crossan's belief that Jesus was a social reformer with a clear socio-economic plan. There was no such plan: God Himself was going to rule and plan in the new kingdom.

Ehrman does not give enough consideration to Jesus as zealous revolutionary either. Although there is no Jewish or pagan sources of the time to indicate this, the actions of Jesus' first followers reveal zealot tendencies. Acts narrates the immense trouble the apostle Paul had on his second visit to Jerusalem after he was seized in the temple by "the Jews". In his defense (Acts 22) before these obviously zealous Jews who, incidentally plot to kill him in the next chapter, he talks about his vision of Jesus and his Damascus conversion. The crowd listens patiently even as he relates what Jesus has said to him and the events subsequent to his vision. They violently react, however, as soon as Paul mentions his mission to the Gentiles. These are no ordinary Jews, they are Nazarenes, Jewish Christians, this much is clear. So, if Jesus was completely non-violent, why were his first Jewish followers so zealous to the point of plotting to kill Paul? Of course this doesn't agree with Jesus' "love your enemies" but it is highly curious.

One other point. He accepts the gospel's claims that Jesus' family rejected him during his life. Further investigation doesn't support this however. His brother James was the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem assembly after Jesus' crucifixion. I find it hard to believe that having only become a believer after Jesus' resurrection that James would be chosen to lead the believers after having not spent time with Jesus while on earth. It seems much more likely that James was always intended to be the leader and was in fact the disciple called James. This suggests that James' brother John, another disciple, was also Jesus' brother. Mary's second husband after Joseph's death is accepted as Simon bar Clopas, who was one of the disciples Jesus first appeared to after his resurrection in Luke, and is most likely the son of Simon the "Zealot", another of Jesus' disciples and half-brother. There is good evidence to believe that Jesus' family played a quite prominent role in his ministry during and after his life. Also interesting is that his brother Simon was a zealot. Their is a clear pattern of obfuscation in the gospels when it comes to certain individuals, especially regarding family members of Jesus. This indicates that later writers and redactors purposely sought to downplay his family for theological reasons.

Even though I disagree with some of the conclusions of this book, it is a very good presentation of classical beliefs on historical Jesus. If you are beginning to study this subject, I recommend it highly as one of your first readings.


Not Quite Right...   February 6, 2004
33 out of 80 found this review helpful

As a Religion Major at an Ivy Leage college, I'm always interested in new and objective ways to look at subjects like those covered in this book. It was assigned to be read previous to one of our seminar discussion classes, and the reaction of the class was almost unanimous. Ehrman is missing something in this book by looking at Jesus the Nazarene from a wholly historical perspective. There is not enough to work with to form a proper image of Jesus in the manner Ehrman. Ehrman bases a lot of his assertions on the synoptic gospels, but the only things that these can accurately be said to demonstrate are the views of the communities that existed twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Example: Ehrman points out that the first words of Jesus in the Marcan gospel include "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Obviously Christ was an apocalyptic prophet? All Ehrman has proven through this, however, is that the community that developed thought they were living in the last days of the world. Not a surprise, as this has been a belief held by many groups throughout history, before and after the time of Jesus.

Aside from a questionable approach, Ehrman's cocky tone pervades the book. It's unfortunate that Ehrman let this interfere with his credibility, but it certainly does detract from his argument: he constantly writes as though organized religion were an unimportant and rather cute relic from the past.

In place of this book, I'd recommend the Cambridge Companion to Jesus. This book is divided in two: the first half looking at the historical Jesus, and trying to discern what can be known about him. The second half focuses on the theology and all that has grown around the idea of a salvific Jesus over the last two millennia.


Understated Dynamite, Despite the Jokes   August 13, 2005
James Gerofsky
25 out of 25 found this review helpful

A whole lot of non-academic books dealing with the "historical Jesus" have been published over the past 15 years. Each seems to be grinding an axe of some sort, despite their purported attempts to present an unbiased historian's interpretation of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. Some are obviously supporting the traditional Christian interpretation of Jesus as the Christ, the Lord and Savior. Some others paint Jesus as a social and political reformer, someone who was out to promote a secular vision similar to our modern "-isms" (e.g., socialism, universalism, feminism, pacifism, communism, or maybe even capitalism!), despite all the God talk.

Professor Ehrman, by contrast, tries to popularize what appears to be the modern academic consensus: that Jesus was one of many Jewish apocalyptic prophets who preached and gained a following in Roman Palestine. Like the others, Jesus was convinced that God was angry about the continuing sins of the Jews and about the Romans trampling upon the Holy Lands, and was about to come down from the sky and establish a righteous kingdom of His own. Not a kingdom in the heavens, but one right there in the hills of Galilee and on the streets of Jerusalem. There was going to be a mighty judgement when this happened: good people could stay and flourish, but the bad were gonna get cast into a pit of fire or something. It was all about ancient Judiasm, all about the fulfillment of scriptural prophecies. It had little to do with later Christian beliefs or Enlightenment-age theories about how the world should be run.

I personally found this book to be monumental. It's one of that handful of books that you read in your life that opens your eyes and puts a lot of puzzle pieces into place. HOWEVER . . . . . this is not to say that Professor Ehrman has written the definitive biography of Jesus. I still think that he misses some important things and suffers himself from certain biases that distort the picture somewhat. The biggest problem is that Professor Ehrman ultimately assumes that Jesus was much like his friends in academia: a sober, reasonable fellow with whom you could have a polite, well-informed conversation about worldly matters. Ehrman forgets that if Jesus was an apocalyptic, he was probably much like the modern apocalyptics that are described at the start of the book -- i.e., people with fire in the belly, people quite sure of their beliefs even when based on conjecture and fantasy. I.e., someone you might call a fanatic, even a "nutcase". In Jesus' case, at least, someone passionate about the holy, irrationally in love with God.

So it's a bit strange when Ehrman strongly asserts that Jesus didn't think of himself as the Son of Man (or perhaps more accurately, the Son-of-Man-in-training). According to Ehrman, that notion had to have been made up by the Christians later on, after Jesus was long gone.

Ehrman argues that in the Gospels, especially Mark, language about Jesus' preachings seem to refer to the Son of Man in third person; i.e., Jesus was talking about someone else. However, in other places, Jesus clearly refers to himself as the Son. Ehrman reasons that Christians wouldn't have made up Jesus' third-person referral to the Son (since it would militate against their view of Jesus as God), but they certainly would have incentive to write about Jesus calling himself the Son. Ergo, any surviving third-party reference must be historical, and the other first-party references in Mark and the later Gospels must be made up.

Now wait a minute. If the early Christians were tweeking the text and inserting revised memories (and I agree that they probably were, up to a point), why were they so shy about the lines where Jesus seems to envision the Son of Man as someone else (e.g., Mark 13:26-27 and maybe 8:38 -- although that line implies some connection between Jesus and the Son)? Ehrman replies, "because it was the truth". But that fact arguably didn't stop the ancient Christian re-writers elsewhere.

I've got another theory. Some lines in the Gospels infer that Jesus taught his disciples things that he didn't share with the crowds (e.g., Matthew 13:17). What if Jesus believed that he was the Son (or was coming to believe it over time), but was a bit shy about announcing it to the masses (perhaps for fear of what eventually did happen to him, i.e. arrest and death)? What if Jesus shared this belief with his disciples, but was slow in proclaiming it to the crowds (until perhaps that fateful week in Jerusalem)? Then his followers would remember him as the Son, but the memory of his preachings might be a bit more circumspect. And that is just what we see, at least in Mark (which arguably has the most credibility as the earliest writing).

Another little irritation: Ehrman's homey, jokey, ultimately condescending writing style. He obviously wouldn't attempt such humor in a paper published in an academic journal. But when he appeals to the masses, he bends over backward to prove that he's a regular guy. It's OK at first, but it gets old real quick. Professor Ehrman: it might be better if you didn't try so hard to prove that although you're an academic superstar, you still know how to talk to dummies like me. The story about his son's rebuke for calling him a dude because "dude" also refers to a camel's gonads is something that should stay in the family. I can readily accept the proposition that words sometimes have two meanings without a sidenote about everyday teenage sarcasm.

Nonetheless, this book goes a long way in explaining who Jesus really was and what he was all about. It seems rather simple and obvious once you understand it, but it will be hard for many Christians to accept it. So perhaps that's why Ehrman tries so hard to be lovable to the average lout; a lot of average louts aren't going to love him once they get the gist of what he is saying in this understated but extremely powerful book.


very readable and useful   May 24, 2000
alvar.ellegard@eng.gu.se (goteborg, sweden

goteborg Sweden)
20 out of 22 found this review helpful

Bart Ehrman conveys to us an historian's view of who Jesus was. His conclusion is the same as that of the famous humanitarian doctor and theologian, Albert Schweitzer, in the early years of the 20th century: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, who was convinced that Doomsday was about to arrive very soon, even in his own lifetime. The present age was evil, and the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God would change everything. Hence you must prepare yourself. Give away all your possessions to the poor: a rich man has little chance of entering the Kingdom of God. Everything will be turned upside down: the weak and poor will prevail over the rich and mighty. Mend your ways: Love God above everything! Love your neighbour as yourself! Love even your enemy!

Apocalyptic ideas were common in Palestine 2000 years ago. And they turn up, in various forms, throughout Christendom. Ehrman provides illuminating examples from present-day America. However, the apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus is rather out of favour with most contemporary Christian scholars. But Ehrman can rely on solid arguments. The first third of his book is an admirably clear presentation of the way a professional historian goes about constructing his picture of the past. He has to assess the date of his sources, and analyse their relation to each other, their possible bias, and their context. All this should be required reading for people who think they must interpret their Bible literally.

In most of the rest of the book Ehrman uses his critical apparatus for discussing the Jesus figure of the Gospels and Acts. This leads him to a conclusion which is very much in line with that of the majority of modern Christian scholars. Regrettably, Ehrman's main point, Jesus' apocalypticism, tends to recede into the background in this part of the book. However, it is reasserted with some force in the final chapters.

As the product of a clear-sighted and well-informed liberal scholar, this book has much to offer. Ehrman presents current scholarly opinion clearly and fairly, and in a very readable style. In my opinion, however, he could have been more controversial on some basic issues. I am thinking especially of the case for considering the Gospel Jesus as a deliberate and wholly mythical construction of the second-century Christian church, which needed a Jesus figure which was both human and spiritual, in its struggle with the Gnostics of their time. That is the picture presented, with considerable supporting new evidence and fresh arguments, in several recent books by George Wells, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, Earl Doherty, and myself. But perhaps it is just as well that Ehrman avoids scaring away readers of a less liberal turn of mind than himself. They will certainly find much food for thought in his book. I should also like to draw attention here to a recent book by Michael Wise, The First Messiah, which provides additional and unexpected grist to Ehrman's apocalyptic mill.