The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday

INTRODUCTION The only information we have about the historical Jesus is that which is recorded in the gospels (canonical and non) as well as mentioned in epistles. To get an understanding of Jesus' theology, we cannot look to the theology of the early Christians that has been recorded in the New Testament. The authors who created the works which would eventually become our New Testament did not write in order to faithfully record the thoughts, deeds, and ideas of those they venerated. It is clear that the authors of our New Testament were revisionists: they freely and willingly placed their own words onto the lips of others and their own versions of history into the lives of others. When we compare the claims made by these revisionists to the claims made by those who they would wish to revise, we are struck by the often drastic shift in teaching and story line. Sifting truth out of the revisionists' tales is quite a chore. In the case of Jesus, who left no written records of his actual theology, this can be an even more difficult investigation to undertake. ARGUMENT - EXAMPLES To demonstrate the drastic shift presented by the revisionists, I present an example of a well-known early historical Christian who did write about his theology: the apostle Paul. When we compare the theology and history Paul writes to the theology and history others write in the name of Paul/about Paul (pseudo-Paul), we come up with some very crucial differences. Some of them even relate to the imminence of the apocalypse! These are all rather well-known, but are worth laying out here for all to examine: Paul on Baptism & Resurrection In the authentic Pauline letters, we see Paul lay out his theology regarding the significance of baptism and resurrection. In particular, the real Paul believes that the rite of baptism initiates one into the death of Christ providing the hope for a resurrection in the coming apocalypse. The 'pseudo-Paul' believes that part of the baptism rite initiates one into a resurrection as well—the resurrection is not hoped for, but actualized. Paul in Romans 6:3–5 (NRSV): Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. Pseudo-Paul in Colossians 2:12 (NRSV): when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. Where real Paul talks about a future resurrection, pseudo-Paul talks about a present resurrection. These two theologies are completely incompatible: you cannot be presently resurrected and still be hoping for a future resurrection! The folk putting words in Paul's mouth got it wrong; it's that simple. Paul on the Life of Paul In Paul's authentic letters, he makes several well-known claims regarding his activities after being 'converted' to his new faith in Jesus. Pseudo-Paul (in this case the Acts of the Apostles), however, records a much different story, keeping up the pseudo-Paul tradition of failing to accurately record the activities and theologies of the apostle. Paul in Galatians 1:15–18 (NRSV): But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; Pseudo-Paul in Acts 9:19–26 (NRSV): ... For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, 'He is the Son of God.' All who heard him were amazed and said, 'Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?' Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah. ... When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. Did Paul wait three years to go to Jerusalem or did he go right away? This inconsistency can hardly be smoothed over by a liberal reading of 'after some time had passed' (9:23). These two accounts are simply not compatible. The author telling Paul's story got it wrong; it's that simple. Paul on the Apocalypse Paul's authentic letters preach of an imminent apocalypse. Indeed, almost all of Paul's life directives tie directly into his belief of a soon-to-happen apocalypse. Pseudo-Paul, however, has a completely different take on the apocalypse and its timing. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–3 (NRSV): Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When they say, 'There is peace and security', then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labour pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! Pseudo-Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–4 (NRSV): As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. The apocalypse according to real Paul happens quickly and without warning; Christians are encouraged to be on constant watch. The apocalypse of pseudo-Paul, however, is drawn out with a series of events that gradually unfold to the coming of Jesus. The writer talking in Paul's name got it wrong; it's that simple. ARGUMENT - DISCUSSION Why do we see such a clash between the historical Paul and the pseudo-Paul? The answer is rather obvious: hoping to invoke the name and tradition of this maverick, later Christians rewrote his life and theology in order to advertise and advance their own theological, social, and/or cultural agendas. Paul's resurrection became actualized, not hoped for; Paul's relationship with the Jerusalem church became central and essential, not one of Paul's afterthoughts; Paul's apocalypse became delayed and predictable, not imminent and unpredictable. When it suited their purposes, the revisionists shamelessly altered the traditions of those before them. CONCLUSION In my next post I will examine specific apocalyptic quotes attributed to Jesus and show why it is a better explanation to treat them as ideological 'interpolations' (false attributions) than to treat them as the actual words of Jesus himself. The argument that best explains the apocalyptic nature of early Christianity and apocalyptic words attributed to Jesus can then be understood. JM