jesus' death - lectures

Question 1

paul

Answer 1

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).

Question 2

hengel on death for us

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

death as for…

Answer 3

• 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)

Question 4

paul on cause of death

Answer 4

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?

Question 5

Q

Answer 5

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?

1. 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.

Question 6

mark and JC death

Answer 6

Mark, usually held to be the earliest gospel, is often described as ‘a passion narrative with an extended introduction’

Question 7

presentation of Jc death

Answer 7

• 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).

Question 8

meaning of death

Answer 8

• 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.

Question 9

mention of death in non-Xian lit

Answer 9

Josephus

tacitus

Question 10

crucifixion

Answer 10

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)

Question 11

scholars on JC as being crucified for being a political threat

Answer 11

• 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.’

Question 12

evidence for JC as a political threat

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

restoration of dcvidic monarchy and how this was reinforced by JC

Answer 13

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).

Question 14

problems with political threat hypothesis - general

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

problems with political threat hypothesis - evidence

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

problems with political threat hypothesis - conc

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

political threat hypothesis - sanders

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

political threat hypothesis - Harvey

Answer 18

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).

Question 19

Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - trial of Jesus, Matthew and mark

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

bird and crossley on blasphemy

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - trial of Jesus, luke

Answer 21

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).

Question 22

Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - trial of Jesus, John

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - Problems with the evidence of the trial before Jewish authorities

Answer 23

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?)

Question 24

Jerusalem leadership and the reasons for the execution of Jesus - explanations for the Problems with the evidence of the trial before Jewish authorities

Answer 24

1. The trial before the Sanhedrin was historical but under Sadducean law (the Mishnah reflects the interpretation of the Pharisaic interpretation of the law).
2. The trial before the Sanhedrin was unhistorical – invented to exonerate the Romans.
3. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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.

Question 25

why was Jesus executed but his followers were not?

Answer 25

One possible solution is given by Meggitt. Rather than being executed as a dangerous individual, the Romans executed Jesus because they believed him to be insane - a comic, delusional and pitiful madman, akin to Carabas in Philo (Flaccus 6.36-41) and Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus (War 6.300- 305); someone whose life was of no value and whose claims (of, for example, his role in the the arrival of an invisible kingdom) were risible and invited mockery. Please note, this is not the same as claiming that Jesus was objectively mad but rather that his behaviour and claims may well have struck the Romans as such - and he would have been treated appropriately, according to conventions of the time.

Question 26

Joel green

Answer 26

In seeking to make sense of the purpose served by Jesus’ crucifixion we must account for multiple narratives and, therefore, the possibility, even probability, that his execution served multiple agenda.
We should examine the causes of Jesus’ death and also the meanings attached to it from at least three perspectives. That of:
• the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem,
• the representatives of the Roman Empire
• Jesus himself.

Question 27

did Jesus seek his own death? general

Answer 27

The New Testament sources claim that Jesus understood his own death as inevitable and also vicarious in some way, benefiting others. Is this plausible and if so, could Jesus have played a role in his own death? Some have rejected this as a historical possibility. E. P. Sanders, although noting the evidence for the ‘immediate and thorough’ Christian interpretation of Jesus’ death as atoning nonetheless finds it implausible that that these traditions could have originated with the historical Jesus because, as he remarks,
- When pushed to its limit, this view means that Jesus determined in his own mind to be killed and to have his death understood as sacrificial for others, and it must then imply that he pulled this off by provoking the authorities. It is not historically impossible that Jesus was weird and I realise that my own interpretation of his views may make twentieth-century people look at him askance. But the view that he plotted his own redemptive death makes him strange in any century and thrusts the entire drama into his peculiar inner psyche. The others that we know about him make him a reasonable first-century visionary. We should be guided by them.
However, it is historically plausible that Jesus could have thought in such a way. It need not be a later Christian retrojection, however unappealing to Sanders.

Question 28

did Jesus seek his own death? various factors

Answer 28

i) It is plausible that the historical Jesus, from early in his ministry, would have been aware of the possibility of his own violent end - especially given his knowledge of the fate of John the Baptist (Mk 6, 11:27ff). Note the Lukan tradition (13:31–33) in which the Pharisees warn Jesus to flee because Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and the murderer of John, sought to kill Jesus as well.
a. At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” He said to them, “Go and tell that fox for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work.’ (Luke 13:31-32)
ii) It is possible that Jesus viewed death as an inescapable part of a prophetic mission Luke 13:32– 33; Matt 23:29–36 (Q):
a. ‘Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.’ (Lk 13:33)
iii) Jesus could have thought of himself as a figure that would suffer but be vindicated (combining the Suffering servant/Righteous one [e.g. Isaiah 52:13-53:12] with the Son of Man figure [e.g.Dan 7:13]).
iv) Jesus could have seen the death of a righteous person having an effect on others because of ideas associated with Jewish martyrdom traditions (e.g. 2 Mac 7:36ff).
a. I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.” (2 Mac 7:36-7)

Question 29

eucharist general and 2 major traditions

Answer 29

Indeed, one of our earliest, multiply attested units of tradition, which was clearly central to the life of the earliest traditions, points to Jesus initiating a rite immediately before his death in which it is given a vicarious, redemptive meaning.

• According to the first tradition (Matt 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25), the shedding of his blood will establish a covenant on behalf of many - as was done on Sinai (Exodus 24:8).
• According to the second, the cup is the new covenant in Jesus’ blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25) promised in Jeremiah 31:31–34.

Question 30

eucharist analysis

Answer 30

Is this evidence that the historical Jesus may have seen a redemptive value in his death?
Is so, what should we make of his cries from the cross – is there any historical substance to these?
• ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mk 15:34, also in Mt 27:46; a quote from Psalm 22:1?)
• ‘Father, into your hand I commend my spirit.’ (Lk 23:46; cf. Psalm 31:5)
• ‘It is finished. (Jn 19:30)
• And the Lord screamed out, saying: ‘My power, O power, you have forsaken me.’ And having said this, he was taken up. (Gospel of Peter 19)

Question 31

roman response to popular prophet-like figures of the mid-first century - theudas

Answer 31

When Fadus was procurator of Judaea [44-46CE), a charlatan named Theudas persuaded most of the common people to take their possessions and follow him to the Jordan river [see Joshua 3:14- 17]. He said he was a prophet, and that at his command the river would be divided and allow them an easy crossing . . . Fadus sent out the cavalry . . . and killed many in a surprise attack. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiquities 20.97-98).
Theudas is also mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles 5:36-37 Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.

Question 32

roman response to popular prophet-like figures of the mid-first century - the Egyptian

Answer 32

An Egyptian (Jew) arrived at Jerusalem, saying he was a prophet and advising the mass of the common people to go with him to the Mount of Olives, which is just opposite the city. . . . He said that from there he wanted to show them that at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down and they could then make an entry into the city. Felix (and) his soldiers killed four hundred of them and took two hundred alive (Josephus Antiquities 20.169-71).
Also referred to Acts 21:28: Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?"