Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

by Bart D. Ehrman

In this highly accessible discussion, Bart Ehrman examines the most recent textual and archaeological sources for the life of Jesus, along with the history of first-century Palestine, drawing a fascinating portrait of the man and his teachings.Ehrman shows us what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament (and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter), Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet--a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within the lifetime of his apostles and that a new kingdom would be created on earth. According to Ehrman, Jesus' belief in a coming apocalypse and his expectation of an utter reversal in the world's social organization not only underscores the radicalism of his teachings but also sheds light on both the appeal of his message to society's outcasts and the threat he posed to Jerusalem's established leadership.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, Theology, Biography, New Testament

288 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Reviews

[Huyen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve always been semi-interested in religion. Interested enough to have many conversations and debates about it, but not enough to read any thorough book on it. Not even the Bible. And admit it, most of the time, books on religion are quite dry and intense, like you need to know lots of the details and stories before you can even make sense of what they’re trying to argue about. Or the other end of the spectrum is militant bastards like Richard Dawkins, who I’m totally fed up with or apologists like Francis Collins. They don’t really educate me at all on the subject matter. So stuff that, I have many other interesting things to read in my life.

So I was quite reluctant to read this book when my friend Matt introduced it to me. You know the sort of book atheists recommend to other atheists, don’t you? But the fact that he was religious and is now atheistic and can defend his viewpoint so convincingly made me think this book must be good. And it turns out to be a wonderful book, Bart Ehrman is like totally my hero these days.

The book is not just what he learns about religion, but really his life story and how he changed his mind from being a devout Christian to an agnostic. Not the kind of getting frustrated with God and giving up the faith, but he certainly reflected on it very deeply and rationally. He was raised in an evangelical family and when he was in highschool, he found a void in his soul. He turned to Christianity and was so overwhelmed by the solace of God that he decided to spend the rest of his life to it. Ehrman went to a super fundamentalist school, and thank God, went on to study theology at Princeton. Here, he had access to the most extensive collection of Christian texts and decided to learn many ancient languages so he could read these manuscripts himself.

What he found out shook him to the core. There are many variations in the canon over time and he gradually came to realize that the Bible is a totally human text, with very human errors, emotions, inspiration and prejudices. It drove him to learn more about ancient Christian history and traditions, not to refute it completely, but to point out the inconsistencies and alternative texts that were left out in the process. And this guy obviously knows his stuff, knows it so well and can argue so persuasively with reason and empathy that you find it hard to believe he's no longer a Christian. He doesn’t convince you to become an agnostic like himself, and he doesn’t need to. All he does is be an honest historian and present all the evidence, examine it closely and weigh the possibility of each event, and I think every reasonable person can walk out learning a lot from this man.

So much for his life story. Jesus, the first millennium apocalyptic prophet is an amazing book. I mean, if a religiously retarded moron like me can understand it, you can be guaranteed of its quality. In this book, he points out a lot of inconsistencies in the four Gospels, such as the account of the birth of Jesus or his death. How do you reconcile the story of King Herod and the wise men in Matthew with the shepherd in Luke? Did he die on the Passover or the day after? What was his reaction to his crucifixion, did he cry out in pain as in Mark or did he accept it willingly as in John? What happened to the women who found the tomb, what did they see, did they go straight to Jerusalem or go to Galilee first?

These contradictions are inevitable because the first account of Jesus’ life was Paul’s letters, which were written 20 years AFTER Jesus’ death. The earliest Gospel, Mark, possibly 30 years, other gospels, 50-80 years. So here you go, you have four accounts written decades after the events, not by eyewitnesses, in a different language (Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic). There is also very little evidence of a man called Jesus living around that time in other sources, either pagan or Christian. Other Christian sources such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or Coptic Gospel of Thomas or the Gnostic Myth all tell very little and different stories about Jesus’ life and deeds. What we can really construct about Jesus is quite limited and we must always take it with a grain of salt.

The best point of the book deals with what I’ve always been wondering about Jesus: was he a revolutionary? A social reformer? A self-sacrificing loving saint? What exactly was his purpose? Why did he teach bizarre things such as turn the other cheek, or give away everything, or if someone wants to enslave you, let them or forgive all acts of evil? No, I won’t pretend that any of these things ever made sense to me. The question of forgiveness strikes me as the most puzzling thing Jesus preached. I don’t believe in complete mercy, I do believe in just and humane punishment. Forgiveness is not given, but earned. So why did he teach these things?

Bart Ehrman offers a hypothesis, a very good one to explain it. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was expecting the coming of the Kingdom of God WITHIN HIS GENERATION. His ministry began with his association with John the Baptist, also an apocalyptic prophet. Throughout the gospels, you can find his teachings about the coming judgment, the coming Son of God, when those oppressed will be vindicated and rewarded and unbelievers will be sent to hell, all governments and institutions will be destroyed.

And if you put all his teachings in that context, everything makes perfect sense. He was not so concerned with this life, because the end is coming imminently when you’ll live in perpetual heaven, and if you don’t care about this life, why would you care if someone steals your money, enslaves you, slaps you in the face? He did not intend to be a social reformer because he advocated the ABOLITION of all governments and institutions. He did not expect this world to become better; he expected it to end and every believer to enter the Kingdom of God IN THIS WORLD, not in heaven. His point is, simply put, believe in God, repent, sacrifice, forgive, give away, do anything to enter the Kingdom of God. Ah, Remember to be quick because it’s coming within your generation. He might have taught a few good things but maybe it wasn’t his purpose after all.

Bart Ehrman is simply a beautiful writer, he writes eloquently, coherently and honestly. He doesn’t attack religion, he analyses it and leaves us to find an answer for ourselves. We definitely need more people like him in this world. Thanks Matt, you’re my hero for introducing this book to me.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is important to be selective with Bart Ehrman books, since he has the tendency to write the same book over and over in different forms. However, this is an early one, and he does an excellent job in setting out his understanding of the historical Jesus. If you are a believing Christian, you should know going in that this is not written from a pro-Christian or anti-Christian point of view. Ehrman writes as a secular historian. In my view, it is not a threat to anyone's faith. If anything, he is open-minded and fair about the possibility of miracles.

The book, as all of Ehrman's books are, demonstrates excellent scholarship, written in a very accessible fashion. Serious students will appreciate the shout out to Albert Schweitzer's, "The Quest of the Historical Jesus". Ehrman follows Schweitzer's lead in interpreting Jesus in his own times and as someone who had an apocalyptic point of view.

The book provides an excellent and concise overview of first century Palestine, covering all of the major religious groups, practices, politics and the governance of the Roman Empire. It tells us about the society of the time, how people lived, and what the early life of Jesus must have been like. It is a great review for someone like me, who has been out of seminary for 20 years! Again, because the writing is so accessible, anyone can pick this book up and get some seminary-level insights without a huge vocabulary barrier.

In the end, I agreed with most of Ehrman's conclusions, not all. They are usually argued well, although some of the time, Ehrman seems to be taking some of the same liberties he criticizes other scholars for taking. But, on the whole, he makes cogent arguments, does not overstep his bounds too often, and as a result, uncovers a picture of Jesus Christ that is well worth reading.

[Ericka Clou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of the reviewers below don't like what historian Bart D. Ehrman has to say, so they simply misconstrue what he actually wrote in this book. The part of the book's description that best summarizes this book is, "Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet--a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within the lifetime of his apostles and that a new kingdom would be created on earth." Ehrman does not diminish the importance of Jesus in any way. In other books he wrote, he explained that he has personally gone from being a literal interpreter of the Bible to an atheist and maybe that's what's drawing the ire of some reviewers. My (non-literalist) Christian beliefs are not in any way threatened by a careful historical analysis of what Jesus probably actually said based on multiple Biblical references and the historical context of the time. I think this is very well-done and gives me a lot to think about.

[Hilary "Fox" · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book was quite informative it got rather more repetitive than it needed to be. Bart D. Ehrman's hypothesis of Jesus of Nazareth being an apocalyptic prophet is one that is largely regarded as accurate in historical circles. Other books, notably Zealot did a better job of explaining this stance in an interesting and compelling way. So, while I enjoyed this book I feel it could have been more entertaining and less repetitive than it ended up being.

[Illiterate · Rating 2 out of 5]

OK. But Ehrman can be fuzzy. He parses “the story is false but offers valuable lessons” as “the story is true”. And he vacillates on miracles.

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

For anyone interested in trying to distinguish the historical Jesus from the Christ of Faith, I'd highly recommend this book. Bart Ehrman is a wonderful writer. His ideas are expressed in a manner that makes them easy to understand.

Ehrman's whole book is built around a single thesis: we can best understand the historical Jesus as a failed, apocalypticist, whose every action and teaching were to wake people up to the immanent dawning of the kingdon of God.

Ehrman's view is not universally accepted by Jesus scholars. In particular, Jesus Seminar scholars like John Dominic Crossan argue that the strong apocalypticticist message of the synoptic gospels is a post-historic accretion. The problem with such a view, as Ehreman argues, is that it ignores large sections of the gospels in terms of what they actually say.

My impression is that Ehrman tries to reconstruct the historical Jesus in a way that does the most justice to the early sources, including Mark's gospel, the Q gospel, the writings of Paul, and the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Ehrman also tries to locate Jesus within the cultural and theological context of his time. He points out, for example, that in first century Judiasm there was a strong apocalypticist movement, particularly in rural, backwater areas like Galilee.

Ehrman's view of Jesus is similar to that of Albert Schwitzer, who thought of Jesus's teachings as an emergency, interim ethic designed solely to provide entry into God's dawning kingdon. In Ehrman's view, Jesus' teachings weren't about developing a longterm morality, because Jesus didn't believe there was going to be a "longterm." Many of Jesus' parables make sense in this light, as Ehrman points out at length.

Excellent book.

[Justin Evans · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can forgive biblical scholars for writing impenetrable prose. They have to know about 8000 languages. They study the most studied book of all time, and the temptation to split hairs must be overwhelming. On the other hand, biblical scholars write about *the bible*, so they've got an enormous in-built audience that other humanities people can only dream of. So maybe they should actually take advantage of that?
Well, Ehrman does. Kudos to him; he writes clearly and says exactly what he thinks. What he thinks, along with a whole bunch of other people whom he's happy to praise, is that Jesus was a Jewish prophet who thought the end of the world was really, really nigh; that his ethical preaching and his actions were all geared towards this thought, and that most Christian theology, and much of the new testament, has very little to do with the man Jesus who wandered around a couple thousand years ago. It seems pretty plausible, and he's very clear that this is a history book, and not a theology book.
Two problems: first, this is the sort of thing that you might read and then say to yourself, well, you know what? Hell with the Christian tradition then. A more productive angle for a conclusion or something might have been to suggest that since the 'identity' or 'biography' of Jesus never had squat to do with Christianity, people could more productively spend their time thinking about living good lives (and, if you're Christian, therefore deserving God's forgiveness), rather than being New Atheists or Creationists and thinking all the time about other peoples' genitals.

Also, it gets really repetitive over the last few chapters. A bit too much padding over all.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 2 out of 5]

Despite being written by an apostate, it is not entirely worthless. Here is why it is annoying, though: Ehrman starts explaining concepts which NT studies have known for 30 years, yet he is acting like he just discovered them and that they are really dangerous to Christianity (they aren't). Further, he really does believe, or so how he writes, that anyone who disagrees with him is a total moron who thinks the Left Behind novels are real (he comes very close to saying that).

While Ehrman is correct to note the apocalyptic context, he seems adamant that the phrase "end of the world" means "end of the space time continuum." He is not familiar, being a modernist, with the echoes to OT texts that speak of judgment on Jerusalem. He continues to cling to out-dated modernist scholarship

Despite all of that, it is an easy read and he does touch upon the basics which we've already known (but bless his heart, he probably does think he discovered them).

[Ziyad Hasanin · Rating 3 out of 5]

المراجعة قريبًا

[Emily Fuentes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Please note before reading: Though this is a historical look at Jesus (and the author claims it is not theological), it is inadvertently going to touch on theology just in the very nature of the title (suggesting Jesus is a prophet rather than the Messiah/God). So know this before going into it- as a Christian myself, I like to either have my beliefs challenged or confirmed and read differing view points to be a more well-rounded and open-minded human. Just a bit of what to expect, so you know if this book is something you would want to read.

I believe and agree that there are some historical inaccuracies within the gospels, but this author does a lot of "jumping to conclusions" as a result. He tends to throw the "baby out with the bath water" and often claims a whole section, book or the gospels themselves as inaccurate (instead of focusing on how much is actually similar for an original oral transcript). The author fails to fully comprehend the political impact of other historical documents about Jesus besides the gospels (those who rule write history and omit what they want i.e. The Jews and Romans) and seems to have a difficult time marrying his 20th century historian detective nature with something like oral transcribed tradition. I truly believe that all historical documents are tainted because of politics and we need to take it all with a grain of salt. We will never know for sure all the finite details, but can get a general grasp of what the story is. All this to say, there were some solid points, but there were some conclusions that he made that were just as much as a "stretch" as what he claimed was inaccurate with the gospels. Other big issue is he compares English translations to one another (I.e. When talking about how some biblical authors called Mary a virgin and some a woman). He also omitted a lot on prophecies that had been fulfilled by Jesus (according to scripture).

Good food for thought, especially because I am not of the sola scriptoria tradition, but didn't 100% hold up the burden of proof on his end. However, even the author notes that this is impossible (pg 96) because reconstructing history is based on probabilities rather that empirical proof. I really appreciate how this author took a scholarly debate and made it so accessible to the masses. He presents a plethora of information in an interesting and informative way to non-historian scholars.

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/201...

[Jenn Valentine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr. Ehrman’s monograph, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, is an insightful account of the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth—the man whose legacy launched one of the world’s most adhered to religions: Christianity. Through erudite methodology, Ehrman deconstructs current notions of the historical Jesus, and attempts to contextualize his personage within the era of his lifetime, by carefully reviewing the earliest sources available to us at present—both Christian and pagan alike. Though a careful cross-comparison of such documents, we are given a more complete picture of the historical Jesus, which while perhaps not the one framed by Christian churches today, may better allows us to understand his words and deeds without the theological frameworks which surround such Biblical accounts as passed to us from antiquity.

Ehrman posits a picture of the historical Jesus that paints him as an apocalyptic prophet. That is, a man who teaches that the end of times would occur, not in the distant future, but within his own lifetime with the coming of the Son of Man (e.g., p. x, and 125). At this time, a great reversal of the world order will occur and only those of whom faithfully adhered to the principles of his precepts will be allowed to enter the New Kingdom—which he would rule as supreme with the help of his 12 disciples by his side (pp. 141-162, and pp. 184-185). These precepts, Ehrman claims, are that of: total nonviolence, forgiveness, love to all, and complete rejection of wealth and family (pp. 167-181).

Yet, more than developing a pellucid codex of the Christ’s historical teachings, we are granted an insight to the biographical elements of his life. Yes, Ehrman states, Jesus was from Nazareth, and yes he could have very well been born in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (p. 98). His parents raised him—and his siblings—in the Jewish tradition, and he spoke Aramaic, some Hebrew, and possibly some Greek as well (p. 99-100). His parents were “salt of the earth” type people who worked the equivalent of blue collar jobs (p. 97). Unfortunately, we have no credible sources depicting his early life (although the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is quite amusing, and may be worthwhile to pursue for such matters alone), but we can assume he had a normal childhood in which he probably apprenticed under his mother’s husband, Joseph, to learn the family trade (p. 100). When he was about 30, he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic prophet preaching in the wilderness before beginning his ministry in the Galilean region of Palestine (p. 138).

Unfortunately, accounts of the Christ’s ministry are fraught with supernatural elements, rendering them historically elusive. However, Ehrman does provide the reader with a few proposed theological lenses which others have tried to account for the wonders and miracles associated with the Biblical accounts: as supernatural histories requiring faith in their verity, as natural histories with logical explanations that could not have been understood by the ancients who lacked our modern scientific understandings, and finally—the one of which Ehrman adheres—as myths: history-like stories told to convey a religious truth (pp. 23-29). It does seem as though Jesus did have a tendency to attract followers who would have been considered societal rejects: the poor, the day laborer, the tax collector, and the harlot, as well as children and women, who were typically marginalized as a general rule in culture and politics (pp. 185-190).

Finally, Ehrman holds that the last sure thing we can know of his person, is his manner of death. He was crucified under the direction of Pontius Pilate around the time of the Jewish Passover in the city of Jerusalem (pp. 207-225). After a life-time of wandering the countryside of Palestine, he finally enters the city of Jerusalem, possibly on a donkey since the streets were probably crowded for the holiday, and without much fanfare (pp. 219-220). While in Jerusalem, he continued to preach his message to those who would listen, attempted to disturb the workings of the Jewish Temple priests, and was betrayed by one of his closest followers, who probably was named Judas Iscariot (pp. 211-219). At this point, he was brought before the Jewish leaders for a preliminary trial before facing Pilate in a quick trial where he was condemned to death for proclaiming himself as king—albeit one of the New Kingdom, not this one (pp. 219-223). He was then probably flogged or tortured some, then crucified as King of the Jews outside the city walls, probably alongside a few other criminals and trouble-makers, and died within a matter of days (pp. 223-225). Whether he rose from the grave or not, we cannot know as historians, Ehrman says, but we can know that many of his contemporaries claimed to have seen him after his death—and it is these stories which have helped found the Christian religion we familiar with today.

As aforementioned, this historical narrative pieced together by Ehrman was done through rigorous scholarship. Using only the earliest sources available today, from both Biblical and non-biblical documents — he cross compared historic elements using a scheme involving 3 criteria: the criterion of dissimilarity, the criteria of independent attestation, and the criterion of contextual credibility — to render what known values may be rendered from them (pp. 85-96). The earliest sources appear to be — in order from oldest to newest — the works of Paul, Q (an imaginary document containing the texts held in similarity between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which are not found in the Gospel of Mark), the Gospel of Mark, M (another imaginary document containing the texts found in neither the Gospel of Mark or Luke, but only in the Gospel of Matthew), L (ut dicitur the texts found in neither the Gospel of Mark or Matthew, but only in the Gospel of Luke), then the Gospels of John, Peter, and Thomas, followed by non-biblical sources by Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus (pp. 55-85). Thus, Ehrman provides his readers an a posteriori picture of the Christ, utilizing the tools best suited to providing any person the known elements of his life.

I myself found his argument fairly compelling for such a small tome. His work is especially approachable for a historical study on such a controversial subject. I found his anecdotes and witticisms almost cathartic, as literature on this subject have always been especially loathsome for me. However, I must admit a small level of frustration. I do feel that undue attention was perhaps given to the message of the Christ, as he may have spoken it, and its implications to the modern reader, than what the political, economic, and social climate of his time was like during his life (yes, he does touch on these items a bit, but I suppose I want more). Then again it is possible that the fault is not Ehrman’s, but my own, since his book does appear to accomplish what it sets out to do—portray the Christ person, and his message, as an apocalyptic prophet of his time. Yet, I wanted more story and less theology, and for that I cannot blame Ehrman exactly—just sigh as many women and bibliophiles do when they have been failed by their objects of affection by reasons not their own. And finally, I must admit to finding his argument a tad contrived at times, and definitively “in your face” towards the end (pp. 239-245). The former is mostly due to the brevity of his monograph, which left certain sections a little less filled out than I personally care for, though he certainly does attempt to cover for such failings by incorporating a rather wonderful bibliography at the end. The latter I find only problematic inasmuch as it may in-fact be off-putting for readers “of the faith” (of which I am thankfully not), but could have learned on their own accord the lesson he was attempting to teach through this scholarly endeavor without having their noses rubbed in it as well. Overall, I would recommend this book to a friend likewise interested in what Ehrman has to say, though I wouldn’t lend them my copy (as I am a notorious book hoarder), or even buy them their own to read (as I would with other literature I found at least half-way worthwhile to read).

[Ben | The Immersion Library · Rating 3 out of 5]

Discovering the historical Jesus is pertinent to the development of one's faith. But is this really Him? Bart D. Ehrman argues that Jesus was no more than an apocalyptic prophet of the first century; no different than the several men who have claimed the imminent end of the current world order in our own time. His historical methodology is reasonably irrefutable. His logic and critical assessments of our available sources in reconstructing a reasonable image of Jesus is solid.

I have no illusions about bringing my own beliefs to the table in this discussion of the historical Jesus. Undeniably, this plays a large part in my pondering of Ehrman’s presentation; similarly as anyone else would bring their different beliefs to the table as well. Considering the controversial nature of the subject matter, I think current biases are a stumbling block Ehrman expected.

Again, Ehrman’s methodology is reasonably flawless and he has a gift of accessibility when presenting his arguments. I won’t outline all the details of his assessment guidelines. Suffice it to say, they work. I did, however, have a few questions. And I think Ehrman may have stumbled by not anticipating these questions, at least not including his responses in this publication.

First, he claims that the apocalyptic culture of first century Judaism helps us understand Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet of the same variety as previous Old Testament prophets. However, wouldn’t this culture help us understand the perspective of the Gospel authors as well? Or, if the authors were Greek Gentiles, as Ehrman reasonably argues, wouldn't their sources, even if by oral tradition, have that same first century Jewish bias? Wouldn’t it be just as reasonable to assume that the author of Q, for example, brought his belief of an imminent world end to his interaction with Jesus’ words and deeds? If so, perhaps the theological developments weren't religiously coercive but rather a spiritual realization; finally getting the point.

Secondly, Ehrman argues that some of Jesus’ apocalyptic phrases used a very specific future tense, understandably negating the idea that the Kingdom of God was a present manifestation of the spirit in Jesus as the Christ. But rather than consider the present tense apocalyptic phrases and teachings as indications to the opposite, Ehrman interprets them in the imminent political and economic establishment of the Kingdom for which he already argued. Let’s also consider how Jesus taught mostly in parables. How is it unreasonable to consider that his apocalyptic teachings were parabolic of the renewal of the spirit? Ehrman makes a compelling argument for why a spiritual apocalypse is unlikely, mostly because the later Gospels were the ones to profess this, not the ones closer to Jesus’ time, but again, this is unlikely not impossible. And it is just as reasonable to assume that the Gospel authors were products of an apocalyptic culture, including Gentiles converted by Jews of the this culture, as Jesus was.

From my own estimation, I find it quite sensible that God would likely establish a Kingdom of the heart since his first try, even with Eden and eventually Jerusalem, did not fare so well. What’s to say that a new political, economic and earthly Kingdom wouldn’t crumble, even by abolishing evil? The world is relatively transient. It will eventually crumble. If God is spirit, and infinite, isn’t this the only way to establish a Kingdom of God? Of course, this is a theological analysis, and according to Ehrman, one that John and the later Gospel writers would have employed as the religion spread and grew. But wouldn't Jesus, an acknowledged wise teacher in the Jewish tradition, consider this as well?

There are other such discrepancies which I, as a relatively novice reader in these matters, found troubling. But as I said before, I commend Ehrman on his excellent analysis of the material. Both believer and skeptic have to admit to the quality of Ehrman’s presentation. So it’s not Ehrman who I find troubling. So what is it?

Any picture of Jesus has ramifications for a world of believers. For scholars who paint him as the Son of God, believers sigh in relief and most likely store up those arguments in their arsenals. And perhaps skeptics do the same when seeing an image of a man whose identity was manipulated and generally constructed to serve a purpose other than what was intended.

For me, it’s troubling to see an image of Jesus as a crackpot who could have easily been on the 2012 bandwagon in our day. Fortunately for the believer and the skeptic, these assessments cannot absolutely prove Jesus’ essence. We are limited, as is the historian, to the tools of reason and logic. Yes, limited. Ehrman himself claims that his discussion is simply portraying what is most likely. When establishing his criteria of dissimilarity, he acknowledges that if a historical claim does not pass this criteria, it doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen, just that it’s harder for us to believe. Or consider this:

Finally, I should emphasize that with respect to the historical Jesus, or indeed, with respect to any historical person, the historian can do no more than establish historical probabilities. In no case can we reconstruct the past with absolute certitude. All that we can do is take the evidence that happens to survive and determine to the best of oru abilities what probably happened. Scholars will always disagree on the end results of their labors. But nothing can be done about this. The past an never be empirically proved, it can only be reconstructed. p. 96

If historians consider only what they can believe beyond a reasonable doubt when reconstructing history, then we are only privileged to a portion of the picture. Just because a historian can't prove something by historical methods, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Therefore, I think it of the utmost importance for both skeptic and believer alike to consider this limitation when drawing their conclusions from this book.

I have always felt that there is an absolute power in this world, outside of our influence. If human beings are the climax of worldly power and understanding, how did the Earth get on for so long without us? The existence of things, supernatural or not, do not hinge on our ability to understand them or prove them.

But, alas, I must remember that this is simply a reaction to a book and not my own personal treatise on the integrity of Christ. The book is excellent. There’s no denying it. Ehrman is persuasive, accessible and reasonable. But by his own words, he is not trying to prove anything, but paint the likeliest picture of the historical Jesus. He achieves his goal impeccably. It would be unwarranted to attack or embrace Ehrman as a source of spiritual truth. For skeptic and believer alike, this is a good read.

[Simona · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

As the title suggests, this book is about Jesus.

B. D. Ehrman reviews and compares multiple historical sources and studies to answer key questions: Who was Jesus as a historical figure? Where did he come from? And what was his central message?

Apparently, the majority of theological scholars agree that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. According to the author, Jesus expected the world to be turned upside down by God in the very near future and taught people how to prepare for it.

I chose to read this book mostly because I want to understand art better, as much of European art is built on Christian beliefs and a synthesis of Ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

Since Jesus is a central figure in Christianity, it’s essential to understand his personality and teachings to better interpret and decode art & culture.

What was especially interesting to me was Ehrman’s exploration of how the Gospels came to be and how he interprets them. For example, the virgin birth, angels, and other supernatural stories.

All in all, a very engaging and thought-provoking book.

[Caroline Bernhard · Rating 1 out of 5]

Jeg ved ikke, hvad jeg skal sige..

Læste den i håbet om at finde et seriøst bud på, hvem den historiske Jesus var, hvis han ikke er Guds søn.

Synes desværre Ehrman gør sig skyldig i "cherry picking" til fordel for sit eget synspunkt. Derudover vil jeg erklære mig - og mange andre seriøse historikere - uenig i hans (efter min mening) meget selektive brug af "princippet om uoverensstemmelse"

Jeg savner reelt, faktuelt underbyggende belæg for hans radikale omfortolkning af Jesu' identitet. Så jeg ikke bare står tilbage med en række uigennemskuelige postulater.

Det skinner ret klart igennem at forfatteren ikke er historiker, når han hævder at en afstand fra begivenhed til nedskrivning på tyve år, skal være grundlag for skepsis. Og:
Når han hævder, at udbredte mystiske elementer skulle være tilskrevet Jesus af kristne grupper før Paulus skrev sit første brev. Det klæder ikke bogen.

Hvis jeg skal sige noget positivt er det hans præsentation af, at slutte sig til den mest "sandsynlige" forklaring. Jeg synes dog, stadig han udviser stærk bias her. Savner at princippet bliver brugt anerledes: Hvad er sandsynligheden for at en masse mennesker vil dø for en nem verificerbar løgn? Nok ikke så stor..

[Gilbert Stack · Rating 3 out of 5]

Erhman has gathered together a great amount of evidence that Jesus believed the apocalypse would come within his generation. It's not an idea that appears to be embraced by most modern Christian authorities because the world obviously didn't come to an end 2000 years ago. And yet, there is a lot of credence to Erhman's position. I can remember my own father and several different priests talking about how the apostles and early Christians thought the world was going to end in their lifetimes. It begs the question: Who made them think this way? After you read this book, I think you will agree that Jesus did.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite being one of Bart Ehrman's first "trade" books published, "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium" is Dr. Ehrman at his best. The book is excellently written, thoroughly referenced, and is fascinating, informative and engaging from start to finish. The first part of the book lays the groundwork for the ancient sources which are available to be used, and how to weigh them for authenticity of origin and content. What then follows is the meat of the book, an exploration of the human / earthly life of the person known as Jesus of Nazareth in first century Palestine, from his birth to his death. On every step of this way, Dr. Ehrman goes back and uses the sources he has shown to be reliable and authentic (at least in as much as an ancient document can be). What is really amazing is that the portrait of Jesus differs in many significant ways from that portrayed by most Xian churches and denominations. And once again, I am fascinated at how many people who claim to be followers of Jesus don't know the critical facts about who he was and the times in which he lived. This book is a must-read if you care anything about this man who is called Jesus!

[Cameron Rhoads · Rating 5 out of 5]

Listened to on Audible (Physically read in 2009). An excellent study of how Jesus of Nazareth is best understood as an apocalyptic prophet of the end of the age, which he thought was going to occur in his lifetime (4 B.C.E.-30 C.E.). Alas, Jesus was wrong, and died by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate (procurator of Judea, 26-36 C.E.) for sedition against the Roman government because he claimed he was king of the Jews and the Messiah who would rule over all Israel, after God overthrew the Romans and established his new kingdom on earth.

[David Harper · Rating 5 out of 5]

fantastic book. some boring parts, but the chapters on methods and ethics was amazing.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall this is a pretty decent book. One of the most valuable parts here, is that nearly a third of the book is dedicated to how to recognize, evaluate, and weigh evidence and sources for piecing together a historical figure like Jesus. There is a lot of great info on the various approaches, and I appreciate that it's a very reader friendly style, as opposed to Dr. Carrier's book "Proving History," which while a great book as well, is more academic and less accessible to the layperson.

I really enjoyed the historical discussions of the era around the time of Jesus, and of He and His teachings. However, I want to address two minor criticisms I have of this otherwise excellent work.

First, I feel that Ehrman gives way too much credence to the baseless Q source hypothesis. I've dug in deep over the years to find the best arguments for Q, and ultimately it comes down to pure imagination crafting speculative stories about a source that doesn't exist, and almost certainly never did. In fairness, Ehrman does in a couple of places make note that Q is in fact a nonexistent source, but he then still goes on page after page to "quote" this imaginary source. That's simply not possible, and really all he's doing is quoting either Luke or Matthew. Responsible scholarship, not to mention the principle of Ockham's razor, suggests that the simplest explanation is that either Luke used both Mark and Matthew, or that Matthew used Mark and Luke. Luke and Matthew were likely composed within a decade of each other, and they were geographically juxtaposed. One borrowing from the other and adjusting/editing as they see fit, just makes too much sense and explains all the evidence without need for concocting imaginary sources. For more detail on the flaws of the Q hypothesis, I highly recommend Mark Goodacre's book, "The Case Against Q."

Getting the nonsensical Q hypothesis out of the way is important because it ties in to a similar criticism. Ehrman notes the important criteria of independent attestation, also called multiple attestation. This is certainly a critical component in determining the veracity of historical claims, legends, and/or documentation. However, I believe Ehrman is misusing, or at the very least stretching beyond reason, his use of this criteria regarding the gospels and Q. Obviously, calling Q an independent attestation is complete nonsense because Q doesn't exist. Suggesting Q is an independent attestation of some saying or other is as silly as calling an imaginary friend to the stand to independently attest a defendant's story. It's bonkers. Likewise, having four gospels in the biblical canon does not mean that similar sayings between them are multiply or independently attested. This same nonsense appears in the alleged M and L sources hypothesis as well. These are, like Q, completely imaginary and are little more than academic sleight-of-hand attempting to create independent attestation. They're not only without any evidence, but are logically part of an infinite regress fallacy. You end up making up a source for your source, and then "need" a source for that earlier source, which surely must be relying on an earlier source, and on and on ad nauseam. The simple fact is that based on the actual evidence, Mark IS the source, with possible oral traditions passed on as well.

Mark is the earliest gospel, estimated to have been composed in the 70s AD. Matthew is generally thought to have been composed in the 80s AD with Luke being placed somewhere in the 80s to 90s AD. Most scholars understand that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Right away we have an independent attestation problem. The criteria doesn't work here. When Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source and borrow from Mark to retell similar stories or sayings, that is NOT an independent attestation, and in fact is the opposite because Matthew and Luke are dependent upon Mark as a source. And most scholars that haven't fallen for the imaginary Q story, understand that the similarities between Matthew and Luke are due to one borrowing from the other; again, they are dependent upon one another, not independent attestations. And it's generally understood that Luke borrowed from both Mark and Matthew to compose his gospel, just as he borrowed from Josephus and Homer in composing Acts, all with the apparent goal of creating a cohesive, smooth flowing narrative from Jesus's birth and ministry through to the early church. Luke even tells us this is exactly what he did, using multiple sources (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-2). Unfortunately most of Ehrman's claims of independent attestation, particularly regarding the gospels and the so-called Q, M, and L sources, are simply erroneous and/or unjustifiably imaginative. They are not independent attestations in any sense, but merely reiterations (retellings) of sayings and stories that are dependent upon other sources.

My other criticism is in regard to Ehrman's Jewish Jesus / Jewish Laws conflations prominent in chapter ten and elsewhere. This is not unique to Ehrman, but I'll address it here. Long story short, Ehrman makes the common error of just throwing similar terms in a blender and using them interchangeably, such as Jew/Jewish, Israel/Israelite, Hebrew, etc. It's important to note, that in order to understand the information he's providing in this chapter, one must realize that all 1st century Jews (ethnic Jews, not the majority who were Idumaean converts) are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Jews. In fact, very few Hebrews are Jews. Likewise, all 1st century Jews (again, ethnic Jews, not the majority who were Idumaean converts) are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews (most aren't). This is because there WERE no Jews until the father OF the Jews, a son of Jacob named Judah, came to be. It was his lineage that became the (ethnically/genealogically) Jewish people, and prior to him, there were no Jews; but there were Hebrews.

So keeping that important historical note in mind, let's look at an example or two where Ehrman's conflating of the terms can cause confusion. When discussing the argument that Jesus is Jewish, Ehrman states, "Jesus was Jewish. Realizing the Jewishness of Jesus is critical if we are to make sense of his teachings." In actuality, not correctly understanding that Jesus was NOT ethnically Jewish, is precisely what causes so many to not understand His teachings, as I'll show with an example later. Part of the problem comes from the assumption that since His step-father, Joseph, was from the tribe of Judah, then so is He. But this misses some of the key elements of Jesus' entire purpose according to scripture. Jesus was NOT descended from the tribe of Judah in any literal sense. He was only symbolically of Judah via Joseph through a tradition of patriarchal conveyance, but ethnically and genealogically speaking, Jesus was descended from the tribe of Levi through His mother, Mary. He was symbolically of the tribe of Judah through His adoptive step-father, representing His later becoming the Son of God and being anointed Kingly Messiah (Romans 1:3-4, Hebrews 5:5), and genealogically/ethnically of the tribe of Levi through his mother, representing His role as the final High Priest in the Levitical Preisthood. This means Jesus was not Jewish (of Judah), but Levite (of Levi).

So let's look at an example of the type of confusion that can result from not understanding this. Ehrman states, "it was founded by a Jewish teacher who taught his Jewish followers about the Jewish God who guided the Jewish people by means of the Jewish Law. Jesus kept and discussed Jewish customs like prayer and fasting, he worshiped in Jewish places of worship like the synagogue and the Temple, and he kept Jewish festivals like the Passover." This makes it sound like Jesus was part of the Jewish religion, ethnically Jewish, and promoting Jewish law/teaching. And that is NOT accurate at all, as we'll see shortly. What this passage should actually say to make sense of Jesus' teachings, is this; "it was founded by a [Hebrew] teacher who taught his [Hebrew] followers about the [Hebrew/Israelite] God who guided the [Hebrew] people by means of the [Hebraic] Law. Jesus kept and discussed [Hebrew] customs like prayer and fasting, he worshiped in [Hebraic/Israelite] places of worship like the synagogue and the Temple, and he kept [Hebrew] festivals like the Passover." Just because the Jewish leaders also kept some of the Hebraic practices, does NOT mean that those Hebraic practices magically became Jewish ones, nor that Jesus endorsed Judaism when He and they happened to keep the same old Hebraic practices.

This is important in grasping what Jesus' teachings meant because by the 1st century, the Jews had developed the new religion of Judaism (or Judah-ism) which grew from their (the kingdom of Judah) captivity in Babylon, where they began adopting Babylonian mysticism and even exchanging the original Paleo-Hebrew script for the Babylonian Imperial Aramaic script. The new Jewish religion was a syncretic blend of the old Hebraic Torah-based religion, and these new traditions of men borrowed from Babylon. This was the "Jewish Law" of the land in the 1st century (which would become the Talmud & Mishnah), and Jesus was vehemently opposed to it and its practitioners. Jesus taught the original Hebraic/Torah Law (a la Moses) and did keep the Hebrew customs, but the Jewish leaders taught their corrupted Jewish law that blended the Law of Moses with traditions of men (Mark 7:8-13, John 7:19), and this led to the constant conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, resulting in their desire to have Him killed. He was calling out their fake religion and fake piety while on His apocalyptic mission.

So according to the evidence of the Bible, Jesus was not Jewish via religion (at least as an adult), nor was He Jewish via ethnicity/genealogy. He was a Hebrew Levite descendant of Israel, and an adoptive son of Judah through His step-father, Joseph. He was an apocalyptic prophet like many Israelites who came before Him, and one of His primary actions was calling out the Jewish religion and Jewish law that had supplanted God's original Hebraic Law. In fact, because of the "Jewishness" conflation, Ehrman misses a key reason why Jesus was executed. When the Bible speaks of the mocking cry, "Hail King of the Jews!" and talks about the sign on the cross calling Him the "King of the Jews," we need to look closer at the words and context. First, why would Rome care one iota if Jesus claimed to be King of the Jewish people? Answer: They wouldn't. It's not a capital offense any more than claiming to be King of the Pythagoreans. The word translated "Jews" is our problem. It's the Greek word Ioudaion. What your bibles don't tell you, is that that word also means Judeans, as in inhabitants of Judea. There were Jewish people all across the Mediterranean, the Levant, throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Claiming to be King of these people was absolutely no consequence to Rome, and would be nothing more than a squabble among Jews. However, Judea was a Roman province under Roman rule. Claiming to be King of the Judeans, the inhabitants of Judea, is akin to claiming to usurp Rome's rule. And THAT was a capital offense. Jesus went into Jerusalem, in the heart of Judea, and whether he claimed it or was accused and refused to deny it, was labeled as a man claiming to be the King of the Judeans. The end result was simply inevitable.

In the end, had Ehrman made this distinction of terms, many of his points would have had much more weight and impact regarding Jesus' teachings. I wouldn't say that this "Jewishness" error comes close to breaking Ehrman's argument--he still does a great job at showing Jesus' apocalypticism--but the reader might be left with an incorrect understanding of the underlying motivations behind Jesus' teachings, which are far more fascinating than the rather mundane "another Jewish apocalyptic prophet." Jesus was an old school, Hebrew Torah apocalyptic prophet determined to upend the man-made Jewish religious order which had corrupted the Law of Moses, and it led to not only quite an end to His earthly story, but to the beginning of one of the largest religious stories in mankind's history. And hopefully the reader finds that even among the missteps inevitable in this sort of research.

[Brian M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Straightforward look at what we know (and don’t know) about the historical Jesus. A comprehensive introduction. Ehrman makes a compelling to view Jesus in context as an apocalyptic Jewish preacher. Ehrman spends a lot of time stressing the standards for evidence and trying not to offend believers but I assume that did not do that much to stop decades of hate mail. Really enjoyed hearing about the sources, the history of scholarship, and contemporary debate.

Can’t speak to how the field may have changed since publication, but I enjoyed this a lot.

[Rod Olson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another fantastic and illuminating read from the incomparable Dr. Bart Ehrman!

First a warning!

To all who the diehard - slightest of true-believers, including, those who consider themselves “open-minded.” (Actually, it’s those who are truly “actively” open-minded would purchase this book to begin with.... nonetheless.)

This book may cause a large amount of “cognitive dissonance.”

Regardless of the undeniable, messy and inconvenient historical evidence. Ehrman argues against the billion+ individuals who live inside the Christian paradigm— notwithstanding, as he states in another book, the very foundation of the entire “western culture.”

So understand your personality type when diving into the real world and scholars like Bart Ehrman.

And remember the intensity of the discomfort is relative to the individual. People who are flexible enough to adjust their thoughts or live with “gray areas” may not have a strong response when they notice the discrepancies. While others may experience it more intensely or frequently if they have a high need for consistency in their lives. (I see those as a broad brush stoke, when lumping people into groups, besides the “high demand conservative religions” it’s goes for the Trump supporters as well, it’s the same personality, again in general! We need to stop the desire to erratic the notion that everything has to be couched in “PC.” Geezzzz-us!)

Also remember why this kind of argument is so hard. 2,000+ years and over 1 billion believers, even the US official holiday is “Christmas.” (Separation of????)

It’s is a long time for anything to solidify as fact vs tradition... so one has to break free from the learned misconceptions of revisionist history and then then to break free from the cultural milieu.

For some it’s just too encompassing of a task. Just the mention of two, social & psychological; might take a life time, if ever to recover. Especially for those, who live in the “South” or “Utah.,” taking just 2 as an example. Those environments have a real cost breaking free from the “undo influence” of the unspoken yet, demanding cultural expectations place upon individuals.

Having said that... and giving away no spoilers (well I did allude to the biggest one, oops).

From the words of the ever so wise and cleaver Bart SIMPON, I publicly would like to, “... JESUS, ALLAH, BUDDHA, I LOVE YOU ALL!” and I THANK YOU ALL, and the Cosmos for BART D. EHRMAN!!

PS: join his blog... it cost next to nothing, 100% proceeds go directly to a handful of charities AND he writes 4-5 1,000 posts A WEEK! Plus, one can actually ask him questions! It’s a win-win, as Dr. Ehrman says!

[Tori4 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Ehrman writes with characteristic wit and clarity. Within this book he presents a fascinating portrait of the historical Jesus, taking care to support his assertions with evidence drawn both from non Christian literary works, (the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus’ Annals, Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities,) and, from the early Christian texts themselves. He concludes that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who fully expected that a cataclysmic final judgment, (brought by a third party he referred to as “The Son of Man,”) would occur in his lifetime. This final judgment, expected imminently, would bring an end to the current world, overrun by cruelty, hate and injustice and would establish in its place a good kingdom on earth, aligned with God, in which there would be no more suffering, hunger pain or misery. Ehrman demonstrates how this understanding of Jesus' historical character fits neatly with the evidence available to us in the Gospels by drawing a telling parallel between Jesus’ apocalyptic expectations and the immediacy of many of his teachings. Witness the words: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place." I also found it fascinating to discover which of Jesus' teachings Dr. Ehrman understood to be historically verifiable, (when carefully assessed using a range of scholarly criteria specifically designed to filter out theological bias and invention.) I found his treatment of the ethical aspects of Jesus’ teachings particularly poignant and moving. I am so very grateful to Dr. Ehrman for freeing my mind from cultural assumptions and for making such complex scholarship accessible to a lay reader. He is an academic inspiration. I am so very glad I found his work. :)

[Alford Wayman · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you read this book before you have read Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" then you are in for some what of a treat as to how the historical Jesus might have been viewed by his followers and the type of environment and world view he originated his theology from and those who may have influenced his teachings. Published in 2001 Bart uses many sections from this in other books he has written. This text was more about Jesus the person and his message and who hos followers later thought he was rather then a book on the apocalyptic view of Christ. Bart spends almost half the book as a sort of introduction before he gets into the meat of things. Ehrman then makes some good observations concerning the beatitudes and how Jesus may have been a follower of John the Baptizer, then the book fizzles. A lot of information here is used in other books, so it might do one good to leaf though up coming books and read the chapter or two that is not repeated information. His NT text book and NT readers are excellent however, but the rest is almost a broken record I am sorry to report. However a beginner in early NT studies may find this some what useful. A text that I have read that was far more conclusive on this topic was the book, "Apocalyptcism, Anti-Semitism And The Historical Jesus" by John S. Kloppenborg. Also the text "Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran and Apocalypticism" By Flusser.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 4 out of 5]

The basic argument of Bart Ehrman's Jesus is that he was a prophet who taught the endtimes were coming during his time--sometime during the first century. And according to Ehrman, that's what Paul the apostle thought and several other Christian groups have been claiming the same since. Ehrman thinks it is easy to see that Jesus preached a coming apocalypse by looking at his words in the gospels. Time after time, Jesus appears to be preaching the coming of a heavenly kingdom on Earth that his audience would see soon. I suppose if you disagree, you'd have to look at the same verses Ehrman looks at and provide a reasonable alternative explanation.

[GrandpaBooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps the most influential book I've ever read regarding the life of the Jewish teacher living in first century Galilee. Dr. Ehrman clearly,rationally, and most importantly, persuasively builds the case that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet that was convinced that the Kingdom of God was coming within his lifetime. In other words, the man that lived and died in the first century was not the one that was created by his followers as in the gospels, especially in the Gospel of John.

[Pynk Moon · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very interesting book, but I didn't find it all that particular fun to read. It felt slightly long in parts and almost as if I was reading the same things over and over again. I also just don't think that I have enough interest in this subject to really get a lot of reading this. It always seems with topics like these that the more you learn about it the less it feels that you actually know. There seems almost infinite stuff to learn on this subject, which is slightly daunting and just makes it difficult to start.

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Much of the information in this book overlaps with information found in other Ehrman books. And I think his other books on Jesus are better than this relatively generic treatment of Jesus. However, Ehrman is the GOAT of readable early Christian scholarship so I didn’t regret my time with this one. It did reinforce what I’ve been learning from many of his other books.

[Popular Science Books · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book puts forward the case that the historical Jesus is best seen as a failed apocalyptic preacher. It examines the evidence supporting this view and also provides a nice and easy to read primer on the way religious texts can be studied. Very good stuff.

[Paul Froehlich · Rating 5 out of 5]

What does history tell us about who Jesus was? New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has a simple thesis:
Jesus is best understood as a first-century Jewish apocalypticist who expected an apocalyptic climax to the history of the world within his generation.

On the other hand, Zealot: The Life & Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan (2013, Random House) is the first book about Jesus to be number 1 on the New York Times bestseller list. Aslan's thesis is that Jesus was a "zealous revolutionary," who necessarily advocated insurrection. Ehrman contends that Jesus was a pacifist who predicted that God would soon intervene and overthrow the Romans.

Ehrman defines his terms. In brief, apocalpticism is the doctrine that "God was soon going to intervene in the affairs of this world, overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment,
destroy huge masses of humanity, and abolish existing human political and religious institutions." This would be a prelude to the arrival of a new order on earth, the Kingdom of God.

This worldview emerged among many Jews in first-century Palestine as they suffered under foreign domination and struggled to make sense of why God had not liberated them. They blamed Satan, seeing the world as a clash between good and evil. In the short-term, before God intervenes, things will get worse.

Ehrman walks readers through the historical evidence. The information about Jesus from non-Christian sources is sparse. The best evidence is the four gospels, though they must be used with care by applying historical criteria to identify which stories have more credibility than others. On problem for historians is when gospels give conflicting accounts of events such as the birth narrative, the day of crucifixion, and the discovery of the empty tomb.
Ehrman points out that none of the gospels claim to be written by an eyewitness.

Jesuś' baptism by the apocalypticist John was consistent with Jesus being an apocalypticist. Jesus spoke highly of John, calling him the greatest man ever to live. (Matt. 11:11) Jesus and his followers started baptizing others. (John 3:22).

The first words attributed to Jesus are in Mark 1:15:
“The time is fulfilled (filled up), and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”
This reflects his apocalyp-
ticism, explains Ehrman, the notion that there are two ages, and the first is almost over, so people must repent while there's still time.

Jesus repeately talks about the coming judgment by the Son of Man: Mark 8:38; Mark 13:24–27; Luke 17:24; 26–27, 30; cf. Matt. 24:27, 37–39; Luke 12:8–9; cf. Matt. 10:32–33; Luke 21:34–36; Matt. 13:40–43; Matt. 13:47–50.

The term "Son of Man" originates in Daniel 7:2–14 to refer to the one who will rule the earth in an eternal kingdom.

The summary of his ethical teaching is that his "followers were to live in ways that prepared for this coming Kingdom and that embodied the values that would be manifest completely and finally when it arrived." Thus Jesus told his followers to abandon their homes and families to follow him.

Jesus expected the new order to happen during the generation of his disciples. “Truly I tell you, some of you standing here will not taste death before they have seen the Kingdom of God having come in power” (Mark 9:1).
“Truly I tell you, this generation [i.e., presumably, the one he was addressing] will not pass away before all these things take place” (Mark 13:30).

The fact that the second coming was not as imminent as Jesus and Paul believed has not prevented
apocalypticism from remaining alive and well. For 2000 years, many if not most Christians have been waiting for God to establish his new order.

Being a Christian doomsayer can be a lucrative career. Hal Lindsey’s book, Late Great Planet Earth (1970), was
the best-selling work of nonfiction of the 1970s with over 28 million copies in print. He predicted Armageddon would occur by about 1988. The Left Behind series consists of 16 books, followed by movies, about the rapture and end times.

Ehrman's theory about Jesus is not new. It was proposed by Albert Schweitzer in The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906). Ehrman's book was published in 1999. A book published in 2021 has the same conclusion: Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet (2021) by Wassen and Hägerland.

One note of caution: Christ-followers who embrace history only when it confirms their faith will be disappointed with this book. That's because some evidence conflicts with their belief that the Bible is the "literal, inspired, inerrant, no- mistakes-of-any-kind and no-historical-problems-whatsoever, absolute words directly from God." -30-