Ehrman shows some of his strengths but also a key weakness - Rated 
I first learned of Ehrman's views about the apocalyptic Jesus while reading his recent The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed. Even in that book, his interest in Gnostic Christianity seems secondary and he appears to be using the opportunity with that book to present again his arguments for an apocalyptic Jesus. So I decided to read this book for a more complete presentation of that viewpoint.
Ehrman generally explains material so well and his knowledge of history and the Bible seems so complete that, at first glance, it would seem foolish to doubt him. His case seems compelling. Given that the four New Testament gospels provide our first known accounts of Jesus and using well-established scholarly criteria for evaluating scriptural statements, Ehrman provides a convincing case that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew.
But is he too quick to accept the reliability of the New Testament gospels in revealing the historical Jesus? In the The Origin of Satan, Elaine Pagels takes into account the historical conditions of each of the gospel writers and wonders to what extent those texts were concerned more with motivating the Christians of those times and not with a historical account of a Jesus none of those gospel writers is likely to have known first hand. She writes that the four gospels were "chosen not necessarily because they were the earliest or most accurate accounts of Jesus' life and teaching but precisely because they could form the basis of church communities".
Ehrman devotes only several pages of the main text to the views of Crossam (and hence the Jesus Seminar) that Jesus was not an apocalyptic Jew. He simply dismisses Crossan on the issue of the dating of some texts. He doesn't mention other arguments from the Jesus Seminar members supporting their view of Jesus ( The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate
appeared in 2001 and it seems unlikely these conflicting issues would have been unknown to Ehrman).
Having relied on the four gospels as the best evidence to reveal the historical Jesus, Ehrman then relies heavily on criteria used often by Biblical scholars which he himself admits are only probabilistic: independent attestation, dissimilarity and contextual credibility. Using these, he shows how changes since Mark, generally presumed to be the earliest gospel, suggest that the depiction of Jesus as an apocalyptic Jew became muted over time and that any depiction of Jesus as an apocalyptic Jew didn't seem to support subsequent Christian teachings about Jesus. That leads Ehrman to conclude that Jesus must have been an apocalyptic Jew, which helps him to make sense of some of Jesus's important but otherwise obscure statements in the Gospels. Ehrman does acknowledge important ethical teachings by Jesus but makes them seem dependent on the expectation of an imminent direct action of his god and not by the people.
I'm just a lay person but I grow suspicious when it seems that a scholar has avoided squarely addressing the views of other leading scholars, especially in an area for which any scholar must rely so heavily on speculation. What if the dating of the texts is wrong or if other texts were lost? What if the probabilistic criteria Ehrman relies so heavily on are wrong in some of these particular cases he applies them to? What about the motives of the Gospel writers and their distance from Jesus? Is it feasible, as Ehrman suggests, that Jesus viewed himself as having a special relationship with a god who would establish a kingdom on earth that would overturn Roman rule and place Jesus, with his 12 disciples, in charge? It may be and that may explain why Christianity soon afterward retreated from teaching a apocalyptic Jesus who seemed entirely wrong in his expectations, but the views of the Jesus Seminar and Pagels seem worth addressing. Ehrman appeals to a "wide range of scholars who have devoted their lives to studying the ancient sources for the historical Jesus [who have] concluded that he proclaimed the imminent end of history as we know it] without acknowledging almost at all those who didn't so conclude or who may have suspected Jesus was calling for popular action rather than an direct intervention by his god.
That Ehrman remains wedded to this view and wanting to present it even ostensibly in a book about "The Gospel of Judas" (i.e. The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed) and that he avoided to such an extent in this book discussing the views of the Jesus Seminar that Jesus was not an apocalyptic Jew calls into question for me Ehrman's commitment to scholarship. Even in a book such as this for a lay audience, and perhaps especially so given that us lay readers may find it difficult to understand the conflicting conclusions of scholars, it seems irresponsible to dismiss alternative views in a few pages. I may have to read The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate to get further input on this issue and, even if Ehrman is right, the manner in which he has presented his case will make me quite suspicious of his work in the future.
I wish I had read this one first. - Rated 
I have read a lot of books about the historical Jesus and this is the one I wish I had read first. For two reasons: 1) The book is fun to read. It is entertainingly written. 2) Ehrman argues persuasively (although of course not conclusively) that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, and while he does so he makes very explicit the methods a historian has available for ascertaining the probability of some event. Armed with this simple historians toolbox it is a lot simpler to evaluate the validity of other hypoteses about Jesus - it is easier to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. If I had read this book first I am certain I would not had spent as much time reading rubbish as I did.
The best book in its field - Rated
I have read many books about the historical Jesus. Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium is by far the best. Although a popular account, Ehrman presents evidence and evaluates it logically. His main thesis is that Jesus believed that God would intervene, destroy all evil, and establish a Kingdom of God on earth (rather than in heaven), and that this would occur during his lifetime. Ehrman concludes that many of Jesus' sayings and deeds are best explained by Jesus' assumption that the present world would soon end. People must repent and prepare for the imminent judgment. One consequence of this belief is that Jesus was not a proponent of family values. Ehrman stresses that apocalypticism was an ideology that tried to make sense of the suffering of the Jewish people, giving them hope for the near future. 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.
|
