Jesus' Arrest, Crucifixion, and Ressurection.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
- 1 Corinthians 1:20-25
The accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection are central to Christian faith, and as such they have been subjected to special challenge. Nevertheless, strong evidence supports the essential Gospel reports about Jesus' death and resurrection. Other teachings or events from Jesus' life may have featured as much in early Christian ethical preaching, but early Christians probably would have told and retold the passion story (the week between His Triumphal Entry and Crucifixion), since His sacrifice on the cross is the heart of the gospel. No record remains of any form of early Christianity that lacked the basic structure of the story of Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul's sequence is similar to Mark's, and if, as is probable, John represents an independent tradition, his passion narrative again confirms the outline Mark follows, suggesting a passion narrative that existed before Mark.
Other evidence suggests the substantial reliability of these accounts. First of all, the basic story seems to have been established among Jerusalem Christians within a decade after the resurrection. The basic components of the story and their outline are surely earlier than Mark; Paul and John independently attest the same material. Mark himself appears to presuppose that his audience is familiar with some details of the story, especially Barabbas and other insurrectionists, despite Pilate's many confrontations with such revolutionaries.
Further, the "element for embarrassment" makes it nearly impossible to believe that the early Christians could have invented the account. Christians would not invent one disciple's betrayal or other disciples' abandonment; the earliest Christians, who were Jewish, probably would not invent condemnation by the majority of their own people's leaders; Christians would never have invented shameful death by crucifixion, a death so horrible that the Roman govenment assured that no Roman citizen would be crucified; and they would never have invented the treason charge "King of the Jews," which would have made all Christians look seditious and invited Roman retribution.
Finally, the accounts of Jesus' arrest, trials and execution fit what we know of the period in question. The suffering of Jesus Christ is similar to Josephus's account of Jesus ben Ananias, who similarly entered the temple area during a festival. Like Jesus Christ of Nazereth, he predicted doom on Jerusalem and its sanctuary, even referring (again like Jesus) to the context of Jeremiah's prophecy of judgment against the temple (Jeremiah 7:34 compare Jereremiah 7:11 in Mark 20:17). The Jewish authorities arrested and beat Jesus ben Ananias and handed him over to the Roman governor, who interrogated him. He refused to answer the governor, was scourged and--in this case unlike Jesus (though compare Mark 15:1-15)--was released.
The primary difference, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was executed whereas Jesus son of Ananias was not, also makes good sense: unlike Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus of Nazareth was not viewed as insane and already had a band of followers, plus a growing reputation that could support messianic claims. Jesus ben Ananias could simply be punished; Jesus of Nazareth had to be executed. The basic points of the passion story (including those most likely to be questioned) make perfect historical sense
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
- 1 Corinthians 1:20-25
The accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection are central to Christian faith, and as such they have been subjected to special challenge. Nevertheless, strong evidence supports the essential Gospel reports about Jesus' death and resurrection. Other teachings or events from Jesus' life may have featured as much in early Christian ethical preaching, but early Christians probably would have told and retold the passion story (the week between His Triumphal Entry and Crucifixion), since His sacrifice on the cross is the heart of the gospel. No record remains of any form of early Christianity that lacked the basic structure of the story of Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul's sequence is similar to Mark's, and if, as is probable, John represents an independent tradition, his passion narrative again confirms the outline Mark follows, suggesting a passion narrative that existed before Mark.
Other evidence suggests the substantial reliability of these accounts. First of all, the basic story seems to have been established among Jerusalem Christians within a decade after the resurrection. The basic components of the story and their outline are surely earlier than Mark; Paul and John independently attest the same material. Mark himself appears to presuppose that his audience is familiar with some details of the story, especially Barabbas and other insurrectionists, despite Pilate's many confrontations with such revolutionaries.
Further, the "element for embarrassment" makes it nearly impossible to believe that the early Christians could have invented the account. Christians would not invent one disciple's betrayal or other disciples' abandonment; the earliest Christians, who were Jewish, probably would not invent condemnation by the majority of their own people's leaders; Christians would never have invented shameful death by crucifixion, a death so horrible that the Roman govenment assured that no Roman citizen would be crucified; and they would never have invented the treason charge "King of the Jews," which would have made all Christians look seditious and invited Roman retribution.
Finally, the accounts of Jesus' arrest, trials and execution fit what we know of the period in question. The suffering of Jesus Christ is similar to Josephus's account of Jesus ben Ananias, who similarly entered the temple area during a festival. Like Jesus Christ of Nazereth, he predicted doom on Jerusalem and its sanctuary, even referring (again like Jesus) to the context of Jeremiah's prophecy of judgment against the temple (Jeremiah 7:34 compare Jereremiah 7:11 in Mark 20:17). The Jewish authorities arrested and beat Jesus ben Ananias and handed him over to the Roman governor, who interrogated him. He refused to answer the governor, was scourged and--in this case unlike Jesus (though compare Mark 15:1-15)--was released.
The primary difference, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was executed whereas Jesus son of Ananias was not, also makes good sense: unlike Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus of Nazareth was not viewed as insane and already had a band of followers, plus a growing reputation that could support messianic claims. Jesus ben Ananias could simply be punished; Jesus of Nazareth had to be executed. The basic points of the passion story (including those most likely to be questioned) make perfect historical sense
posted by Modern Day Magi @ 9:39 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home