InterVarsity Press, 2009). Unfortunately, the apocalyptic view of Jesus did not
get a chapter of its own, probably because the editors are evangelicals and they
tend to ignore it.
6. In AMarginalJew, vol 1, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991),
pp. 22-23.
7. (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), especially pp. 169-204.
8. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998).
9. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
10. 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000). A discussion/
debate on these issues can be found in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, ed.
Robert J. Miller (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2001). Probably the best
resource to consult about the quest for the historical Jesus is Gerd Theissen and
Annette Metz, The Historical,Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 1996).
11. Allison,,Jerus of Nazareth, pp. 36, 45. As an aside, I think establishing
such a framework is also important for dating the books the NT. With an
improper framework, people will date the books incorrectly. It's at least part of
the solution.
12. Such a context for the life of Jesus is shown in John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), pp. 3-226.
13. Paula Fredriksen, From ,7esus to Christ The Origins of the New Testament
Images of Jesus, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 88-
90.
14. Mark 6:14, 8:28; Matthew 11:7-19; Acts 5:35-39. Cf. Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews 18:5, 20:97-98, 169-72; and Wars of the Jews 2:261-3,
6:284-85.
15. Allison lists nine other major themes on that same descending scale: (9)
God as Father; (10) loving/serving/forgiving others; (11) special regard for the
unfortunate; (12) intention as to what matters most; (13) hostility to wealth; (14)
extraordinary requests/difficult demands; (15) conflict with religious authorities;
(16) disciples as students and helpers; (17) Jesus as miracle worker. According
to Allison, items (9)-(11) tell us that Jesus "was a teacher of compassion"; items
(12)-(15) tell us he was "a moral rigorist"; items (15)-(16) tell us he was a
"wellknown teacher"; and item (17) "probably explains in great measure ... why
people paid attention to what he had to say." Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 46-
49 (see also pp. 61-69, 78-94).
16. Ibid., pp. 51, 96.
17. Ibid., p. 154.
18. It should be noted that Robert Price disputes that this "Little Apocalypse"
actually comes from the lips of Jesus in his book, The Paperback Apocalypse:
How the Christian Church Was Left Behind (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books,
2007), pp. 101-107. If he's correct, then the synoptic Gospels are probably not
even somewhat reliable. Nonetheless, even though Price and others can object to
the authenticity of "The Little Apocalypse" because most apocalyptic literature
was written anonymously, not all of it was. And unless we're willing to say the
whole NT tradition is inauthentic, the original founder of the Jesus cult was not
the apostle Paul. For according to him he persecuted Christians, which means the
Jesus cult, in some form or other, already existed prior to his conversion (see
Galatians 1:13, cf. Acts 8:1-3, 9:1-19, 23:3-16, 26:9-18).
19. Edward Adams, The Stars Will Fall From Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in
the New Testament and Its World (New York: T & T Clark, 2007), p. 164.
20. Paperback Apocalypse, p. 160.
21. It's quite clear in Paul's' genuine letters that he expected the apocalyptic
end of the world. This is just one of the reasons why the Pastoral letters are
rejected by most scholars as genuinely Pauline (i.e., 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus),
for which see Paul Tobin's chapter in this book. In one Pastoral Epistle we find
the author altering what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians (7:17-31), urging instead
that unmarried women should marry and bear children (1 Timothy 5:14). In
another we find the author making provisions for his death without having
personally experienced the coming kingdom of God, which Paul had predicted
he would see (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, cf. 2 Timothy 2:1-14). It's also argued
that since the letters of Colossians (3:18-41) and Ephesians (5:21-6:9) include
household rules detailing the duties of members in a household, this goes against
what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7, so they must be forgeries as well (cf. also 1
Peter 2:13-3:12). See Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament A Historical
Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003), pp. 372-94.
22. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, p. 244. Dale
Allison would find fault with Ehrman's characterization here, since Jesus was
mostly speaking to his disciples who were told to leave everything to follow
him. They had no need to be instructed about a fulfilling career precisely
because they had chosen to follow him. See Allison's chapter, "The Problem of
Audience" in Resurreetiongjesus (New York: T & T Clark, 2005), pp. 27-55.
However, the fact remains that Jesus did not offer advice to anyone to pursue a
fulfilling career, nor did the evolving church think it was important to
incorporate any such advice into the Gospels.
23. As Paula Fredriksen argued, "No human society could long run according
to the principles enunciated in the Sermon on the Mount." From Jesus to Christ,
p. 100. On the ethic of Jesus, see Michael Martin, The Case against Christianity
(Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1991), pp. 162-72; and Dan Barker,
Godless, How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America :c Leading
Atheists (Berkely, CA: Ulysses Press, 2008), pp. 178-202.
24. James Charlesworth, "Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity," in
Images of.7esus Today, eds. James Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley
Forge, PA; Trinity, 1994), p. 10.
25. David B. Gowler, What Are They Saying about the Historical Jesus? (New
York: Paulist Press, 2007), p. 142. On this, one need look no farther back than
Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of
Discipleship (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1987). Borg fleshes out this new
vision in a subsequent book, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time-The
Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith (New York:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1994). In this later book he claimed that the "pre-Easter
Jesus was noneschatological" (p. 29). Borg's precise denial is found in these
words: "what is being denied is the notion that Jesus expected the supernatural
coming of the Kingdom of God as a world-ending event in his own generation."
(p. 29).
26. In Apocalyptic7esus.• A Debate, pp. 31-48.
27. Ibid., p. 85.
28. Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 183.
29. Charlesworth, Historical Jesus, p. 97.
30. Ibid., p. 104.
31. Ibid., p. 99.
32, Idid, p. 101.
33. Dale Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 113.
34. Quoting a preview draft of Dale A
llison's forthcoming Constructing Jesus:
Memory and Imagination (Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Academic, 2010).
35. Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 479.
36. For arguments that a different author wrote Zechariah 9-14, see the entry
written by David L. Petersen, professor of Old Testament, Iliff School of
Theology, Denver, CO, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman,
(New York: Doubleday, 1996): "Zechariah, Book of."
37. To see this argued even by an evangelical scholar, see Kenton L. Sparks,
God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical
Scholarship (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008), pp. 116-18. Sparks argues
that when we consider the prophecies in the book of Daniel, it becomes clear
that they are "amazingly accurate and precise" up until a certain point where they
"fail." He wrote: "Scholars believe that this evidence makes it very easy to date
Daniel's apocalypses. One merely follows the amazingly accurate prophecies
until they fail. Because the predictions of the Jewish persecutions in 167 BCE
are correct, and because the final destiny of Antiochus in 164 BCE is not, it
follows that the visions and their interpretations can be dated sometime between
167 and 164 BCE" (p. 117).
38. Understanding the Old Testament (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1957), pp. 525-26. See also the commentary on this passage in Andre Lacocque,
The Book of Daniel (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1979).
39. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words, p. 225.
40. For instance, when God intervenes on "the Day of the Lord," He will
either "lead the battle against the forces of Evil (Zechariah, Assumption of
Moses), or else he will send his prophet Elijah to anoint his Messiah, who will
lead the Army of God. Or perhaps he will send his Messiah himself (2 Baruch),
or delegate the military duties to a nonhuman hero figure, the Son of Man (2
Esdras)," Fredriksen, From,7esus to Christ, p. 84.
41. Since this sermon is the key that the author of Luke uses to characterize
the ministry of Jesus, it seems a bit improbable to think some kind of tradition
like this does not stem from the founder of the Jesus cult himself.
42. Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, p. 135.
43. Ibid., p. 170.
44. Ibid., p. 165.
45. Ibid., p. 169. See also pp. 165-70.
46. On this see Randel McCraw Helms, The Bible against Itself Why the
Bible Seems to Contradictltself, (Altadena, CA: Millennium Press, 2006), pp. 15
3-65.
47. E. P. Sanders tells us: "An unfulfilled prophecy is much more likely to be
authentic than one that corresponds precisely to what happened, since few
people would make up something that did not happen and then attribute it to
Jesus," in Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 182.
48. To read a very helpful description of the cognitive dissonance of the early
disciples and their need to resolve it concerning the unexpected death of Jesus,
see Kris Komarnitsky, "The Belief That Jesus Died for Our Sins and Was
Raised," in Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?
(CreateSpace, 2009), pp. 48-76. If this can happen with the death of Jesus, it can
surely happen with regard to his failed prophecies of an imminent apocalypse.
49. Ehrman, Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, p. 130
[emphasis original].
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., p. 177.
52. Historical Figure of,jesus, pp. 176-77.
53. See Richard Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (New York: Routledge,
1997), pp. 12-21. I recommend Paul Tobin's discussion of this in The Rejection
of Pascals Wager, pp. 464-67.
54. Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, p. 100.
5 5. Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 180.
56. In The New Testament-Historical Introduction to the Early Christian
Writings, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 469-70 Erhman
writes: "most investigators think that parts of the book were written during the
60s of the Common Era, soon after the persecution of the Christians under
Nero." And yet there are important clues suggesting the book wasn't completed
until around 95 CE during the rule of Domitian. The earliest external evidence is
provided by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 5.30.3, who said Revelation was seen
at the end of the reign of Domitian, so this implies a date of 95-96 CE. The most
important internal clue is that the code word Babylon, which is used to signify
Rome, "came to be used by Jews to designate Rome as the chief political enemy
of God only after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (e.g., 4 Ezra 3, 2 Baruch
10), claims Ehrman. Adela Yarbro Collins argues the solution that best explains
all of the internal evidence is that "an older tradition" was "incorporated and
reinterpreted by the author of Revelation." For a more detailed discussion, see
Collins, "Revelation, Book of," in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, ed. D. N.
Freedman (New York: Doubleday 1996), pp. 700-708; and her book Crisis and
Catharsis: The Power of theApocalypse (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
1984), pp. 54-83.
57. Says Ehrman in New Testament, p. 472: "Historians have long known of a
group of ancient Jewish books called the Sybilline Oracles, which predict that
one of the most hated of the Roman emperors, Caesar Nero, will return from the
dead to wreak havoc on the earth-making him comparable to the one who
recovers from a death-inflicting wound" (see Rev. 13:3). Thus the eighth beast
"who was and is not" spoken of in Revelation 17:11 "alludes to the return of
Nero as eschatological adversary," argues Collins in "Revelation, Book of," in
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, p. 701.
58. On this see Ehrman, New Testament, pp. 376-78.
59. On the Dating of 2 Peter, see Ehrman, New Testament, pp. 456-58.
60. See Price, Paperback Apocalypse, pp. 123-43.
61. Jesus of Nazareth, p. 94
62. Ibid., p. 64.
63. The Paperback Apocalypse, pp. 159-60. This, of course, is part of the
Problem of Miscommunication, which I wrote about in chapter 7 of this book.
64. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996).
65. 4th ed. (Atlanta: GA: Vision Books, 1999).
66. Jesus of Nazareth, p. 157.
67. Ibid., p. 161.
68. In 7esus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T.
Wrights `Jesus and the Victory of God," ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), pp. 138-39.
69. (New York: Continuum International, 2008).
magine someone said to you that English provided the only basis for
grammar. After you overcame your shock, you would respond that English is
certainly not the only language with a grammar. You would add that grammar is
not limited to language: understood broadly as rules for combination and
transformation, many phenomena have a grammar, from sports to baking. Nor is
grammar the sole or essential component of language: language also includes
sound systems, vocabularies, genres, and styles of speech. And you would
remind the speaker that grammar does not depen
d on human language at all:
some nonhuman species, including chimps and parrots, can produce
grammatical-that is, orderly and rule-conforming -short sentences. Ultimately,
you would want to explain that English does not "provide a basis" for grammar
at all but rather represents one particular instance of grammar. English grammar
is definitely not the only grammar in the world and even more definitely not the
"real" grammar.
The person who utters a statement like "English provides the only basis for
grammar" either understands very little about English (and language in general)
or grammar, or the person is expressing his or her partisanship about language
(i.e., pro-English)-or, more likely, the speaker is doing both. Thus, the person
who utters a statement like "Christianity provides the only basis for morality"
either understands very little about Christianity (or religion in general) or
morality, or the person is expressing his or her partisanship about religion (i.e.,
pro-Christianity)-or, more likely, the speaker is doing both. But, as a savvy
responder, you would answer that Christianity is certainly not the only religion
with morality. You would add that morality is not limited to religion: understood
broadly as standards for behavior, many phenomena have a morality, from
philosophy to business. Nor is morality the sole or essential component of
religion: religion also includes myths, rituals, roles, and institutions of behavior.
And you would remind the speaker that morality does not depend on human
religion at all: some nonhuman species demonstrate moral-that is, orderly and
standard-conforming-behavior. Ultimately, you would want to explain that
Christianity does not "provide a basis" for morality at all but rather represents
one particular instance of morality. Christian morality is definitely not the only
morality in the world and even more definitely not the "real" morality.
In this chapter, then, we will first explore what religion and morality actually
are. We will show that other religions have their own moralities and that
morality does not depend on Christianity. Further, we will show that nonreligion
can also provide "a basis" for morality, that morality does not depend on
religion. We will even show that nonhumans can have a sort of, or a precursor to,
morality-that morality does not depend on humanness. Finally, we will clarify
how religion is related to morality and why it often appears that morality
depends on religion but that this is part of the ideology of religion, not the nature
of morality.
WHAT Is RELIGION? WHAT IS MORALITY?
Not surprisingly, much of the confusion and (what passes for) debate about
religion and morality boils down to a misunderstanding of both. There have been
many attempts to define each term, most not so much wrong as highly biased.
Accurately understanding religion and morality separately will help to make the
relationship between them more comprehensible and will automatically dispense
with the notion that morality depends on or is "provided by" any particular
religion-or any religion at all.
Perhaps it is easiest to approach the problem of what religion or morality is by
establishing what it is not. Let us start with religion. Many people, Christian or
under the influence of Christianity, define religion as "belief in God" or, only
slightly more generally, "belief in one god." This is, of course, not a definition of
religion in any way but rather a description of their particular religion. It is
reminiscent of the opinion of Parson Thwackum in Henry Fielding's novel The
History of Tom Tones, who said, "When I mention religion I mean the Christian
Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion Page 45
