jesus' death - lectures Flashcards
(32 cards)
paul
When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1 Cor 2:2)
It is, for example, central to:
• salvation (Rom 3:21-26, 4:25, 5:6-11).
• Christology (Phil 2:8-11).
• ethics (1 Cor 16:20, Rom 14:15).
hengel on death for us
The formula ‘Christ died for us’, according to Martin Hengel,
is the most frequent and most important confessional statement in the Pauline epistles and at the same time in the primitive Christian tradition in the Greek language which underlies them.
death as for…
- Christ died or gave himself for our sins (1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4)
- Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6)
- Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us by being crucified (Gal 3:13; see Deut 21:23)
- Christ died for us that we might live with him (1 Thess 5:10)
paul on cause of death
However, Paul tells us virtually nothing about the cause of Jesus’ death. He blames it on the ‘rulers of this age’.
- None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1Cor 2:8)
However, the identity of these ‘rulers’ is not clear. These rulers may have been:
• Supernatural, heavenly beings of some kind. For example, Paul can refer to Satan as the ‘God of this world’ (1 Cor 4:4 and he uses similar language in Col 2:15)
• Both the supernatural forces which stand behind the world and those human rulers who are governed by these forces. This is a view particularly associated with Oscar Cullmann.
• Literally the earthly rulers responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Roman? Jewish? Pilate, Herod Antipas and Caiaphas?
Q
The death of Jesus appears to be irrelevant to Q. As David Seeley notes, ‘the Sayings Gospel Q is notable for lacking an account of Jesus’ death’. (This is something that it shares with the Gospel of Thomas, the non-canonical sayings gospel with which it has many other parallels).
Q mentions death and sayings mention prophets. - indirect reference to JC?
- Q 13:34-35 may imply a link between Jesus’ death and those of the prophets.
o Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wins, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you. And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’ (Luke 13:34-35)
Q may have understood Jesus’ death in terms of the deaths of the prophets.
mark and JC death
Mark, usually held to be the earliest gospel, is often described as ‘a passion narrative with an extended introduction’
presentation of Jc death
- In Matthew and Mark, Jesus dies as the abandoned Son of God (Mk 15:39, Mt 27:54)
- In Luke, the emphasis is on his innocence (23:47)
- In John, Jesus’ death is his exaltation (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34) and glorification (7:39; 12:16, 23, 28; 17:1, 5).
meaning of death
• Matthew and Mark view Jesus’ death as a ransom (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). His death leads to the forgiveness of sins (Mt 26:28).
• In Luke, Jesus’ promise of salvation to the repentant thief (23:43) indicates the salvific aspect of his death – though repentance and forgiveness of sins is something also stressed in relation to the risen Jesus 24:47.
• John focuses upon Jesus the Good Shepherd who freely lays down his life on behalf of the sheep (10:11), and whose death is redemptive, ‘Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world’ (1:29).
The canonical gospels give us our greatest source of evidence for the death of the historical Jesus and are the main source of data for what follows.
mention of death in non-Xian lit
Josephus
tacitus
crucifixion
It was a humiliating death associated with criminals and the lowest in society. Tacitus said crucifixion was ‘the punishment usually inflicted on slaves’ (His. 4.11)
If Jesus of Nazareth was crucified then the ultimate responsibility for his death lay with the Romans as crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment, not a Jewish one. The Romans were also fiercely protective of their monopoly on the death penalty in parts of the empire where they ruled directly, such as Judea, rather than through a client king. This is evident from a range of sources and is reflected in John’s gospel.
- Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.’ The Jews replied, ‘We are not permitted to put anyone to death.’ (John 18:31)
scholars on JC as being crucified for being a political threat
- N. T. Wright: ‘Jesus was executed as a rebel against Rome’,
- James Dunn: ‘Jesus was executed as a threat (messianic pretender) to Rome’s hold over Jerusalem’,
- Paula Fredriksen says that Pilate executed Jesus, ‘specifically as a political insurrectionist.’
- Joel Green says ‘that Jesus was crucified immediately places him historically in the story of Roman rule as a character regarded as antagonistic, even a threat, to the Empire.’
evidence for JC as a political threat
a) The titulus The King of the Jews’ (Mark 15:26 Mt 27:37, Lk 23:38, John 19:19, 21; Gospel of Peter 11). This is multiply attested and is also a decidedly Roman rather than Jewish or early Christian expression.
b) The question by Pilate to Jesus: ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ (Mt 27:11, Mk 15:2, Lk 23:3, Jn 18:33).
c) The tradition that Jesus believed himself (or his followers believed him to be) a king and therefore a rival to the emperor and his client kings (Luke 23:2; John 6:15).
a. They began to accuse him, saying, ‘We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.’ (Luke 23:2)
b. When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself. (John 6:15)
c. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor. (John 19:12)
d) The tradition that Jesus was executed between two bandits (Mt 27:38, Mk 15:27, Lk 23:32) – does that indicate something of the company he was assumed to keep?
e) The tradition that Jesus forbade the payment of taxes to Rome (Luke 23:2 – see Mt 22:15-22; Mk 12:13-17; Lk 20:20-26; Egerton Papyrus 2; Gospel of Thomas Logion 100).
f) The tradition that Jesus’ ‘trial’ before the Romans took place in the context of a threat of insurrection, no doubt heightened by the crowds present for the Passover festival. Note Mark 15:7, Mt 27:24.
restoration of dcvidic monarchy and how this was reinforced by JC
Such kingship was a natural consequence of messianic claims made by or for Jesus as the predominant form of messianism in the first-century appears to have been one associated with the restoration of the Davidic monarchy, the appearance of a ‘son of David’ (see, for example 2 Sam 7:12ff; Mt 1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 21:9 etc).
This could have been reinforced by:
• Knowledge of Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God – a key, recurring, programmatic theme in his preaching. For example, ‘The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God has come near.’ (Mark 1:15)
• Awareness of various recent actions by Jesus, in particular, the Triumphal Entry (Mt 211-9; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:28-38), The ‘Cleansing’ of the Temple (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-19; Lk 19:45-48; John 2:13-17).
problems with political threat hypothesis - general
But this seems to raise another problem: the portrait of Jesus, as it is presented to us not only in the gospels but throughout the New Testament, is difficult to reconcile with this explanation of his death. As A. E. Harvey puts it: the portrait of Jesus,as it is presented to us not only in the gospels but throughout the New Testament, is utterly irreconcilable with this [political] explanation of his death.
problems with political threat hypothesis - evidence
Indeed:
• At his arrest Jesus protests that he is not leading a rebellion against the state (Mt 26:55; Mk 14:48; Lk 22:52).
• Jesus’ followers were not rounded up and summarily executed, as one would have expected had Jesus been leading an insurrectionist movement.
• Although the information that we possess about Theudas and the Egyptian raise some critical questions, one detail seems clear of both cases: the Roman forces made a point of slaughtering large numbers of the followers of insurrectionist leaders. The same occurred with the Samaritan prophet during the rule of Pilate. As Josephus says, having already killed a number of the prophet’s supporters in an attack. ‘…many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.’ A similar fate seems to have befallen the followers of the royal pretender Simon of Peraea in 4BCE.
problems with political threat hypothesis - conc
Most commentators therefore argue that the Romans did not see Jesus as a direct threat to their rule but only interpreted him as such because of, in some way, the intervention of some Jewish authorities, who wished Jesus executed and presented him as a dangerous and disruptive individual.
political threat hypothesis - sanders
Sanders tries to solve this puzzle with special reference to Jesus’ physical demonstration against the Temple (Mt 21:12–13; Mk 11:15–17; Lk 19:45–46). This act, Sanders insists, was not intended as a cleansing of the Temple, but as a portent of its destruction. This, he argues, was Jesus’ last public act, and the proximate cause of his death. It brought Jesus to the attention of the Romans as a political threat. He was executed, then, at the behest of the Jewish leadership as a dangerous man, but not as an actual leader of an insurgent party.
political threat hypothesis - Harvey
Harvey, on the other hand, argues that the Jewish leaders did hand Jesus over to Roman authority, but only after their failure to cope effectively with this Jew whom they regarded as a threat to general peace and security. Harvey argues that the Sanhedrin held an informal hearing, the purpose of which was to decide whether, and on what grounds, to hand Jesus over to Pilate but their fundamental motivation was essentially one of realpolitik and self-preservation, encapsulated in the words of the chief priests and Pharisees uttered in an earlier meeting of the council following the resurrection of Lazarus.
‘If we allow Jesus to go on like this, everyone will believe in him and the Romans will come and destroy both our Temple and our nation’ (John 11:48).
Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - trial of Jesus, Matthew and mark
In Matthew and Mark report a night trial during which false witnesses testified that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple (Matt 26:61; Mark 14:58), but then the Sanhedrin condemns Jesus on the grounds of blasphemy (Matt 26:65–66; Mark 14:64) following Jesus’ response to the question about whether he was the Messiah or not.
The prophecy about the Temple could be taken as a crime punishable by death (Jeremiah 26:1-19 – see v. 8). The Teacher of Righteousness in Qumran had similar threats made against him (1QpHab IX) because of such criticisms and Samaritans were executed for claiming the superiority of their rival Temple.
Apart from the NT there is no indication in Jewish texts of the time that the claim to be the Messiah was a crime under Jewish law or even counted as blasphemy. Famously, Bar Kochba was recognised as Messiah by Rabbi Akiva during the war of 132-35 (when Bar Kochba seems to have briefly liberated Jerusalem). However, it is worth noting that the term ‘blasphemy’ was an elastic one.
bird and crossley on blasphemy
We cannot surmise from the allegation of ‘blasphemy’ that Jesus was necessarily doing anything as dramatic as making himself equal with God or the like. ‘Blasphemy’ was broadly defined in early Judaism and could be used in conflict situations between Jews without anyone thinking God’s sole authoritative position was being challenged in any way.
Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - trial of Jesus, luke
In Luke the trial takes place in the morning, the Temple charge is not mentioned, and the issue is Jesus’ messiahship, but there is no formal condemnation (Luke 22:71). However, when he is then sent before Pilate it is a charge of agitation, a call to boycott the payment of taxes and the claim that he is the Messiah, that is stated by the Jerusalem leadership: ‘They began to accuse him, saying, ‘We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king’ (Lk 23:2).
Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - trial of Jesus, John
John reports only an informal hearing before Annas during which the former high priest questions Jesus about his disciples and his teaching (John 18:19) – before sending Jesus to Caiaphas, the high priest (and his son-in-law). The account passes over the trial reported by the synoptics (indeed, there is no account of what happened when he saw Caiaphas) and focuses upon the ‘trial’ before Pilate instead. The reader knows that Caiaphas wants Jesus’ death for purely political and pragmatic motives following his resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11:47-53) something that John reminds the reader of in 18:14. There is no mention of the Sanhedrin in the Johannine passion narrative but the decision has already been made to have Jesus killed.
Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - Problems with the evidence of the trial before Jewish authorities
These accounts raise significant problems – and not just of consistency. When did the trial take place? (Mk 14:55ff; Mt 26:59ff; Lk 22:66ff). How could it take place? Did it take place?
The ‘trial’ before the Sanhedrin as depicted by Mark and Matthew runs counter at many points to what we know for procedure from the Mishnah.
- mishnah trials only in daylight, JC’s is during night
- court proceedings cannot take place on the sabbath but in synoptics, trial takes place in passover night/morn
- A death sentence may not be passed on the first day of the trial, but only in a new session on the following day. but JC is condemned in first session of proceedings (is that why Mark 15:1 is indicated as a second session?)
Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - explanations for the Problems with the evidence of the trial before Jewish authorities
- The trial before the Sanhedrin was historical but under Sadducean law (the Mishnah reflects the interpretation of the Pharisaic interpretation of the law).
- The trial before the Sanhedrin was unhistorical – invented to exonerate the Romans.
- An ‘interrogation’ before the Sanhedrin (closer to Luke’s version) is restyled as a ‘trial’ at a later stage when Jewish authorities briefly had the power of life and death (between 41-44CE, when Herod Agrippa I added Judea to the lands he ruled) and some leading Christians were executed (e.g. James the Son of Zebedee Acts 12:1ff)
- Several processes have been fused into a trial. So Raymond Brown argues that there was a trial by the Sanhedrin that resolved on Jesus’ death long before it occurred and also an interrogation following his arrest.
- Whatever happened with the Sanhedrin was historical because the nature of the charge meant that it did not have to follow the usual laws because Jesus was accused of false prophecy (Deut 13, 17). If Jesus were thought to be leading the people astray and into idolatry then the usual rules for a trial could be set aside (bSanh X, 11), one might proceed with guile (bSanh VII, 10) and kill the person at the time of a festival (bSanh XI, 7). According to one later Jewish source Jesus was accused of this (bSanh 43) and early Christian sources note that he was accused of leading the people astray (Mt 27:63, Jn 7:11, 47; Justin, Dialogue 69:7, 108:2) though not at the trial and there is no reference in the earliest sources.
