ESSAY - why was JC put to death Flashcards
intro general
why is it important?
Jesus’ death is undoubtedly linked with Judeo-Christian relations; indeed, the role of Jewish authorities in Jesus’ crucifixion led to the development of the concept of Jewish deicide. This links to the question of why Jesus was in fact put to death.
winter - the inscription. should start with this
but…need to be more nuanced
intro argument and structure
For the purpose of this essay, I will examine the following potential reasons for Jesus’ death: his religio-political disagreements with authorities; his accusation of being a messianic pretender; and finally, his charge of blasphemy. I will argue that, whilst to a certain extent a culmination of the three, the most likely reason for Jesus’ death is in his disagreements with authority. Despite accusations of blasphemy, contemporary authorities used religious justification as a disguise for the threat they believed Jesus posed to the stability of society.
1 - Jesus’ disagreement with both Jewish and Roman authorities could be deemed the reason for his death; he may have been crucified as a religio-political rebel: jewish
Horsley - it is ‘virtually impossible to separate the religious dimension from the political dimension of Jesus’ ministry’.
cleansing of temple
- criticises through emphatic actions, overturning tables etc.
Jesus justifies his actions through alluding to Old Testament scripture, as he directly recalls both Jeremiah 7:11 and Isaiah 56:7.
impact can be seen in reaction of chief priests who ‘kept looking for a way to kill him’
prediction of temple destruction
- As Theissen and Merz highlight, whilst the Gospel of John depicts the cleansing and prophesising of the Temple in the same passage, Mark separates the two, due to an ‘interest… in detaching it from the context of the cleansing of the temple which compromised Jesus, so as not to confirm the ‘false’ witness as truth’. Theissen and Merz argue that this is a testimony to the authenticity of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, for it seems to conform with the criterion of ‘embarrassment’.
- prediction used as false testimony during trial
1: roman authorities
Mt and Mk - questioners = Pharisees and Heodians
Lk - spies
provocatively ask him whether Jews should pay taxes to caesar - Luke suggests this was deliberate, they wanted to ‘catch Jesus in something he said’
“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”
- seems to be encouraging obedience of state or is he separating earthly authority from god’s ultimate authority?
luke 23:1-4, used against him: “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.”
para 1 ao2 - authenticity
authenticity
- What was the substance of Jesus’s critique of the Temple institution? Did he predict its destruction, or does Mark 13 reflect a post-70 CE date for the Gospel?
- sanders, if he had acted in front of a crowd, he would have been immediately arrested
- However, this criticism can be overcome; as Evans states, ‘the reason that the temple guards did not arrest or interfere with Jesus may have been due to their embarrassment over the new business activity in the temple precincts’
but. ..enough for JC to be noticed
para 1 ao2 - other
nowhere does Jesus himself insinuate a desire to lead a rebellion against political and religious authorities
- knowledge of contemporary jewish conflict: 1st century was marked by conflict
- can be seen a lot in Luke (sanders) as he is writing
after the Roman armies had in fact surrounded and destroyed Jerusalem’. Indeed, Luke 23:2 depicts Jesus’ charge as directly linked to his opposition to religio-political authority.
- Whilst Jesus may have simply desired religious and political reform, this desire in itself was sufficient for him to eventually be killed.
- difference between what JC intended and what he was perceived as intending.
para 2 - Whilst Jesus’ action of the Temple presented him as a threat to authorities, it could be argued that Jesus was put to death as a messianic pretender; indeed, Jesus linked his cleansing of the temple to eschatological ideas.
triumphal entry
In Mark 11:1-10, Jesus is described as entering Jerusalem on a donkey, greeted by exclamations of ‘Hosanna… Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David’. This is reminiscent of both 1 Kings 1:32-40 as well as 2 Kings 9:12-13. It has similarly been argued that the entry into Jerusalem was a political act arranged by the disciples to fulfil the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. This is alluded to in Matt 21:5 and John 12:15, where the Old Testament passage is directly quoted to prove the fulfilment of ‘what had been spoken through the prophet’. For Reza Aslan, this is evidence that the entry into Jerusalem was an orchestrated political act to promote Jesus’ intention to free Israel from the Romans.
- thoughts on Aslan’s argument: not valid, but could be interpreted that way. again distinction between intention and interpretation. redaction?
- Luke 23:2 demonstrates how Jesus was in fact accused of ‘saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king’.
para 2 ao2
- messianic aspect - inscription on JC cross
- Horsley - this is rather evidence of crucifixion as a political insurgent
- messianic claims or intentions were not punishable in themselves; rather, due to the violent context of contemporary Palestine, ‘his claim to be the Messiah would have been regarded by the Jewish authorities not as blasphemy but as a political offence’. (Watson)
- did not view messianic role as violent. he reinterpreted OT messianic ideas and combine them with teaching about love and forgiveness
- For instance, Luke 18:35-43 details Jesus’ healing of a blind beggar, which once again parallels the Old Testament.
- he is not conforming with OT political messiah but rather disobeying authority in association with marginalised
para 2 ao2 conc
This hence suggests that the extent to which Jesus’ death can be deemed associated with his messianic quality is determined by one’s very definition of Messiah. Since Jesus did not conform with all aspects of the Messiah as a violent, kingly figure, it is more appropriate to instead say that Jesus was put to death because of his threatening renunciation of the religious and political contemporary norms. he went against contemporary ideas of hierarchy and associated with the outcast
para 3 - In a similar vein to Jesus’ messianic status is the idea that Jesus was put to death for blasphemy - confession
JC confession However, the difficulty lies in the lack of harmony between the Synoptic accounts. Mark presents a purely affirmative response to the high priest’s question, ‘are you the Messiah?’, as Jesus replies, ‘I am’. The phrase ‘I am’ is reminiscent of the Old Testament. Indeed, it is the title ascribed to God in the Old Testament, as seen in Exodus 3:14. - equating himself with god? - not so clear in other gospels - mark redactional?
para 3 - forgiveness of paralytic
. In the three Synoptics, Jesus is reported to not only state ‘your sins are forgiven’, but to also conclude with a divine claim that ‘you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’. However, the extent to which this passage does qualify as blasphemy is contested; whilst the Synoptics all depict an accusation of blasphemy, it is interesting to note how the phrase ‘your sins are forgiven’ is in the divine passive.
- use of voice = jc is agent, God is primary actor
- would this have been considered blasphemy by contemporaries? Johansson - prophets could only intercede on behalf of others
- actual forgiveness is not blasphemous, but what is is its equating of forgiveness with son of man (see ao2 para for developments of this)
para 3 ao2 general
son of man as indirect blasphemy?
- generic reference to himself, but Evans says this is not possible due to contexts of both N and OT passages
Having said that, I would argue that despite using blasphemy as reasoning for his death, it is more likely that authorities felt threatened by both the political and theological message that Jesus brought, rather than his potential divine claims.
para 3 ao2 - wicked tenants
although aligning himself with the mistreated son of the vineyard owner, Jesus aims not to state his divinity, but rather criticise the corruption of religious authorities. In quoting Psalm 118:22-3, Jesus depicts himself as having a role in the reconstruction of religious authority. This coheres with the trial scene in Mark, which emphasises the illogical nature of putting Jesus to death despite ‘their testimony…not agree(ing)’.
mark is only synoptic to mention blasphemy - Evans, could be redactional to reflect later jewish-xsan controversy
With regards to the Fourth Gospel, claims of blasphemy may have origins in ‘late first-century Christian polemic with the synagogue…(which) provoked…Jewish circles’ charges of blasphemy’. (Evans)
shows difficulty in deciding what a 1st cent jew considered blasphemy
para 3 ao2 conc
Therefore, it seems more likely that whilst blasphemy may have been used as an excuse to put Jesus to death, the accusation was ultimately unsubstantiated: Jesus did not claim to be an agent of forgiveness, nor superior or equal to God. This hence suggests that Jesus was rather put to death due to the political and religious authority he possessed; his criticism of politico-religious institutions was sufficiently threatening for him to have to be subdued.
conc general
charges of blasphemy and messianic claims were exploited as justification for putting Jesus to death. Given the socio-political context of Jesus’ contemporary society, Jesus’ willingness to openly criticise both the Temple and Roman institutions meant that he was viewed as a political threat to authorities.
JC authority and popularity was dangerous - death was necessary antidote
