The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday

INTRODUCTION Allow me to cut right in to dealing with two related points from above. Here they are again as a reminder: 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 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. ARGUMENT - EXAMPLES It is technically correct that an apocalyptic mentality of the historical Jesus can explain the apocalyptic mentality of the early Christians. But it is unnecessary to tack such a mentality onto the historical Jesus; apocalypticism was fully developed within various sects of first century Judaism. There is no need to credit any specific individual with the origin of the apocalyptic mentality within early Christianity. White in From Jesus to Christianity (2004): The roots of Jewish apocalyptic go back to the Persian period and may be seen in some of the later writings of the Hebrew scriptures, especially Ezekiel and Isaiah 56–66. ... ... [T]he rise of apocalyptic thinking in Judaism may be traced to the latter half of the third century bce, while Judea was still under Ptolemaic control. It combined elements of new astronomical investigations from Greek science, the legacy of Persian and Egyptian influences, and basic Jewish theological convictions about the unity and power of the creator God of Israel. (pp. 69–70) White goes on to explain the dynamics that make sects prone to apocalypticism, dynamics at play not just within some early Jewish sects, but at play within a large chunk of Judaism as a whole: White in From Jesus to Christianity (2004) : The sect calls for a cure for these ills [economic deprivation, political oppression, feelings of the greater society having gone wrong, etc.] through a religious reorientation of the present social order. Far from calling for a radical destruction of its parent religious culture, however, this kind of sectarian rhetoric tends to preserve basic beliefs and practices while calling for a return to "purity" or relief of the oppressed. As a result, the "us versus them" tensions felt by a sect find a natural coherence with the dualistic outlook of apocalyptic. (p. 74) White also tells us that the failure of the first Jewish revolt led to a decline in apocalyptic thinking in both Jewish and early Christian circles, around the time when the latter movement would still have been largely a subset of the former (p. 224). When Jewish apocalypticism was revived sixty years later, the separation between Judaism and Christianity rendered Christianity immune to the influence of Jewish apocalyptic thought (pp. 227, 231). Beyond simply being unnecessary, however, attributing an apocalyptic ideology to Jesus goes against the prima facie evidence provided in the gospels. In my previous response I outlined some of the instances in which the gospel writers clearly put their own apocalyptic words into the mouth of Jesus; here are some of the instances in which the gospel writers show Jesus himself not to be apocalyptic. Mark and Matthew contain the story of Jesus rebuking Peter (Mk 8:27–33; Mt 16:13–23) for focusing on the apocalyptic aspects of his messiahship. When asked in Acts about the time for restoring Israel, Jesus responds, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority" (Acts 1:6–7). Even more telling is the nature of the Messianic secret of Mark. The word apocalypse comes from the Greek ἀποκάλυψις, which means 'unveiling' or 'revelation'.1 In Mark, the miracles associated with Jesus' charge not to tell are apocalyptic in nature: they involve cleansing (1:40–45), resurrection (5:35–43), and sense-restoration (7:31–37, 8:22–26). Following the miracles that others might mistake as signs (the first 'unveilings' or 'revelations') of an approaching apocalypse Jesus orders secrecy. Mark's Jesus takes measures to ensure that people do not perceive his message as one of an imminent apocalypse. Indeed, he doesn't even want people to know he is the Messiah (8:27–30) because he knows they will misinterpret it as an apocalyptic sign! ARGUMENT - DISCUSSION For apocalypticism to find its way into an early first century Jewish sect (which is what early Christianity was) requires no elaborate or special explanation. We do not need to attribute various characteristics to the figurehead of the sect in order to explain the apocalypticism that was rampant in any particular Jewish sect at the time. Not only was the early Christian movement Jewish, but it was also sectarian, making its members further prone to apocalyptic mentality. The rise and fall of apocalypticism in early Christianity matches closely with the rise and fall of apocalypticism in Judaism; they appear securely linked in their development, which makes more sense if the ideologies were a shared mentality amongst the two groups and less if they were founded by a particular leader of the sectarian Christianity. An additional appeal of this explanation is that its aspects, unlike the theology of Jesus, are factors which are already evidenced. We don't need to look any further for an explanation for early Christian apocalypticism because we already have one. Apocalypticism seems to have arisen and died in early Christianity just fine without Jesus. Jesus still might have been an apocalypticist; but proposing such a notion is not necessary to explain apocalyptic thinking in early Christianity. Thus, my opponent has no grounds on which to propose such a notion. His assumptive notion cannot provide any needed explanations that the alternative, better evidenced, notion doesn't already provide. On top of this, the gospel writers seem to indicate strongly that their Jesus did not promote apocalyptic thinking; added on to the fact that apocalyptic messages in the gospels can all be traced to the time and situation of the writers and not of Jesus, we are left with solid reason to believe that Jesus was not apocalyptic. When it comes to actually discussing Jesus' ideology—as opposed to putting words in his mouth—the gospel writers made it clear that he wasn't about apocalypticism. Jesus didn't found apocalyptic Christianity; apocalyptic Christianity found Jesus. CONCLUSION In my remaining responses I will address the remainder of the points I brought up in Round 3 as well as any objections from my opponent that I may not yet have addressed. For his next post, I would like to request that my opponent provide some references to the 'Q material' that he finds to be apocalyptic in nature. He has mentioned the material several times but has not yet indicated any sections in particular that he feels are apocalyptic. If he would like that I address this material, I would like that he present it. I would be most appreciative for having the opportunity to do so. JM __________ 1 From "Apocalypse" on Wikipedia. __________ 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.