The Apocalyptic Jesus

I recently worked my way through Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (OUP, 1999), one of Bart Ehrman's earlier books. It is a very readable presentation of Ehrman's position on the historical Jesus issue, accepting and updating Albert Schweitzer's early 20th-century view that the primary proclamation of the historical Jesus was apocalyptic.

Ehrman approaches the issue as a scholar and historian, not as a Christian. For a more Christian-friendly investigation into the historical Jesus literature, read Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, which I discussed in an earlier lengthy post.

The Book

I want to address some LDS questions in the second half of the post, so I'll take some shortcuts with the book itself. First, from the preface, here is Ehrman's own summary of his central point, stating why he accepts Schwietzer's claim and what that means.

[Schweitzer] claims that Jesus is best understood 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 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. Moreover, Jesus expected that this cataclysmic end of history would come in his own generation, at least during the lifetime of his disciples.

And here is a summary comment on the book from the Publisher's Weekly blurb at Amazon, which calls the book "the single best introduction to the study of the historical Jesus."

The author contends that this portrait of Jesus ... has been overlooked in the rush to draw Jesus in the images of whatever scholarly or popular movement is painting Him. Ehrman examines carefully noncanonical and canonical sources as he reconstructs the life of Jesus. He uses already established critical criteria — independent attestation, dissimilarity, contextual credibility — to determine what elements of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life can be considered authentic. For example, according to the evidence, he asserts that we can seriously doubt that the virgin conception, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and the story of wise men following a star are historical events. Ehrman then proceeds to provide a lucid overview of the turbulent political and religious times in which Jesus lived and worked. Finally, the author provides a detailed examination of Jesus' words and deeds to show that they present the work of a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who expected universal judgment and the coming Kingdom of God to occur within his own lifetime and that of his disciples.

The LDS View

So here's my question: Have any LDS leaders or scholars engaged the historical Jesus literature, and if so what do they say about it from an LDS perspective? The approach of a scholar making a historical Jesus argument is generally to take the four gospels, along with other early documents thought to be historically authentic in whole or in part, then apply criteria such as those used by Ehrman (independent attestation, dissimilarity, contextual credibility) to pare down the sources we have to the most historically reliable statements of Jesus or about him. The LDS position that the Bible contains some historical errors ("We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly," AoF 8) certainly opens the door for LDS scholars to engage in their own version of the historical Jesus quest.

The first English edition of Schweitzer's book came out around 1910, so it would probably be unfair to expect Talmage's Jesus the Christ (published in 1915) to respond or comment. The volumes in Bruce R. McConkie's Messiah series have no bibliography and don't appear to contain endnote references to any of the historical Jesus literature. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism contains one reference to Albert Schweitzer, under the entry "Christology." After reviewing various early Christologies, the article notes: "Over the years, others have insisted that Jesus Christ is merely the ideal man for humanity, since Jesus often called himself 'the Son of man.' They have felt that he seldom drew attention to his divinity, as Albert Schweitzer argues in his famous Quest of the Historical Jesus (1911)."

What about LDS academics? In The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism (U. of Illinois, 1993), Grant Underwood devotes a page to Schweitzer in the first chapter when giving background on apocalypticism. Underwood comments:

What role apocalypticism played in the rise of Christianity and how it has continued to inform its character has been a matter of lively debate for over a century. In his influential book The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer reviewed the writings of hundreds of scholars who since the eighteenth century had attempted nondevotional biographies of Christ in an effort to separate the Jesus of history from the Jesus of faith and dogma. Schweitzer believed his study actually demonstrated how thoroughly unscientific were the methods and how unhistorical were the conclusions of this self-proclaimed scientific quest for the "Life of Jesus." Tired of explicit or implicit confessional overlays, Schweitzer proposed his own allegedly objective reading of the documents to produce what has been called the apocalyptic Jesus.

After quoting a few scriptural passages (Matt. 24:34, Matt. 10:23, Mark 9:1) which suppport Schweitzer's view, Underwood comments: "Whatever the best interpretation of these passages actually may be, it is at least clear how a literal reading could give one the ideas that Schweitzer (and others) set forth." Underwood then concludes, "Most scholars concede that at least among Jesus' followers, particularly his early Jewish converts, apocalypticism was common."

I thought Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament (Deseret Book, 2006) might have a couple of paragraphs, but no luck. There was a long sidebar on apocalyptic literature in the chapter on the book of Revelation and a two-page discussion of the Kingdom of God in the chapter on Matthew, but no clear discussion of apocalyptic themes in the (historical) pronouncements of Jesus and no citations to or discussion of the historical Jesus literature.

And of course there's always something by Nibley, in this case the transcript of a 1956 presentation he gave at BYU titled "Historicity of the Bible." Here's the passage of interest.

Both Harnack and Schweitzer laid great emphasis on the claim that virtually nothing is or can be known about a historical Jesus. This freed them to work out a kind of a Jesus that pleased them. "We are thankful," wrote Schweitzer, "that we have handed down to us only gospels, not biographies of Jesus." When new discoveries come out, they receive, to say the least, a very cold reception. If the real Jesus walked in on them, they would invite him to leave. They have the Jesus they want, and they do not want more.

If anyone has additional citations, please note them in the comments. At this point, I'd say there isn't much published that gives an LDS position or response to the historical Jesus literature. That's a little surprising, given that it is, quoting Ehrman, "the view shared probably by the majority of scholars over the course of this century, at least in Germany and America" (p. ix).

I did locate a couple of articles of interest to the LDS reader, but I would hesitate to say they represent the LDS view of the historical Jesus literature.

• Stephen E. Thompson, "Searching for the 'Historical Jesus'," Sunstone, June 1994, p. 58-61.
• John Dominic Crossan, "Jesus the Peasant," Dialogue, Vol. 26:1 (Spring 1993), p. 155-168.

Comments

[Dave]

Okay, I found another mention in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, under the Bible section of "Jesus Christ in the Scriptures":

THE HISTORICAL JESUS. Latter-day Saints take the biblical message about Jesus literally (see Jesus Christ: Ministry of Jesus Christ). The historical Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible: the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, born of the Virgin mary in Bethlehem, baptized by John the Baptist. He performed a variety of miracles, was a teacher of the gospel who occasionally spoke in parables, and "went about doing good" (Acts 10:38). He chose twelve apostles, organized a church, gathered many followers, and was rejected by the Jewish rulers. His attitudes toward Samaritans, women, political leaders (e.g., Herod, Caesar), ritual law, and prayer were rather revolutionary for his day. He suffered at Gethsemane, bled at every pore, was crucified, died, was resurrected from the dead, and subsequently ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives. Latter-day Saints consider both the historical portion of the record of the life of Jesus, and the prophetic portion, to be accurate. The promises that this same Jesus will come again in glory, in person to judge the world, then reign on the earth as King of Kings, are future realities that are taken literally.

[Jettboy]

Is this post about the The Historical Jesus or is it about the Apocalyptic Jesus? If the former I would say Mormonism is skeptical of the secularism of Historical Jesus research even if it shares anti-Biblical inerrancy and traditionalist views. This makes it difficult to engage in the otherwise noteworthy literature on the subject because of faith issues. Mormonism would have to develop its own approach without rejecting the miraculous. My own blog started with a discussion on the problems and promises of the historical Jesus narratives. I don't think it would be a mix of water and oil, so much as keeping each to a respectable distance.

On the other hand, I know that Hugh Nibley wrote an article about Matthew 24 and Jesus' teachings about the end of the world. He compared the KJV chronology with the JST chronology to argue that it is really about the apostasy and restoration before his return. It might have been in his Pearl of Great Price lectures. I think such a study from a Mormon point of view would be of great worth, but again it would be far more devotional.

[Kevin Christensen]

Robert Millet has a direct response in Historicity and the Latter-Day Saint Scriptures, from the Religious Studies Center, 2001, an essay called "The Historical Jesus: A Latter-Day Saint Perspective."

Daniel Peterson has occasionally addressed the Jesus Seminarians in introductions in the FARMS Review. It was one of those that prompted me to read Timothy Johnson's books some years back.

Also, the forthcoming BYU Documentary Jesus (starting this Sunday night) is, as I understand, a direct response to the Jesus of History approach.

A chapter in John Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, "Jesus and the Composition" also addresses such issues. I expect the most recent version, The Sermon on the Mount and the Temple, has a similar chapter.

Also, FWIW, my FAIR essay on "Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets" has a section called "Jesus and Joseph Smith: Context and Perception" that draws on "Jesus In Recent Research" by John McDade, delivered at the Catholic Theological Association Conference 1998, published in The Month (December 1998), 495-505, citing W.R.Telford, ‘Major Trends and Interpretative Issues in the Study of Jesus’ in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, eds. B.Chilton & C.A.Evans (E.J.Brill, 1994), pp33-74.

One quote from Professor John McDade:

There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood. ‘Determines’ is not too strong a word, for one of the problems with this approach is that the grid of social and economic context is such a strong factor it can inhibit responsible handling of the actual textual evidence we have for Jesus.

That compares with Richard Bushman's take on Joseph Smith biographers at the Library of Congress in 2005:

As you can imagine, the context in which he is placed profoundly affects how people see the prophet, since the history selected for a subject profoundly colors everything about it. Is he a money digger like hundreds of other superstitious Yankees in his day, a religious fanatic like Muhammad was thought to be in Joseph Smith’s time, a prophet like Moses, a religious revolutionary like Jesus? To a large extent, Joseph Smith assumes the character of the history selected for him. The broader the historical context, the greater the appreciation of the man. If Joseph Smith is described as the product of strictly local circumstances--the culture of the Burned-Over District, for example--he will be considered a lesser figure than if put in the context of a Muhammad or Moses.

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

[Dave]

Thanks for the comments, Kevin. [I added a link to your FAIR post and formatted the quotes.] I'll have to run down a copy of Millet's article.

[AYdUbYA]

I've been thinking about the historical Jesus a lot lately, especially as the Christmas holiday approaches. I wonder was he really who the Bible and Book of Mormon say he was or is he a legend? This is mainly because in the last year or two I have gone through this process with the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith / history of the church. My perspective and beliefs have completely shifted.

All I know is the Bible was written thousands of years ago by some Jewish guys. Then their writing was translated into Greek and then translated into English. There are probably lots of words and phrases that changed in that process, and there is a possibility at each translation that something was added to or taken away from the original text.

Do we have any other evidence to go on besides the writings of a few ancient Jews?

[Dave]

Thanks for the comment, A. There are two separate questions. One is regarding the historical existence of Jesus Christ. At one point some scholars attempted to doubt this, but most scholars now accept this without doubts. Very few suggest the story of Jesus is simple legend.

The second question is over what the historical Jesus said and did, as opposed to later exaggerations or even fabrications that were added to the story. [Read some of the uncanonized gospels to really get a sense of exaggeration and fabrication.] Most scholars agree one needs to separate the narrative wheat from the chaff, so to speak, but disagree on the details of what is reliable after that sifting process and what portrait of the historical Jesus emerges from the reliable sayings and accounts.

As noted in the post, Luke Timothy Johnson does a fine job presenting an informed argument defending the traditional view of the historical Jesus of the four gospels.

[Jettboy]

"Do we have any other evidence to go on besides the writings of a few ancient Jews?"

We actually have more evidence of Jesus, albeit Jewish only, than any other historical figure of his time. The only real question is how accurate or historical are the documents. Still a Jew, but we do have mention of Jesus for a paragraph in Flavius Josephus. Again, the question isn't the reality of the paragraph so much as how much it might have been changed by Christian intervention. There is also a mention of Christians in a letter by Pliny where the existence of Jesus and even his death by the hand of Pilot is mentioned without challenge. However, Jesus' parentage is questioned much like in the New Testament.