Hypothesis

My(laymen) opinion on this hypothesis in a nutshell is that this hypothesis is just what Jesus preached minus the parts where He claimed to be Christ. My biggest problem with the hypothesis is that it seems like it cherry picks text to make a narrative. Let me give an example of what I mean by cherry picking. Bart puts emphasis on Mark being the earliest source that we can use to reconstruct what Jesus did and said. In Bart's book, he claims that Jesus said that Son of Man was a different being than himself. (He never claims that Jesus didn't refer to himself as the Son of  Man in some parts in the gospels I just want to clarify.) In Mark, there are verses where Jesus claims to be the Son of Man (Mark 8:27-33, 9:9-10, 9:30-32, 14:41-42). Mark being early is also the reason why Luke's verse about the kingdom of God being within you is highly suspicious, because Luke DE-apocalyptises some passages. There are some verses in Luke that can be interpreted as being more apocalyptic however(Luke 28:39 Luke 21:20). It seems weird to me with what little information we have outside the gospels to say that Luke 17:20-21 isn't something Jesus said: based on a few differences from Mark. There could be more evidence that Luke 17:20-21 is a cope verse that I don't know about yet, didn't comprehend, or have just forgotten extra evidence Bart gives in his book


Another problem with the hypothesis is that, if Christianity developed slowly through word of mouth, all we have about the Historical Jesus is what Christians said about Him, the traditions, and the gospels. It's very weird to ignore some of the traditional statements wrote about Jesus in the Gospels, and try to make  a narrative based on some apocalyptic sayings of Jesus. The gospels are pretty much all we have. Sure, we can use specific criteria and techniques to give us a better picture on what "might" have happened, but it's not the complete picture, nor is it what the epistles, gospels, and early Christians say. early Christians gave us.


Lastly, if Jesus was preaching a Jewish apocalypse that said the Jews would be saved, His actions make far less sense than what is said in early epistles and Christian tradition. There was pretty much no reason for Jesus to go against the Sadducees, Pharisees, or any Jews for that matter. because they would just be saved in the coming of the Son of Man. Preaching to Gentiles and offering the gospel to others than the Jews also doesn't fit within a Jewish apocalyptic  context because the Jews would be delivered from the evil ones(Romans and gentiles). The gospels aren't pro Jew, nor pro Gentile. Jesus preached to both groups and the gospels contain verses that portray both Jews and Romans negatively.(ex. Mark 6:14-29 and Matthew 27:25). The traditional view(if that's what you would call it.) makes more sense to me with the data we have than the apocalyptic everyday Jesus. I'm also kind of sad that Bart never mentioned how the Kingdom of God was used outside the NT. I assume one of the other books mentioned in this article or another scholarly books talks about that more in detail, I need to look for that.