ApostateAbe

Intro

In this thread, I make my full case for my model of the historical Jesus: a doomsday cult leader.

It sounds like an insult, but it is actually another way of expressing the theory that has been predominant among secular New Testament historians for the most part of a hundred years, though they don't use that phrase. The missionary Albert Schweitzer instead used the phrase, "apocalyptic prophet," meaning that Jesus believed that the world order was going to come to a disastrous end very shortly, within Jesus' own generation at the latest, and God would establish a new kingdom to rule to the world from on top of the rubble.

Surprisingly, the historical evidence for this theory is featured prominently throughout the New Testament canon, and we do not need to read between the lines nor use our imaginations to see it.

John the Baptist

The source of the apocalypticism of Jesus can be inferred from a study of the historical attestations of John the Baptist. The gospels of Mark and Matthew claim that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and all of the canonical gospels betray some embarrassment concerning the baptism (see this post). Why would Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if Jesus was the spiritual authority over John? Plausibly, because Jesus really was baptized by John. If Jesus was baptized by John, then it was probably because Jesus was a disciple of John. This hypothesis is strongly reinforced by Jesus himself, according to Matthew 11:11, saying, "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist..."

What kind of leader was John the Baptist? There are two historical sources concerning John the Baptist: the Christian gospels and Josephus. According to the earliest Christian gospel, Q, John the Baptist believed in an imminent doomsday. John is quoted:

"Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9)

Does this mean John the Baptist was a doomsday cult leader? Not necessarily, because our second source, Josephus, does NOT explicitly claim that John the Baptist was an apocalypticist. However, Josephus tells a narrative of John the Baptist that would be expected if John were genuinely a doomsday cult leader: John gains a large following, Herod fears an uprising and puts John to death, and the followers of John attribute the downfall of Herod to the execution (see Josephus on John the Baptist).

It is concluded, therefore, that the mentor of Jesus was probably a doomsday cult leader. This makes the claim that Jesus was likewise a doomsday cult leader considerably more plausible. On to Jesus!

Mark

Mark 9:1 reads:

"And he said to them, 'Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.'"

Mark 13:30 reads:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."

Jesus is being quoted, and he seems to be saying the same thing in two different ways: the deadline is right around the next corner. Despite this, the traditional apologies for these passages is that a "generation" is actually a very long period of time, and "the kingdom of God has come with power" refers to the transfiguration of Jesus. But both passages are in the context of apocalyptic prophecies. For example, in Mark 13 Jesus predicts:

"When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs."

Paul

The earliest Christian writings are the epistles authentically written by the Apostle Paul, and his letters are in a similar spirit of imminent apocalypticism.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 reads:

"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words."

This was written two decades after the death of Jesus, and it makes sense only if it is meant to encourage "we who are alive" who may otherwise be discouraged with the thought that the Christians who have died would miss out on the heavenly kingdom.

1 Corinthians 7:29 reads:

"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none..."

After the deadline

All of the earliest works of the Christian canon are apocalyptic, often betraying imminent apocalypticism. However, the later Christian writings, from 90 CE and onward, change their sermons. They instead have explicit excuses for the earlier doomsdayism. Such passages include John 21:20-23, Gospel of Thomas 113 and 2 Peter 3:3-8.

John 21:20-23 reads:

"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’ When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about him?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’"

In other words, the doomsday deadline was really just a silly misunderstanding by the disciples.

Gospel of Thomas 113 reads:

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

In other words, this Jesus is correcting a common misconception about the coming kingdom, a misconception that the disciples supposedly held. The kingdom won't be observably physical--it will be spiritual or metaphorical.

2 Peter 3:3-10 is the most blatantly apologetic. Pretending to be written by the Apostle Peter, it reads:

First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the godless.

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.

In other words, the scoffers will mock Christians by pointing out that the doomsday has failed its deadline, because their ancestors at the time of Jesus were long dead, but God apparently does not have the same interpretation of the given itinerary as the scoffers.

Conclusion

The doomsday cult leader model of the historical Jesus is most directly expected from the most relevant evidence. Not only that, but it is plausible: The Jewish Essenes (the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls 100 years before Jesus) likewise believed in an imminent doomsday.

The greatest weakness of this model of the historical Jesus is that it does not fit our wishful thinking for who Jesus was. Whereas other historical Jesuses conveniently affirm the social opinions of modern scholars, authors and readers, the doomsday cult leader Jesus is hopelessly divorced from our prejudices. He was a man of a very different time and place.

And, though the subsequent churches have relegated the apocalypticism to lesser importance, Christian doomsday prophets and Biblical analysts over 2000 years have since predicted that Jesus will return VERY SOON, often nailing down the date. William Miller in the 19th century indirectly founded several major Christian denominations following his fumbled prediction, the "Great Disappointment."

How disappointing that the world didn't end! It is a disappointment that has recurred in the Christian tradition since the time of Jesus.

Huon

Jesus ben Ananias.
Beginning in 62 CE, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

dog-on

Isn't the J ben Anias quote interesting when applied to christanity. The east and west, the four winds, etc...

ApostateAbe

It is an interesting historical example, and I think it is one of many examples that show the historical plausibility of Jesus of Nazareth being an apocalyptic preacher.

Huon

I do not know of a myth of the end of the world existing in the greek, roman, or gothic polytheistic religions. If the monotheistic religion of the Jews was to be preached to Greeks, Romans, or etc..., this myth of the end of the world coming soon was almost useless?

BTW, I do not think that Jesus ben Ananias was "our" Jesus Christ, simply he could have been a model.

ApostateAbe

Apocalyptic literature has its roots in Judaism, and I suppose it is possible that Judaism pioneered the cultural theme of apocalypticism to the Grecco-Roman world where it didn't exist before, but that doesn't mean the Grecco-Roman world was not receptive to it. One way or the other, the myth of the end of the world was a powerful idea, and it remains a theme in all cultures to this day.

MrMacSon

That's like saying King Arthur was historical because King Henry was. :constern02:

ApostateAbe

Well, it is like saying that King Arthur is plausible because King Henry was historical, but of course it doesn't follow that King Arthur is historical. Plausibility is only half of it. My primary arguments are in the OP.

sotto voce

The authorial view was that Jesus, being sinless, did not need baptism that signified repentance. However, Jesus nevertheless signified his humility, his willingness to be seen to be a sinner, by being baptised. This was a clue to what John had said of Jesus from the start, that Jesus was 'the Lamb of God' that indicated both his perfection and his future sacrifice. The heavenly acclamation of Jesus that followed even as he emerged from the water demonstrated the divine pleasure at the promise of a perfect sacrifice to perfect eternal consciences and souls. Here Jesus contrasted with Job, said to be perfect, yet refusing to admit to being seen to be blameworthy. (Job was very possibly allegorical, but in any case he reflects human nature.) This contrast points to the nub of the gospel, that is contingent upon the willingness of a messiah to accept guilt where there is none.

To refuse baptism would also have been a strategic error, for two reasons. One was that Jesus did not want to give any indication of his deity by mere assertion, to which such a refusal would have been tantamount. His miracles and his message were to form the basis for choice in this matter. The other reason was that refusal could have given ammunition to his Establishment opponents, who had themselves applied to John for baptism, and who did not wish to admit that Jesus had shown due humility.

'"I tell you the truth: among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."' Mt 11:11

Evidently Jesus excepted himself and the whole future church from this comparison. The very fact that John, from his prison, had expressed doubt as to the identity of Jesus, showed that he was 'born of woman' after all, and that one had to be born 'from above' in order to grasp the whole truth.

Earlier, John had been much more in line with NT conceptions:

'"I baptise you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."' Mt 3:10 NIV

ApostateAbe

sotto voce, some of the most complex theological doctrines follow from canonical accounts that don't otherwise seem to make religious sense, like the accounts of Jesus getting baptized. If we don't place faith in the canon, then such accounts may instead serve to shed light on historical realities, and that is my interest.