Diogenes the Cynic

Please note Ehrman's wording here:

Ehrman does not say we can know Jesus was apocalyptic because Paul was, he says we can know the Christian movement after the death of Jesus was apocalyptic, because Paul expects an imminent parousia. Ehrman is only making a statement about what we can conclude that Paul believed in that quote. He's not connecting dots and saying "therefore Jesus himself must have been apocalyptic."

Steven Carr

Ehrman expands on that view in his book 'Jesus -Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium'.

But still, if people want to deny that Ehrman pushes the 'my Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet' line, feel free.

Toto

But Ehrman does say that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. He just doesn't use Paul as evidence.

But where does that leave the criteria of dissimilarity?

Steven Carr

Where it always was.

As an ad hoc tool, to be deployed by whoever wants to use it to reach their predetermined conclusions.

Sorry, I exaggerate. It is only to be used by scholars to reach their predetermined conclusions.

People who wonder whether or not it is a scholarly tool are , by definition, not scholars, and so can be ignored. They probably don't even have a job teaching the criterion of dissimilarity (like Ehrman has), and so are obviously unable to contribute anything to whether or not such methods are valid.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not denyng that Ehrman thinks Jesus was apocalyptic (I have Apocalyptic Prophet on my Kindle and have read it more than once), but he does not try to present Paul's beliefs as the evidence for it. He argues it on other grounds.

Steven Carr

Ehrman also says that John the Baptist was an apocalyptic preacher.

Because the Gospels say so, and IIRC, Ehrman claims Josephus also said so.

Steven Carr

Let me run that Ehrman quote for you one more time.

'John's message was one of impending apocalyptic judgment. Jesus started his public ministry subscribing to that view.

We not only know how Jesus started, we also know, with even greater certainty, what happened among his followers after he died. They began to establish communities of believers around the Mditerranean. We have our first glimpse of these communities in the writings of our earliest Christian author, Paul. And it is clear what these communities (and Paul) were like. They were filled with expectations that they--the Christians at the time--would be alive when Jesus returned from heaven as judge of the earth (see, for example, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15). In other words Christianity started out as an apocalyptic movement after the death of Jesus.'

The quote starts by saying Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and says, hey, look at all these apocalyptic writings.

Coincidence? I think not. I think Ehrman is expounding on the apocalyptic nature of Paul's writings as direct confirmation of his claim that , hey, we know how Jesus started.

A bit like saying we know Mitt Romney is running for President, because look at all those groups of people campaigning for him.

Diogenes the Cynic

He does not claim Josephus says so.

Diogenes the Cynic

He does not ever say that Paul's beliefs are evidence for Jesus' beliefs. All of his argumentation for Jesus being an apocalyptic prophet, right or wrong as it may be, is derived independently of Paul's letters.

outhouse

OP was in error there as well


he wasnt even using paul that way, it was a refference to matthew