The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday

INTRODUCTION My opponent asserts that we have "multiple attestation" in which it is "implausible that [these] multiple traditions would independently commit the same false assertions". It is clear, however, that these 'attestations' are almost certainly all false; they refer to the gospel writers' time period and not the time period of the historical Jesus. My opponent states that "doomsday cult doctrines are almost always attributable to the cult founder." While this may be true, it does not assist us much in the matter of determining the theology of the historical Jesus; we cannot apply this reasoning until we can assert with high confidence that Jesus viewed himself as the founder of the cult that later became Christianity. My opponent claims that the "'drastic shifts' are not nearly as 'drastic' as the proposed complete overhaul of the central theme of the cult per Paul, Mark and Q.". The New Testament records a history of one theological overhaul after another, with some of the most tampered-with theologies being the ones concerning the apocalypse. My opponent argues similarly that these "were minor shifts in doctrine". The shifts I mention, however, are anything but minor. They involve the importance of the initiating baptismal rites, the relationship to Jerusalem of the most famous apostle to the Gentiles, and the nature and timing of what would be the most important event in the life of an early Christian: the apocalypse. These shifts are major; they serve as a suitable analogy. My opponent believes that the best explanation for the points he has raised is that Jesus himself preached an imminent apocalypse. Given the difficulties in my opponent's argument, however, it is clear that the only people to whom we can trace imminent apocalypticism are the early followers of Jesus, who were the primary founders of the early Christian faith. Those who left written records were neither familiar with nor acquainted with the historical Jesus; thus, they did not even possess a theology from Jesus that they could revise—any specific theology attributed to Jesus cannot be traced to the historical Jesus, unless there is significant and abundant reason to think it can be. If the writers did not possess a theology of Jesus, the only way they could have written about a theology of Jesus is to have made one up! ARGUMENT - EXAMPLES Here I will examine some textual and historical evidence relating to the first point above. Due to the character limit, I will have to reserve my examination of the other points for my next response(s). Multiple Attestations: But of What? The apocalyptic attestations in the New Testament are products of the authors of the works in which they appear. They address the author's audience in the author's time, and are anachronistic as applied to an historical Jesus. L. Michael White says on Mark (emphases added): White in From Jesus to Christianity: The story is heavily laced with dramatic irony and with veiled allusions to allegorical images of Jesus's death. In many cases these literary devices are meant to signal issues that relate to the circumstances of the audience, either by way of affirmation or correction. Consequently, due caution is required in taking events or episodes as historical realities of Jesus's own day. (p. 232) A good example of this can be seen in Mark 13:14, where our author says, "(let the reader understand)". Clearly Mark is addressing his audience, indicating that he is talking about something that they should already know. What they should already know, of course, is that the city of Jerusalem has been destroyed by the Romans. What follows the discussion of the destruction of the Temple is an apocalyptic prediction. But this prediction is utilized by Mark only as a way of correcting the 'misconceptions' of the Markan community that the hour of Jesus' return had already come and gone without a bang. Jesus cannot be making these statements as they are reinterpretations of the apocalypse directly spurred by the first revolt that happened several decades after the death of Jesus. The events that would require these corrective statements would not have yet occurred in Jesus' own day. This cannot represent an attestation of Jesus' apocalypticism: it's only a statement of Mark's apocalypticism. Since we are dealing only with Mark's theology and not that of Jesus, we cannot count on Mark as one of our 'multiple' attestations. We can also look to Paul who, despite being an apocalypticist himself, never indicates that the historical Jesus was an apocalypticist in any way. In fact, quite the opposite: Paul's Jesus does nothing apocalyptic; he merely dies. The apocalyptic Jesus, for Paul, is not the Jesus of history, but the Jesus of the future—the Jesus who is to come "from heaven with a cry of command" (1 Thess 4:16). Since Paul does not make any attestations to the effect of the historical Jesus being apocalyptic, we cannot count on him as one of our 'multiple' attestations. Luke's Jesus is even more the telling, for he preaches no amount of imminent apocalypticism whatsoever. His mentions of the destruction of Jerusalem are all references to local wars; his mentions of the kingdom of God are all summed up in one phrase: "the kingdom of God is within you" (17:21; cf. Acts 1:8). In fact, Luke's Jesus states specifically that the Son of Man will not be seen when the disciples wish to see him (17:22); the arrival of the Son of Man is an entirely separate event for Luke from the destruction of the temple, and a separate thing from the arrival of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God has already arrived according to Luke, and the Son of Man will not appear in the destruction (of Jerusalem), but some unspecified time afterward (21:25–28; Acts 1:6–7). In effect, Luke calls Mark on his theology and raises him an already present kingdom. Luke's Jesus does not preach an imminent apocalypse; an imminent apocalypse is not part of Luke's theology. We cannot count on Luke as one of our 'multiple' attestations. ARGUMENT - DISCUSSION Though I was only able to present a limited amount of evidence, what I have presented clearly indicates that the theology and claims of the early writers cannot be relied upon as evidence of the theology of Jesus. The writings do not evidence multiple attestations to an imminent apocalypticism of Jesus, but rather to the varied nature of apocalyptic thinking in early Christianity. One thing is clear in all of our written accounts: the expected apocalypse is to come within the life time of the writers, decades after Jesus' death; even if Jesus made the claims attributed to him, the apocalypse they refer to is decades upon generations after the time of Jesus—hardly imminent in his own day. CONCLUSION I would have liked to have addressed a few more of the points in this response; and I would have liked to have had the opportunity to explore the point I did address even further. This was unfortunately not possible. The examples provided, however, should suffice in demonstrating the vast differences in apocalyptic understanding amongst the early Christians; they were not, as my opponent would have you believe, of a single mind in hopes of an imminent doomsday coming of Jesus. The apocalypticism we do see is the product of the individual differences in early Christian theology, not the product of a carried-forward apocalyptic tradition that originated with the historical Jesus. JM __________ White, L. M. (2004) From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.