The Jewish Apocalypse: Christianity Before the New Testament

What an analysis of "preliterary fragments", the cult of Jewish apocalypticism, and the Bible itself tells us about what the first Christians professed and believed

The scholarly or academic picture of Christianity in its earliest moments turns out to be very different than the form of Christianity we are accustomed to.

Modern Christianity has, at the cost of an infinite number of purged heresies and the collapse of a number of empires, settled itself on a number of clear and defined concepts about how it sees the world. The omni-God of Aquinas, the Holy Trinity, the establishment of missions; but above all else, the believe that Jesus is God, sent to Earth in the form of a man to pay the debt of mankind’s sin and pave the way to eternal salvation.

“[…] I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”

We’re all intimately familiar with these concepts. Many of us were raised on them as of equal or greater importance & confidence towards the law of gravity. But how did these ideas develop? Were the apostles really handed down Christianity in its current form straight from the hands of God? As I will argue, I think the answer is clearly no. Rather than the “High Christianity” produced by the European continent we observe today, the eyewitnesses of Jesus, and likely Jesus himself, thought they were approaching something entirely different. These concepts include, briefly:

• That this religious sect of “Jewish apocalypticists”, which included the Early Christian Church, thought the world’s end was imminent and due to happen within the current generation.

• That this religious sect envisioned a reversal of castes and fortunes at the end of the world. The rich, corrupted by sin, would be punished; and the poor, in return for their suffering, would be rewarded by God.

• That Jesus was born a man and exalted into heaven as a divine being at the moment of his resurrection, with parallels to myths across the ancient world. Only later would the idea of incarnation (Jesus as an eternal being sent to Earth) develop.

These beliefs reflect the original understanding of Christianity, before the blending of various cultures, theological theories, and ecclesiastical councils developed what I will call “High Christianity”. For general use later, “high” refers to something that is later/refined, and “low” as something earlier/raw.

I will also say that what’s being put forward here is, like in some of my previous articles, not new or unique. What will be put forward has remained as the academic consensus among biblical historians for hundreds of years. If you have a kill-shot towards the information presented, I would suggest bringing it forward to the various history departments across the West - you might change the world!

---

Methodology

First, I want to clear up some methodological assumptions that will define how the information is presented.

I operate with the understanding that sources which date closer to the crucifixion (33AD) are more reliable and true to the original teachings of the church. If earlier sources lack or contradict information in later sources, we can reasonably assert that the later source has developed a new understanding. This has long been a crucial way of uncovering historical information where written, contemporary sources are nonexistent - as is the case for Jesus. To date, we have no writings by the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and resurrection.

I’m also assuming that the modern scholarly consensus on the dating of various New Testament and extrabiblical sources are generally correct in providing a chronological order of sources. Included here is a useful full table.

• Preliterary Traditions, ? through ~80AD

• Paul’s Epistles (Galatians, ~50AD through Colossians, ~70AD)

• Gospel of Mark, ~70AD

• Acts, Gospel of Luke & Matthew, ~80AD

• Gospel of John, Revelation, ~100AD

• 2nd Peter, ~110 AD

---

Jesus & The Early Church as Jewish Apocalypticists

Crucially for this topic, Jesus & the Early Church needs to be understood for what they were - 1st Century Jews (spare me the endless semantic drivel about what the word “Jew” means. Biblical historians do not share with you in this offense to your ideological sensibilities.) They believed in the one true God Yahweh and adhered to the laws of Moses, just like every other Jew at the time. But they were also in adherence to a specific form of Judaism known as apocalypticism.

Jewish apocalypticists believed that God had revealed to them the heavenly secrets that could make sense of earthly realities. In particular, they were convinced that God was very soon to intervene in this world of pain and suffering to overthrow the forces of evil that were in control of this age, and to bring in a good kingdom where there would be no more misery or injustice. This apocalyptic worldview is well attested from Jewish sources around the time of Jesus: it is a view that is prominent among the Dead Sea Scrolls—a collection of writings discovered in 1947, produced by Jews from about the time of Jesus and not far from where he lived—and among other Jewish texts not in the Bible; it was the view of John the Baptist; it was the view of the Pharisees; it was the view widely held throughout Jesus’s world. - Bart Erhman, How Jesus Became God, p. 88

Jewish Apocalypticists shared 3 key qualities. Firstly they were dualists, believing that the world was defined strictly in terms of a binary good and evil. Secondly they believed that the world was thoroughly corrupted by sin and evil, so awful was this world that God must intervene. Thirdly they believed that this intervention was imminent.

The writers of the New Testament, 1st Century Jews themselves, believed all three of these things. They were dualists, stating that one must firmly pick a side with God, or with evil, which has corrupted the world (Romans 18:28-30, 1 John 2:15, 1 John 5:19-20). They believed God’s kingdom was at hand (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 1 Corinthians 15:52-54), and that the castes would be inverted (Ephesians 6:12, Luke 4:17-19, James 2:5).

The Good and Evil Angels, William Blake, 1805

One specific “preliterate fragment”, meaning one that modern scholars are confident dates prior to the New Testament writers, comes from the mouth of Jesus. Here we see in a verse that can be safely said was actually said by the historical Jesus, is Jewish Apocalypticism at its core:

For just as the flashing lightning lights up the earth from one part of the sky to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day… And just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving away in marriage, until the day that Noah went into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all… So too will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. - The “Q” Document, (Luke 17:24, 26–27, 30; Matt. 24:27, 37–39)

What’s especially noteworthy here is that the apocalypticists, including again Jesus & his church, thought the end was imminent. They did not have in mind “spiritual ends” or something with a theological gloss, they thought that the Earth and human civilization was at its end. And they thought that it was going to happen, specifically, within the next generation:

“Truly I tell you, some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come in power.” - Jesus, per Mark 9:1

“Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.” - Jesus, per Mark 13:30

---

Caste Inversion: The Sheep & The Goats

Even though it remains disputed by a long lists of coping diatribes, the Early Church absolutely believed that the downtrodden, low class would inherit the Earth at the expense of the elites who were bound to be dethroned by God. They believed that the only way the elite could exist is through sin, through theft, deception, murder, and conquest. They also believed that therefore the only way to be “on the right side of history” before God comes is to subject oneself to poverty, and likewise assist the poor and low-class. The reason why they advised slaves to stay with their masters is because, very clearly, they knew God was soon to come to break the shackles either way.

Scriptural and preliterate evidence for this is vast and obvious, because this sentiment still remains today in the general Christian attitude towards charity. One passage from Mark, claiming to quote Jesus, puts this belief on paper:

But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'

The King will answer them, 'Most certainly I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' Then he will say also to those on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.'

Then they will also answer, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?

Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most certainly I tell you, because you did not do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

— Matthew 25:31–46

Nietzsche was not swinging at spectres when he accused Christianity of a “slave morality”, which lashed out against its superiors and foretold a time where God, himself higher than the elites of the Earth, would strike them down and flip the board. One day… some soon day! This is the attitude of ressentiment, the reassignment of suffering: "These birds of prey are evil, and he who least resembles a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—should he not be good?"

Byzantine mosaic of Christ separating the goats from the sheep, Ravenna, 6th Century. A collection of similar works across the world can be seen here

---

Exaltation Theology: Jesus Becomes God

In reading the New Testament in light of the viewpoints of the larger Jewish apocalyptic community, as well as pagan theories of apotheosis in general, it becomes apparent that the original witnesses and Jesus himself had not developed the ideas of co-eternality or the trinity until near the end of the 1st Century.

How can I be so confident in saying this? Because the earliest sources we have say Jesus was a man exalted into heaven, and the latest we have develop the idea of the trinity and incarnation.

The earliest source we have for a form of Christology is Paul, writing some 20 years after the crucifixion. Though he never met Jesus during his life, he was certainly a leader of Christianity in its early days and had access to eyewitness stories, these aforementioned “preliterary traditions”. Sometimes, as was the case for the Psalms, Homer, & Beowulf, we may expect to see these traditions passed orally across time & place, probably in the form of song or poetry. In other instances, we would see strange or out-of-place commentary which seems to recall information transmitted to the writer.

The single earliest example of this, according to biblical scholars, is Romans 1:3-4. It is formatted in a very specific and concise frame typical of a creed and is unlike anything Paul usually writes:

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and who has been declared to be the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of holiness. -Romans 1:3-4

The specific Greek word for “been declared” here is ὁρισθέντος (horisthentos), which means “to designate” or “mark off”. In short, Jesus was declared the son of God at the moment of the resurrection.

Wait a minute. At the moment of the resurrection? Yes, the earliest tract of Christian tradition we have today rather clearly insinuates that Jesus was not co-eternal with God. Rather, he was a man, born of the seed of David, who through his suffering was rewarded by God the status of his son. This was no small thing, in fact it was a tremendously bold statement, one worth crucifying someone over.

But why would Paul say this? We know he didn’t think Jesus was just a man, he very clearly thought Jesus was an eternal divine being, as a critic of this article might point out. But that’s because it’s not Paul’s words or belief, it’s a creed from before his time. He is reciting a specific mantra as part of his introduction to the letter to Rome. It’s just that this letter reveals more about Early Christianity than his views do, because they pre-date him.

Another example of this is in Acts 14:32-33:

“We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors  he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ “

Again, why would Luke write this in quoting Paul? Neither of them believed it, quite obviously. The entire tradition of the virgin birth, of the Holy Spirit impregnating the Virgin Mary, is from Luke. So why is he saying that today, on the day of the resurrection, Jesus became God’s son? Because they are documenting and recalling the earliest Christian belief we know: that Jesus was exalted into heaven as a divine being after his resurrection.

Another example, Acts 2:36:

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

And finally with the most explicit example, Acts 5:31:

God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

Using these preliterary tracts, we can see clearly that the earliest Christology was that of an exaltation - this man, Jesus, through great deeds and suffering, was lifted by God to his right hand in heaven for eternity. He became his adopted son, which in the classical word, was an extremely meaningful act that often put one above the blood descendants. Recall Caesar’s adoption of Octavian, who later became Caesar Augustus and therefore a god in Roman society as a result of this adoption. But to be the adopted son of Yahweh? There could be no higher title for a man, one that the Jewish authorities of the time would surely persecute one for claiming. This only slightly diminishes the claims of the Early Church, for though not God himself, an incredibly blessed and important divine being he did become according to them. But no trinity, no co-eternality.

The ideas of Jesus as God and the trinity of course would soon come, but not immediately. Paul himself believed Jesus was, though still not God himself, was a divine being, an angel of sorts. This is indicated in his “Christ Hymn” (Phil. 2:6-11), which may be a continuation of earlier traditions:

Who, although he was in the form of God

Did not regard being equal with God

Something to be grasped after.

But he emptied himself

Taking on the form of a slave,

And coming in the likeness of humans.

And being found in appearance as a human

He humbled himself

Becoming obedient unto death—even death on a cross.

Therefore God highly exalted him

And bestowed on him the name

That is above every name,

That at the name of Jesus

Every knee should bow

Of those in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.

And every tongue confess

That Jesus Christ is Lord

To the glory of God the Father.

Writing later, Mark appears to suggest that Jesus was not adopted at resurrection, but at his baptism. Psalms 2:7 is quoted, indicating Jesus was begotten that day. He was therefore the Son of God throughout his mission, which may provide an interesting theory as to how his miracles were possible only after his baptism:

And it came to pass in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John at the Jordan; and immediately coming up from the water, he saw the heavens dividing, and the Spirit as a dove coming down upon him; and a voice came out of the heavens, `Thou art My Son - the Beloved, in whom I did delight.' (Mark 1:9-11)

Next chronologically comes Luke, who develops the idea that Jesus was divine at the moment of conception:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the one who is born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:35)

But at this point, we still do not have a concept of co-eternality or the trinity. Jesus, or the writers of the New Testament, have yet to actually declare that Jesus IS Yahweh. We are looking for “I AM”. This doesn’t come until the Gospel of John, written near the end of the century. In several instances, John is clear. Jesus is God, he is the Son of God, he is the holy spirit. He was in heaven from before creation:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have beheld his glory, glory as of the unique one before the Father, full of grace and truth. (1:1, 14)

But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I also am working.” This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God. (5:17–18)

[Jesus said:] “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” (8:58)

[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” (10:30)

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” (14:8–9)

There it is, finally. This is the Christianity we know - High Christianity. Specifically, we have come upon a High Christology - the idea that Jesus is God, incarnated in the form of a man as the gods of Rome and Greece once did. But the problem this shows is that our High Christianity is somewhat of an invention. We do not know where, only when. We can state rather confidently that the earliest Christians, including Jesus himself, did not see himself as God. But by the time of John, Christianity clearly did.

It is noteworthy how dramatic of a shift occurred within this religious sect of apocalyptic Jews within less of a century. It’s therefore no wonder so many heresies concerning the nature of Jesus “popped up” (rather, always existed, and were stamped out). Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarism, oh how the list goes on! Did anyone really expect for the entire world to, allegedly, witness this man be crucified and rise from the dead into heaven, then come up with a consistent and dogmatic explanation right on the spot? Of course not! Have you tried to read Aquinas’ defense of the trinity using Aristotle? The idea that Christianity has been consistent from the start is utterly fanciful, and impossible. Showing that the earliest Christians did not even believe he was God proves this.

Really simple stuff, actually! We’ve got it down from the start!

---

Conclusion

A critical historical analysis of the Early Church and its writings has revealed that what it believed would be entirely foreign to any Christian today. They weren’t Scholastic monks, they were Apocalyptic Jews, and all of the baggage that came with. What we know today took time to develop, time that was required for a minor cult so wrong about its most basic predictions to mold itself into a new imperial religion.

Jesus was just an exalted prophet, a big title, but not quite God. He and his followers predicted the end of the world within 40 years, (which didn’t happen, unless you interpret this to mean that Jesus was referring to the Second Temple. Which would make a very interesting and fitting theory for the apocalyptic Jews, however, it leaves modern Christianity in the cold by stating that the Kingdom of God has long since passed. Now what?) and the Early Church most certainly believed that it was the poor and low-caste who, through the psychological state of ressentiment, would be the inheritors of eternal life and prosperity.

So where does this leave Christianity now? It can be replied that just because it took so long and so many differing heresies to be removed to end on the right belief does not mean that what is believed now is not the theologically correct position. Technically that’s true, but it is obviously convenient. It could have been any one of these beliefs that won out, it’s just that this one did. It took the concerted effort of millions of people to determine that the Nicaean, Chalcedonian view won. We came very close to an Arianist Europe, on multiple occasions.

In my view, this is a major blow for the idea of Jesus-Yahweh, the core religious belief of the West since its modern founding. He never called himself God, his earliest witnesses never called him God. The Early Church had a dozen different theories on how he was exalted, but none on how he was incarnated, until John. Despite this, Western religious attitudes were peppered on over this idea until we reach today - High Christianity. It is becoming apparent that even this no longer works. Deism may be the only way forward for Christians serious about the consensus among biblical historians for the last 3 centuries.

For me, this provides another opportunity to shed away the undesirable elements from Western religiosity. We can see clearly what was ours, and what was theirs. From there, we can begin to reconstruct what it is we ought to align with as Europeans. '

Knowing what we know now, maybe we’ll get it right.