Do You Believe in Miracles?
10 Exercises to Stay Spiritually Fit
20 Scriptures That Bring Hope to Any Situation
5 Ways to Revive Your Dream!
7 Ways to Plant Seeds of Greatness in Your Life
20 Powerful Declarations to Fight Discouragement
5 Ways to Stay Healthy This Summer
5 Tips for Better Sleep
7 Top Health Issues Facing Today’s Women
Celebrities Who Won't Back Down
A Conversation with Minnesota Wild Center Matt Cullen
Yes, Gratitude Works!
10 Ways to To Handle Life Changes With Courage
The Fruits of Desire
Nurturing a Healthy Marriage
10 Ways to Get Over a Hurtful Past
Ten Things Every Dad Should Tell His Son
By the way, let me clarify something I said in the debate about Ehrman. He is a highly-regarded New Testament scholar, who has done some fine work. I once used one of his books in a seminary course I was teaching. I disagree with him at many points, but I respect his work. I do believe that Ehrman’s opposition to Christianity does color some of his arguments and conclusions, but no more that my own work reflects my Christianity. If you’re interested, in a new book that refutes Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, check out 
Why Did Jesus Have to Die?
Roman, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives
Click here for an updated and complete version of this series.
by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts
Copyright © 2010 by Mark D. Roberts and Beliefnet
Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use, for use in a Christian ministry, or for use in an educational venture, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit to this website: http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/. For all other uses, please contact me at mark@markdroberts.com. Thank you.
Introduction
As we approach the season of Lent, and then Holy Week and Easter, I propose to consider the question: “Why did Jesus have to die?” At the outset, I must say that this isn’t an easy question to answer for several reasons. Let me mention three.
First, when it comes to the death of Jesus, we’re dealing with an historical event concerning which we have limited historical sources. We don’t have some of the sources that would make our task much easier, the diary of Pontius Pilate, for example, or notes from the proceedings of the Jewish council that examined Jesus prior to his crucifixion. Therefore, when I try to explain why Pilate or certain Jewish leaders believed that Jesus had to die, I’ll have to extrapolate from the evidence that is available to us. I do believe, however, that this evidence, both in the New Testament Gospels and in other ancient sources, is strong enough to allow us to formulate likely hypotheses concerning Roman and Jewish motivations for the crucifixion of Jesus.
Second, the question of why Jesus was put to death is a matter of considerable scholarly disagreement. For centuries it was common to put all the blame on “the Jews.” But the horror of the Holocaust combined with new historical insights has led scholars in almost completely the opposite direction. Many claim that “the Jews,” even Jewish leaders, had little or nothing to do with the death of Jesus. In my opinion, as you’ll see, the pendulum that had once swung way too far in the direction of “the Jews” has now swung too far back in the opposite “Romans only” direction. I’ll have more to say about this later.
I should add at this point that I am aware of the shameful history of anti-Semitism and the danger of anti-Semitism that is very much alive today. This does make it tricky to deal with the historical evidence in a straightforward way, because if one concludes that some Jews were somewhat responsible for the death of Jesus, this might fuel anti-Semitic attitudes and actions. So, I will say at the outset that nothing in the historical record justifies hatred of or mistreat of Jews, or any other people, for that matter.
Third, there is not one, simple, obvious answer to the question of why Jesus had to die. From a historical point of view, we have to deal with at least two perspectives, Roman and Jewish. In fact, I’ll show that there was more than one Jewish point of view on Jesus’ death. So it is really too simple to speak of “the Jewish perspective” on the necessity of Jesus’ death.
Furthermore, historical explanation doesn’t exhaust the realm of discourse when it comes to the reason for Jesus’ death. We also need to deal with the whole area of theology. We’ll want to know why, in light of his understanding of God, Jesus himself believed that he needed to die. Moreover, we must also examine early Christian thinking concerning why Jesus’ death was necessary for the salvation of the world. In the end, therefore, the answer to the simple question “Why did Jesus have to die?” will be anything but simple. It will have multiple layers and nuances.
Nevertheless, this is a task well worth the effort, both in the writing and in the reading. No matter what you think about Jesus, you will help yourself and your world if you’re able to discuss his death intelligently. This is especially true given the tendency of this conversation to become terribly anti-Semitic. In a world where hatred of Jews is on the increase, all thoughtful, compassionate human beings need to be informed about just who was responsible for the death of Jesus and why.
Finally, if, like me, you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus stands at the very center of history, then knowing why Jesus had to die is just about the most important bit of knowledge you can have.
In my next post I’ll lay out some basic parameters for the rest of this series: how I’m going to structure the series and some of the foundational facts upon which I’ll build the structure.
Where Do We Start When Considering the Death of Jesus? Some Basic Facts
Where should we start in our effort to discover why Jesus had to die? I propose to begin with some basic historical facts, facts that are affirmed by almost every historian and biblical scholar, even those who approach this question from a highly critical and skeptical starting point. So what are these facts:
Jesus was crucified. There were many ways in the first-century for a criminal to be put to death, including stoning, beheading, being torn apart by beasts, etc. Yet all the earliest sources attest to the crucifixion of Jesus. These sources include, in addition to the New Testament writings, the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, A.D. 95) and the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44, A.D. 109)(Photo: Painting by El Greco, “The Crucifixion,” 1596-1600)Jesus was crucified during the governorship and under the authority of Pontius Pilate. Once again, this basic fact is confirmed in Josephus and Tacitus in addition to the New Testament.
Pilate placed a sign on Jesus’ cross that read “The King of the Jews.” This fact is found in all four New Testament Gospels and in some later non-canonical gospels as well. This “title” helps to explain the nature of the charges against Jesus.
Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem on or near the Jewish feast of Passover. Again, all New Testament Gospels agree on these basic facts, and there is every reason to believe that they are accurate (though the precise timing of Jesus’ death in relationship to Passover is hard to pin down).
These basic facts, though apparently obvious and unspectacular, will actually prove to be very helpful as we try to figure out the reasons for Jesus’ death.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the question “Why did Jesus have to die?” doesn’t have a simple answer. I propose to address this question from four different perspectives:
• Roman: Why did Pontius Pilate think Jesus had to die?• Jewish: Why did some Jewish leaders think Jesus had to die?
• Jesus: Why did Jesus himself think that he had to die?
• Early Christian: Why did early Christians think Jesus had to die?
In my next post I’ll begin with the Roman perspective.
Click here for an updated and complete version of this series.
The fact that Jesus was crucified rather than stoned, hanged, or killed in some other way means that the Romans were ultimately responsible for his death. Of course this is clear in the biblical gospels. But even if we lacked such primary sources, the simple fact that a man was crucified in Jerusalem around A.D. 30 implies that, for some reason or other, he was condemned by Roman authorities. Jews in the first-century A.D. didn’t crucify people. This horrible means of execution was the prerogative of the Romans, who used it with chilling effect.
The Roman Practice of Crucifixion
If we want to know why a Roman authority, in this case, the prefect Pontius Pilate, would choose to crucify someone, we might look first at the Roman practice of crucifixion in general. Although Rome didn’t invent this means of execution, the nation perfected it as one of the most horrible means of putting criminals to death. In fact, not all Roman convicts sentenced to death were crucified. Crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low, and most of all for those who openly opposed Roman power. Commit a serious crime and Rome might cut off your head; rebel against Roman rule or upset Roman peace and you might be headed to a cross. I say “might be” because Roman citizens were protected from crucifixion, unless they happened to be treasonous soldiers. (Photo: The Via Appia in Rome. When the slave Spartacus led a rebellion against Rome in 73-71 B.C., the Romans finally prevailed. They crucified 6,000 men, stringing them along the Via Appia for 120 miles, from Rome to Capua.)
Why was crucifixion so horrible? For one thing, the victim experienced some of the most extreme pain that a person can experience and the duration of suffering often lasted several days. But, even beyond personal suffering, the crucified person experienced extreme shame in a world that valued honor supremely. Contrary to most portrayals of Jesus’ death, those sentenced to crucifixion were naked when attached to the cross, in full view of the masses.
The Romans made every effort to crucify people in public places, such as along major thoroughfares. The point was to augment the dishonor and suffering of the one being killed, not to mention his family and colleagues. (It seems, by the way, that the Romans did not crucify women.) As the Roman rhetorician Quintilian explained, “Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect” (Quintilian, Declamations 274). Thus the point of crucifixion was not only punishment, but also deterrence.
Not surprisingly, the Romans crucified Jews when they rebelled against imperial rule. I’ll examine a couple of telling instances in my next post.
In my last post I began to examine the Roman practice of crucifixion, arguing that if we want to understand why a Roman governor had Jesus crucified, we should first understand why Rome used crucifixion in general. What we discovered was that crucifixion, in addition to being an extremely horrific punishment of criminals, was thought to be an effective deterrent against sedition. “Watch someone get crucified for challenging our authority,” the Romans believed, “and you’ll be unlikely to challenge our authority yourself.” If you’ve seen The Passion of the Christ, you can certainly understand Roman logic here. Crucifixion was cruel beyond cruel.
Roman Crucifixion Among the Jews
Even the threat of crucifixion didn’t completely squelch attempts to overthrow Roman rule, however, least of all among the Jews. Shortly after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., thousands of Jews sought to toss the Romans out of Judea. Of course the Romans didn’t take kindly to this, sending an army to squash the rebellion. When the rebels fled into the country, the Roman general Varus pursued them. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus describes what happened next:
Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. (Antiquities 17.10.10)
Two thousand rebels crucified at one time! Now that would surely give restless Jews second thoughts before challenging Roman tyranny again. (Photo: The Arch of Titus in Rome, which celebrates the Roman victory over the Jews in A.D. 70.)
Seven decades later, thousands upon thousands of Jews revolted against Roman rule. For a short time they appeared to have prevailed. But, once again, Rome sent a superior military force to Judea. Soon the Jews were trapped in Jerusalem, surrounded by the Roman army besieging the city. Recognizing their hopeless condition, some Jews actually tried to escape, but to no avail. According to Josephus, when they were caught, “they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city” (Jewish War, 5.11.1). This happened to at least 500 people daily, according to Josephus. So disgusting was the mass torture of Jewish prisoners that even the Roman General Titus felt pity on them. But he let the brutality continue. Why? Josephus explains: “The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment” (Jewish War, 5.11.1).
To conclude what we have learned about Romans and crucifixion, Rome reserved crucifixion for the worst of criminals, especially for those who stirred up rebellion against the state. Because the point of crucifixion, beyond punishment, was deterrence, crosses were placed in public places so people would learn to fear the wrath of Rome. When Jews challenged Roman authority, they, like others rebels against Rome, were crucified if caught.
But is this relevant of the case of Jesus? Did Jesus challenge Roman authority such that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea in the time of Jesus, believed he must be crucified? Does what we have learned about Roman crucifixion help to explain Jesus’ own death? To these questions I’ll turn in my next post.
Introduction to Pontius Pilate
If we’re going to understand the Roman perspective on the death of Jesus, we need to know something of the Roman man who was legally responsible for his crucifixion: Pontius Pilate. Traditionally, Pilate has been seen by Christians in relatively positive terms, as one who really didn’t want to crucify Jesus but who did so because he was compelled to by the Jewish leaders and crowds. This image of Pilate, that seems to emerge from the New Testament gospels, doesn’t fit with what we know about Pontius Pilate from historical sources, including the gospels themselves. Let me survey this evidence briefly.
Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea from 26-37 A.D. An inscription discovered in the ruins of a Roman theater in Caesarea reveals that Pilate’s official Roman title was “prefect” (Latin, praefectus). In this role he was ultimately responsible for all matters in Judea, including judicial and financial affairs. Pilate governed from the provincial capital of Judea, Caesarea (Maratima), a city on the Mediterranean coast, about 75 miles northwest of Jerusalem. He would make the trip to Jerusalem only when necessary. Pilate was accountable to the governor of Syria, through whom he was ultimately subservient to the Roman Emperor. (Photo: This inscription identifies Pontius Pilate as the [Praef]ectus Iuda[eae]).
Pilate does not figure prominently in first-century Roman histories, a fact that suggests that he was a relatively insignificant leader. Moreover, the assignment to govern Judea was no plum, and some of those who served in Pilate’s position were known to complain about it. Not only was it potentially a dead-end job, but also it was fraught with complications.
The complications had largely to do with what the Romans would see as the peculiarities and propensities of the Jews. The peculiarities were, by and large, Jewish religious sensibilities that put them at odds with Roman norms. Jews, for example, did not follow the Roman model in welcoming all sorts of gods into their pantheon. On the contrary, Jews would die for their belief in one and only one God. Jewish propensities had to do with general unrest and fairly regular attempts by some Jews to rebel against Roman rule. When one became prefect of Judea, one could expect trouble.
Pilate’s inability (or unwillingness) to respect Jewish sensibilities is seen in an event recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.1). Unlike previous governors, when Pilate took charge, he brought images of Caesar into Jerusalem in order to display them. This enraged the Jewish population, who took this as a violation of their law and as an insult. Multitudes of people traveled to Caesarea in order to ask Pilate to remove the images. At first he refused and, when the petitioners persisted, he was prepared to kill them. But when they showed themselves willing to die rather than have their laws violated, Pilate finally relented. In another instance when he offended Jewish sensibilities, Pilate did not show mercy, and those who protested were slaughtered by soldiers under Pilate’s command (Antiquities, 18.3.2).
The New Testament actually confirms this picture of a cruel Pilate. In Luke 13:1 we read, “At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” We don’t know anything else about this incident. But it appears that, for some reason, Pilate killed some Galileans who had come to the Jerusalem temple in order to offer sacrifices to God. Yet, not only did Pilate have them killed, he also had their own blood mingled with the blood of the animals they had sacrificed. Talk about adding insult to injury!
The first-century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria once wrote a letter to Caesar, in which, among other things, he complained about the harshness of Pontius Pilate. Philo blames Pilate explicitly for: “briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty.” (Legatio ad Gaium, 301-302). Even granting Philo’s bias against Pilate, this text doesn’t reflect well upon Pilate’s governorship. In the end, he was removed from office by the Syrian governor, Vitellius, though we don’t know exactly why.
But what about the image of Pilate as the reflective leader who is reticent to kill Jesus, and who even converses with Jesus about the nature of truth? I’ll address this picture in greater detail later. But for now, I’d simply observe that the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial can be read as confirming the negative image of Pilate.
Pilate’s ultimate responsibility was to oversee Judean affairs, to squash outright rebellion, to keep the tax money flowing to Rome, and, in general, to preserve the fragile peace of the region. And it is this, which, above all, seemed to be at risk when Jesus came to Jerusalem around the feast of Passover. In my next post in this series I’ll examine the peculiar dynamics of Jerusalem in the time of the festival.
The Roman Perspective, Part 4
As I explained in my last post, Pontius Pilate, the prefect of Judea during the time of Jesus, governed his territory from Caesarea, a city on the Mediterranean sea about 75 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Immediate authority over Jerusalem itself he had delegated to Caiaphas, whom Pilate had appointed high priest of the Jewish temple.
Pilate and the Danger of Passover
But, each year during his tenure in Judea, Pilate journeyed to Jerusalem in the spring. He wanted to be in this city during the Jewish celebration of Passover. It’s not that he had any fondness for the Jews and their rituals. Rather, Pilate needed to be in Jerusalem at this time to preserve order. He didn’t trust Caiaphas with such an important task at such a volatile time.
The Passover was, after all, a festival in which Jews remembered how God had delivered them from foreign domination. During the celebration of the Passover meal they not only thanked God for his deliverance in the past, but also prayed for him to do so again. Thus the Passover itself could easily inspire anti-Roman feelings, if not outright rebellion.
Moreover, the population of Jerusalem swelled greatly during the festival. Though it’s difficult to determine precisely the population of Jerusalem during the time of Roman rule, 35,000 wouldn’t be too far off base. During the Passover, however, this number swelled by a figure of ten or more. Josephus reports that 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people gathered in the city for the festival (Jewish War, 2.14.3, 6.9.3). While most scholars believe that Josephus exaggerated, his estimates testify to the large number of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for Passover. A more conservative estimate would be in the 300,000-400,000 range. Pilate knew that crowds of Jews jammed together in a small area was a formula for disaster. (Photo: A picture of a crowd in Jerusalem, gathered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1989.)
Given the themes of Passover and the massive temporary population of Jerusalem, it’s easy to see why Pilate felt it necessary to come to the city and why he would have done so with trepidation. Pilate was well aware of the fact that Jerusalem was a powder keg ready to blow during Passover. In fact, Josephus, talking about an earlier ruler who had tyrannized the Jews, mentions that “the nation of the Jews made an insurrection against him at a festival; for at those feasts seditions are generally begun” (Jewish War, 1.4.3, emphasis added).
Pilate didn’t come to Jerusalem unprepared. To help keep the peace, he brought with him a few thousand Roman soldiers from Syria. But, even then, the odds would not be in his favor if the Jews decided to stir up rebellion, since the soldiers were outnumbered by a factor of at least one hundred to one.
Given the tenuous peace of Jerusalem, Pilate must have been greatly distressed by early reports about Jesus’ actions in Jerusalem. This popular prophet from Nazareth had been welcomed into the city by a crowd of his followers who hailed him as a conquering king. Then, Jesus created a ruckus in the Jewish temple, even prohibiting sacrifices from being offered for several hours. So, while Pilate might have smirked to think of the distress this had given Caiaphas, nevertheless he’d be worried. What was Jesus’ agenda? What had he come to Jerusalem to do? Was he seditious? Was he fomenting rebellion against Rome? Pilate’s initial strategy was to watch and wait. Maybe, just maybe, he’d be lucky, and the Passover would conclude without incident. Then Jesus would go back to Galilee where he came from, and Pilate would return to Caesarea, where he could govern Judea a safe distance away from the time bomb of Jerusalem.
Pilate’s hopes for an uneventful Passover were dashed when, early on Friday morning, the problem posed by Jesus of Nazareth exploded in his face. In my next post, I’ll examine more closely Pilate’s interaction with Jesus and his accusers.
In my last two posts in this series on the death of Jesus, I offered a picture of Pontius Pilate and described the unique dangers he faced in Jerusalem during the Jewish celebration of Passover. In light of this background, today I’ll examine the biblical account of Pilate’s interaction with Jewish leaders.
Pilate’s Encounter with Jesus and the Jewish Leaders
Early on Friday morning, after Jesus of Nazareth had entered Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate was awakened by a group of Jewish leaders who had brought Jesus to him with the intention of having Jesus crucified. They accused Jesus of “perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2). When Pilate questioned Jesus, the accused was strangely quiet. Finally the governor cut to the chase. “Are you the king of the Jews?” he asked. “You say so,” was all Jesus said in reply (Luke 23:3). When Pilate mentioned to the Jewish leaders that their charges against Jesus weren’t persuasive, they added, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place” (Luke 23:5). It’s likely that this was not news to Pilate, who had probably been following the unusual exploits of Jesus for some time. Roman governors kept an eye out for Jewish prophets who announced the coming of God’s kingdom. (Photo: Mihály Munkácsy, Christ in front of Pilate, 1881.)
Once the Jewish leaders had brought Jesus to Pilate, the question of his fate lay in the governor’s hands. Certainly he could follow the recommendation of the leaders, including the high priest, Caiaphas, whom he had appointed. But killing Jesus had a considerable downside. Pilate was surely aware of Jesus’ popularity among the people. He might even have known before Friday that the Jewish leaders were trying to do away with Jesus, but were reticent to do so because he was so popular with the people. Killing Jesus might well have incited the people to riot (Mark 14:2), something neither the Jewish officials nor Pilate would have wanted. If Pilate were perceived by the people as the one responsible for the death of their popular prophet, then he might end up causing a ruckus or even a revolt that could very well lead to his own downfall.
Yet Pilate would surely have preferred to get Jesus out of the way somehow. Though he was not seditious in the ordinary sense – Jesus carried no weapons, organized no army, and had not assaulted any Roman authorities – nevertheless the Nazarene was clearly a rabble-rouser from Pilate’s point of view. And even if he didn’t explicitly espouse the overthrow of Rome, he certainly flirted with the seditious language of kingship.
Two other factors contributed to Pilate’s reticence to execute Jesus. First, his interaction with Jesus convinced him that the Galilean was no ordinary insurrectionist. It’s hard to reconstruct from the Gospel accounts exactly what Pilate thought of Jesus. If he truly believed him to be innocent and no threat to Rome, then it’s unlikely that he would have had Jesus crucified. But, Pilate must have seen that Jesus was in a completely different league from the others he had crucified. (Of course I’m aware that Christian tradition paints Pilate as a truth-seeker who genuinely believes in Jesus’ innocence. But this image doesn’t fit what we know about Pilate from history, not to mention the indisputable fact that Pilate himself was, in the end, responsible for Jesus’ death. It’s very hard to imagine that Pilate was bullied, either by Jewish leaders or by the mob, into doing something that he really didn’t want to do. I believe that many of the statements in the gospels that seem to reflect the “noble Pilate” were in fact originally spoken by the governor in order to incite the Jews to accept greater responsibility for Jesus’ death, thus exonerating Pilate in the eyes of the people. Or, in other cases, I believe Pilate’s tone was ironic or sarcastic. When he asked Jesus, “What is truth?” Pilate wasn’t beginning a philosophical dialogue, but simply mocking Jesus, who had just spoken of “belonging to the truth” (John 18:37-38).
The second factor that contributed to Pilate’s reticence to execute Jesus was a recommendation from his wife that he should “have nothing to do with” Jesus. Pilate’s wife claimed to have “suffered a great deal because of a dream about him” (Matthew 27:19). Pilate, like most pagans, was in all likelihood quite superstitious, and his wife’s nightmare would have spooked him as well.
From Pilate’s perspective, what would have been the best outcome of this whole mess? Somehow get Jesus to stop causing trouble, but without inciting the people to riot. If silencing Jesus required his death, then so be it, but let it be someone else’s fault other than Pilate’s. If Jesus could be shut down by some other means – like flogging – then this would also be an acceptable option.
In my next post I’ll finish explaining the necessity of Jesus’ death from the Roman perspective of Pontius Pilate.
The Roman Perspective, Part 6
In my last post I began to describe Pontius Pilate’s predicament on the Friday morning after Jesus had entered Jerusalem. The problematic prophet had been brought to Pilate by several Jewish leaders who demanded that he be crucified. But, for reasons I outlined previously, Pilate was reticent. Most of all, he didn’t want to incite the crowds who had gathered in Jerusalem for Passover. Silencing Jesus was a fine idea, but, from Pilate’s perspective, it had to be done in a why that protected him from the wrath of the Jewish people.
Pilate’s Decision to Have Jesus Crucified
Pilate tried passing the buck. He told the Jewish leaders to judge Jesus themselves, but they averred that they couldn’t execute him (John 18:31-32). He said, perhaps sarcastically, that they should go ahead and crucify him themselves (John 19:6-7), even though Pilate knew that crucifixion was legal only under Roman authority. At one point during the “trial” of Jesus, Pilate tried to pass the buck to Herod Antipas, who, as Tetrarch over Galilee, had the legal right to put Jesus to death. But Herod didn’t grab the bait. Instead, he used his meeting with Jesus as an occasion to mock him (Luke 23:6-12). (Photo: Nicolaes Maes, “Christ Before Pilate,” c. 1670.)
When the responsibility for Jesus’ fate fell back upon Pilate’s shoulders, he preferred to take the course of least resistance: have Jesus flogged, which would surely silence him for a while, and which, Pilate hoped, would keep the people from going on a rampage. But many of the Jewish leaders, combined with a mob that gathered outside of Pilate’s headquarters, pressed for Jesus’ crucifixion. Three factors seemed to have persuaded Pilate that executing Jesus was the best course of action. First, his reticence to kill Jesus appeared to put his loyalty to the emperor in doubt (John 19:12). Even the slightest appearance of imperial disloyalty could have terminal implications for Pilate. Second, the Jews who had gathered in his courtyard, although a tiny percentage of the current population of Jerusalem, were fervent enough in their desire for Jesus’ death that Pilate believed he could convincingly lay the blame on them. Third, his reticence to crucify Jesus was itself starting to cause a riot, which was the very thing Pilate was attempting to avoid by not executing Jesus (Matt 27:24). So his primary motivation for keeping Jesus alive – maintenance of order – was no longer valid. Jesus had to die.
In sentencing Jesus to death, Pilate revealed himself to be devious, if not spineless. He sent Jesus to the cross. The responsibility for this decision was his – at least from a legal-historical point of view. Yet when announcing Jesus’ fate, Pilate tried to avoid taking responsibility for his action. Symbolically washing his hands in front of the crowd, he said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matthew 27:24). Of course this wasn’t true. No matter now much others might have urged Pilate to take Jesus’ life, in the end, he and he alone had the authority to make that fateful decision.
The fact that Pilate had Jesus crucified strongly suggests that he saw Jesus as a threat to Roman order. Though not your ordinary brigand or revolutionary, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God (not Caesar) and accepted adulation as a messianic (kingly) figure. Moreover, even if his answers to Pilate were minimal, Jesus didn’t reject the charge that he claimed to be king of the Jews. So, even though Jesus wasn’t your run-of-the-mill Zealot, he was still the sort of person who was dangerous to Rome, and was therefore worthy of death, at least from the Roman point of view.
Pilate’s legal justification for crucifying Jesus appeared on the sign attached to Jesus’ cross: “The King of the Jews.” The wording and placement of this sign tells us much about Pilate’s ultimate motivation for killing Jesus. On the one hand, Jesus was being crucified because he dared to make a claim to kingship. On the other, by identifying the crucified Jesus as “King of the Jews,” Pilate was mocking Jesus, the Jewish people, and their kingdom aspirations – all in one ironic statement. In a manner consistent with what we know about Pilate from other sources, he was saying, “Here you go, you Jews. Here is your king – beaten to a pulp, powerless, a victim of superior Roman power.” Furthermore, by crucifying Jesus, Pilate also held him up as a persuasive deterrent: “Next time you think about having someone other than Caesar as your king, remember the crucifixion of Jesus, the King of the Jews.”
Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Roman Perspective: Conclusion
From a Roman perspective, why did Jesus have to die?
• Because he disturbed Roman order.
• Because he spoke seditiously of a coming kingdom other than that of Caesar.
• Because he allowed himself to be called “King of the Jews.”
• Because he made a nuisance of himself at the wrong time (Passover), in the wrong
place (Jerusalem), in the presence of the wrong people (Pilate and the temple
leadership under his command).
• Because his crucifixion would be a powerful deterrent that might keep other Jews from
following in his footsteps.
In my next post I’ll begin to look at the death of Jesus from one Jewish perspective.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 1
Placing This Conversation in Context
Before I proceed to discuss one Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, I must say a bit about the contemporary context for this conversation. For centuries, many Christians hated Jews. Part of the Christians’ justification for their hatred was their belief that “the Jews killed Christ.” Even though Jesus himself had called his followers to love their enemies, somehow the belief that “the Jews killed Christ” justified a very un-Christ-like hatred of all Jews. This sort of twisted reasoning contributed to the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust, in which over six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.
The ugly history of anti-Semitism makes it difficult to talk objectively about Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. If one suggests that some Jews were in some way responsible for Jesus’ death, this person runs the risk of being labeled anti-Semitic. When I was in graduate school, I was encouraged to ask all sorts of creative and critical questions about early Christian history. But when it came to the death of Jesus, there was an unspoken rule that prohibited even discussing the possibility of some Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. The party line was that the Romans killed Jesus for their own reasons and that the early Christians made up the parts of the passion narrative that implicate Jews. The Christians did so, we were told, partly because they weren’t getting along with Jews during the latter half of the first-century A.D., and partly because they wanted to improve their relationship with the Roman Empire. This theory – filled with more holes than Swiss cheese – was something my colleagues and I were not welcome to examine critically. It was simply off limits. The painful history of anti-Semitism required that the history of early Christianity be told in a certain way, whether it actually happened that way or not. (Photo: Anti-Semitic graffiti in Lithuania in 2005.)
Therefore, before I discuss Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus, I must say three things quite clearly:
1. Anti-Semitism is wrong. From a Christian perspective, it is a sin. No matter who was actually responsible for the death of Jesus, there is no excuse for anti-Semitism. It’s something that Christians and all sensible people should oppose.
2. Even if “the Jews” were completely responsible for Jesus’ death (which I’ve already shown to be false, given the involvement of Pontius Pilate), this would in no way justify anti-Semitism today.
3. Even if a Christian considered “the Jews” to be his or her enemies, that Christian would be compelled by the very words of Jesus to love the Jews, not to hate them.
4. Anti-Semitism is alive and well today (or, alive and sick, perhaps). All moral people, including Christians, should reject and oppose it. Anti-Semitism is morally wrong, unjustifiable, and unchristian.
As you can infer from this introduction, I am going to argue that some Jews were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that they believed that Jesus had to die. But, I think it’s historically incorrect to speak of “The Jewish Perspective” on the necessity of Jesus’ death. If we wish to be accurate, we must talk in terms of “One Jewish Perspective” on the question: “Why did Jesus have to die?” I’ll explain what I mean in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 2
Why “One” Jewish Perspective?
As a young Christian, I had a clear picture of what happened to Jesus in the last week of his life. This picture resulted from my knowledge of the Gospels, and, to a great extent, from images I had seen in Sunday School booklets and filmstrips. My mind had been impressed with scenes of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, of his “trial” before Pilate, and of his being assaulted by Jewish leaders. These images led me to believe that Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was a relatively small town inhabited by a relatively small number of Jews, and that the same Jews who had welcomed Jesus into town as a king on Sunday had turned against him on Friday. From my juvenile viewpoint, “the Jews” of Jerusalem had, as a single group, both hailed Jesus and then condemned him. Since only a few close disciples supported Jesus until the bitter end, it would have seemed appropriate to me to speak of “the” Jewish perspective on why Jesus had to die. (Photo: Jesus on Palm Sunday in a classic film version of his life. For the other side of the story, check out this video from Vintage 21 Church.)
I no longer believe that my youthful picture of Jesus’ last week was historically accurate, though I do believe that the New Testament Gospels provide historically reliable viewpoints on what really happened that week. For one thing, the actual scale of life in Jerusalem was far greater than anything I had imagined. As I explained earlier in this series, it’s likely that the normal population of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was around 35,000. But during the festival of Passover the population swelled to eight or ten times that number, perhaps even more.
This means, among other things, that a tiny percentage of the overall population of Jerusalem actually welcomed Jesus into the city on Palm Sunday or called for his crucifixion early on Good Friday. Since scholars cannot agree on the precise location of Pilate’s headquarters, we cannot say definitively how many people might have gathered in his courtyard to call for Jesus’ death. This number is probably less than 500, possibly quite a bit less. What this means, therefore, is that something like .2% of the Jews in Jerusalem were demonstrably eager to have Jesus crucified.
But, one might object, perhaps this tiny percentage represented the majority. This objection is unlikely for three reasons:
First, we know from the Gospels that Jesus was, for the most part, very popular among the masses (for example, Matt 4:25; 8:1; 9:8; 12:15; 13:2; 14:14; 15:30; 20:29; 21:8).Second, we also know that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem who wanted to have Jesus killed hesitated precisely because Jesus was so popular among the masses there (Matt 21:46). Nothing in the Gospel records suggests that this popularity ended magically by Good Friday.
Third, in fact the Gospel records suggest that large numbers of Jews were deeply distressed by the death of Jesus. For example, as Jesus was walking along the Via Dolorosa, Luke tells us that “A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him” (Luke 23:27). Then, after Jesus was crucified, the crowds who “saw what had taken place, . . . returned home, beating their breasts” (Luke 24:48). In other words, vast numbers of Jews were horrified by the death of Jesus.
Thus it’s historically accurate to speak, not of “the” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, but of several diverse Jewish perspectives. It’s quite likely that the majority of Jews in Jerusalem did not want Jesus killed at all. But the perspective that had greatest impact on the fate of Jesus was that of Caiaphas and other principal leaders of Jerusalem. This is the “one” perspective I’ll begin to examine in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 3
The Perspective of Jewish Leaders in Jerusalem
Although the majority of Jews in Jerusalem may not have wanted Jesus to die, or may have had no opinion either way, some of the most influential Jews did see Jesus’ death as necessary. All four New Testament Gospels testify to the key role of the “chief priests” and other Jewish leaders in the effort to have Jesus crucified. The chief priests included the high priest Caiaphas, who was appointed by Pilate, and other priests who provided leadership, not only for the temple, but also for all religious and civic affairs in Jerusalem. Some other learned and powerful Jewish leaders joined with the chief priests in the effort to silence Jesus once and for all.
Although not providing specific names or titles, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus concurs with what we find in the New Testament. In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus devotes a short section to the antics of Pontius Pilate. In this context the historian writes that Pilate, “at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us,” had Jesus “condemned to the cross” (Antiquities 18.3.3). Unfortunately Josephus does not explain why these “principal men,” presumably the chief priests and other leaders, had it in for Jesus.
Why did leading Jews in Jerusalem believe it was necessary for Jesus to die? Part of the answer to this question comes from the Gospel of John, in a scene where a group of Jewish leaders was debating the problem of Jesus’ problematic popularity. “If we let him go on like this,” they said, “everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation” (John 11:48). Jesus was stirring up the people with his message of God’s kingdom and with his mighty deeds, and he wasn’t the first to walk down this perilous road. Others had done so before him and the result hadn’t been good for the Jews. Inevitably the Romans swept into Judea with their armies, slaughtering some, crucifying others, and taking still others into slavery. They had no hesitation about destroying an entire city if only some its residents had challenged Roman authority. So it would be logical for Jewish leaders to fear that Jesus might indeed bring down Roman wrath upon both the temple and the nation. (Photo: The ruins of a theatre in Sepphoris in Galilee. Shortly after Jesus was born, a man named Judas led a makeshift militia in a successful assault against the royal palace. Of course Rome didn’t wink at Judas and his gang. Ultimately the Roman army recaptured Sepphoris, taking all of its residents as slaves and burning the city to the ground. (See my book Jesus Revealed, p. 104)
Ruins of the coliseum at Sepphoris
In the midst of this debate about the problem of Jesus, John records the counsel of the high priest, Caiaphas: “You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). Since Caiaphas did not believe that Jesus fit the job description of God’s messiah, and since he shared with his colleagues the fear of Roman reprisals against the Jews, his argument made sense. Better that Jesus should die than the whole nation be destroyed.
When Caiaphas and his cohort finally captured Jesus and brought him to Pilate so that he might be crucified, their accusations touched upon several ways he was endangering the Jewish people. “We found this man perverting our nation,” they said, “forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2). When Pilate was underwhelmed, they added, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place” (Luke 23:5). In other words, Jesus was both undermining orderly Roman rule (forbidding taxes, claiming to be king, stirring up the people) and seducing the Jewish people to abandon their religious commitments (keeping the Sabbath, offering sacrifices in the temple, separating themselves from “sinners”).
Although we Christians may want to argue that these accusations were false, it’s easy to see how, from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, they appeared to be true, dangerously true. Moreover, we find in Jewish sources basic confirmation of what Luke puts upon the lips of the leaders. In the Babylonian Talmud (a fifth-century collection of earlier Jewish oral traditions), we read the following:
There is a tradition: They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), “Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and led them astray from God”. (b. Sanhedrin 43a)
Although the details don’t fit perfectly with the New Testament accounts, the charges against Jesus confirm what we have already seen. Jesus was said to “practice sorcery,” which is how his miracles would have appeared to his opponents, and which explains his ability to arouse the people. He also “seduced Israel and led them astray from God.” How similar this is to the charges in Luke 23, where Jesus was said to have perverted the nation and stirred up the people.
The concerns of Jewish leaders and their desire to get rid of him would probably not have come to fruition except for something Jesus did to provoke their concerted effort to have him crucified. I’ll examine this action in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 4
The “Crime” of Jesus
My last post in this series focused on the reasons why some Jewish leaders in Jerusalem believed that it was necessary for Jesus to die. The bottom line? He was a threat to their conception of faith and national life, indeed, to the very existence of the Jewish people. If left unchecked, Jesus would either pervert the Jewish nation with his peculiar notions of the kingdom of God, or he would bring down the wrath of Rome upon Judea, leading to its destruction. Either way, Jesus needed to be taken out of the game – permanently.
The concerns of the Jewish leaders, however pressing they might have been, would probably not have been enough to bring about Jesus’ execution except for something Jesus himself did, something shocking, unexpected, and utterly unacceptable from the perspective of the Jewish leaders. I’m speaking of his activity in the temple, that which Christians call “the cleansing of the temple.” Here’s Mark’s account of this scandalous action:
Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mark 11:15-17)
How did the Jewish leaders respond to Jesus’ action? “And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him” (Mark 11:18).
Why was Jesus’ behavior in the temple worthy of death?
First of all, he was suggesting that the current state of the temple was unacceptable and that the temple leadership – the chief priests – were unworthy of respect. They were like a bunch of robbers.
Model of the temple in Jerusalem. Photo with permission of holylandphotos.org.
Second, Jesus actually prohibited the crucial function of the temple: the offering of sacrifices. From the point of view of the priests, he was keeping the Jewish people from worshipping God in the way God had prescribed – a serious if not a capital offense.
Third, Jesus’ activity in the temple was consistent with his earlier actions, whereby he implied that the temple was no longer necessary. If Jesus himself could forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12), then why bother with the temple? Thus Jesus was saying to a temple-centered religion: The very center of your relationship with God is wrong. Such a critique would not be taken lightly by those who embraced a temple-centered Judaism.
But it wasn’t only what Jesus did in the temple that provoked a negative response from the leaders, but also what he said. You see, by referring to the temple as a “den of robbers,” Jesus was doing far more than insulting the chief priests. He was actually quoting from the prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 7, the prophet condemned the tendency of Israel to put their faith in the existence of the temple. Many in Jeremiah’s day believed that they could do all sorts of evil deeds without fear of punishment because God’s temple was in their midst. The temple was their spiritual safety net, so to speak. But God was neither fooled nor pleased. So, through Jeremiah the Lord prophesied,
Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, “We are safe!” – only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? . . . And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, . . . therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name . . . just what I did to Shiloh. (Jer 7:8-14)
And what did the Lord do to Shiloh? He destroyed it and the tabernacle it once housed (Psalm 78:60).
In the day of Jeremiah, the people had turned the temple into a “den of robbers,” a place of supposed safety for those who did evil deeds out in the world. For this reason, God promised to destroy the temple, which he did in 586 B.C. Similarly, by quoting from Jeremiah 7 as he overturned the tables in the temple, Jesus implied that the same judgment applied in his day. Those who took refuge in the temple could not presume to be safe. God was about to destroy the temple because of the sin of the people, even as he had done to Shiloh and to the first temple in Jerusalem.
Thus Jesus’ action in the temple, combined with his words, not only insulted and upset the chief priests, but also conveyed God’s judgment upon the temple itself. This crime against the temple could not be tolerated, as far as its leaders were concerned. Jesus, the blasphemous criminal, deserved, not only to be silenced, but also to die. In my next post I’ll examine two fascinating parallels that will help us to see that the Jewish leaders who condemned Jesus were acting in ways fully consistent with their predecessors and successors. Right or wrong, they were doing exactly what Jewish leaders in their position had done and would do again. They thought they were defending God’s temple and, indeed, God himself.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 5
Jewish Leaders Respond to Offenses Against the Temple
In my last post, I suggested that one of the major causes of Jesus’ death was his “cleansing” of the temple. By interrupting the sacrificial system and by quoting Jeremiah’s own condemnation of the temple, Jesus was threatening the very core of Judaism in his day. In the perspective of the Jewish leaders, this would have been blasphemy – speaking against God himself.
For those whose experience and viewpoint is far removed from that of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, it may seem that their intended punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime. But, if we look for historical parallels, we find two incidents in which other leaders acted much as did Caiaphas and his associates when dealing with Jesus.
Rembrandt van Rijn, "Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalam," 1630
The first example comes from the ministry of Jeremiah, some 600 years before Jesus. The Lord told Jeremiah to stand in the Jerusalem temple and speak the following:
“If you will not listen to me, to walk in my law that I have set before you, and to heed the words of my servants the prophets whom I send to you urgently – though you have not heeded – then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth” (Jeremiah 26:4-6).
What response did this prophecy spark in the Jewish leaders and others? Sorrow? Repentance? Hardly! In fact, here’s what happened:
And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, “You shall die!” (Jeremiah 26:8)
There it is, the same pattern we see in the last days of Jesus: Speak judgment on the temple and the leaders will believe that you need to die. In the case of Jeremiah, however, he insisted that he was only passing on God’s own message, so the people spared his life (Jer 26:12-16).
Now jump forward in history more than six centuries, to an incident that occurred about thirty years after the death of Jesus. Curiously enough, this incident involved another man named Jesus, son of Ananus (Hananiah), who came to Jerusalem during a feast an began to cry out “against Jerusalem and the holy house.” According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Jesus’ persistent proclamation of judgment on the temple and city offended “certain of the most eminent among the populace,” which is to say, the leaders of Jerusalem. So, at first they beat Jesus severely. But when this didn’t shut him up, they brought Jesus to the Roman procurator “where he was whipped [flogged] till his bones were laid bare.” When even this didn’t silence Jesus, the procurator dismissed this Jesus as a madman and a nuisance. (The story of this Jesus can be found in Josephus’s Jewish War, 6.5.3.)
In this case of Jesus ben Hananiah, the Jewish leaders seem not to have pressed for his crucifixion. Of course, this Jesus didn’t pose the same threat as Jesus of Nazareth once did, nor did he do anything resembling the cleansing of the temple. Yet, merely by proclaiming God’s judgment on the temple, Jesus son of Ananus earned several beatings, including what must have been an almost fatal Roman flogging. And, like Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish leaders dealt with him, first on their own and then by handing him over to the Roman governor.
The experiences of Jeremiah and Jesus ben Hananiah, though different in detail and time period, nevertheless illustrate how Jewish leaders were apt to deal with those who spoke against the temple. They were worthy of severe punishment, if not death. And when the Jewish leaders no longer had the authority to execute someone, they would turn him over to the Roman governor. Thus the actions of Caiaphas and his associates in response to the problem of Jesus of Nazareth reflect the same commitments and tendencies of similar leaders in similar positions. This greatly increases the likelihood that the historical scenario I have been proposing with respect to Jesus of Nazareth is, in fact, accurate.
In my next post I’ll sum up what we have learned about “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 6
Summing Up One Jewish Perspective
In the last five posts I’ve been examining “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death. Let me briefly summarize my findings, adding some observations along the way.
1. It’s more accurate to speak of “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death than to speak of “the” Jewish perspective because not all Jews agreed with the viewpoint of those who conspired to have Jesus crucified. Only a tiny percentage of Jews in Jerusalem were actually involved in the effort to persuade Pilate to execute Jesus. Moreover, the New Testament Gospels attest to the widespread popularity of Jesus among his Jewish contemporaries. “A great number” of those in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ death were horrified by what had happened to him (Luke 23:27). Thus, if anything, the numerically dominant Jewish perspective would have supported Jesus. But those who held power in Jerusalem we able to do what the masses would not have wanted.
2. Some of the leading Jews in Jerusalem, including Caiaphas, the High Priest, sought to have Jesus crucified. Evidence for this comes not only from all four New Testament Gospels, but also from the Jewish historian Josephus.
3. The Jewish leaders who sought to have Jesus crucified believed that his death was necessary for the following reasons:
a. By stirring up the people, Jesus was threatening the peace and life of the Jewish people, thus increasing the likelihood that Rome would destroy both Jerusalem and the temple. The death of Jesus would be preferable to the destruction of the nation.
b. Jesus “seduced Israel and led them astray from God” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a). His message and ministry lessened the people’s commitment to living out their Judaism in the way approved of by the Jewish leaders (priests, Pharisees).
c. Jesus interrupted the orderly system of sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple, speaking against the temple and its leaders, thus opposing not only the core of Judaism, but God himself. Jesus’ quotation from Jeremiah 7 (“den of robbers”) combined with other things he had said during his ministry clarified his condemnation of the temple – a blasphemous offense. Moreover, he insisted that God was on his side, thus adding blasphemy to blasphemy.
d. Jesus presented himself as the Messiah, the one anointed by God to bring divine salvation to Israel. But he failed to do what the Messiah was supposed to do, notably, lead a successful revolt against Rome. Instead, Jesus turned his judgment against God’s own temple. Thus Jesus was a false messiah. This fact alone might not have warranted his crucifixion. But, when combined with his other offenses, his false claim to messiahship increased further the chances that his actions would bring devastation upon Judea.
4. The efforts of Jewish leaders to silence Jesus by physical violence were consistent with what other Jewish leaders did in similar situations (vs. the prophet Jeremiah in Jer 26 and vs. Jesus ben Hananiah in Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.3). This consistency greatly increases the probability that the Gospel accounts accurately portray the role of Jewish leaders. Caiaphas and company did exactly what Jewish leaders in their position thought they had to do when someone insulted or threatened the temple.
Implications for the Current Debate
Given this picture of “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, I want to draw out two implications.
First, it is historically irresponsible to say, “The Jews killed Christ.” Yes, I’m aware that the Gospel of John uses “the Jews” in a way that seems to lay blame for Jesus’ death upon “the Jews.” But, when read in context, “the Jews” means “some Jewish leaders.” Ultimate and legal blame for Jesus’ death fell upon the shoulders of Pontius Pilate, no matter how he might have tried to wriggle out of it. Moreover, many, and quite probably the vast majority of Jews in the time of Jesus, did not want him killed, and were horrified when it happened. Given the tragic history of Christian anti-Semitism, we Christians must speak carefully and accurately about Jewish involvement in his death. The truth: some influential Jews believed Jesus had to die and sought to convince Pilate to crucify him.
Second, it is historically irresponsible to deny all Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. Some scholars, no doubt responding to the horrors of anti-Semitism, have applied their critical scalpels to the New Testament records, cutting from them any implication of Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus. In their surgery, however, they bleed historical probability to death. In fact two ancient Jewish sources, Josephus and the Talmud, indicate that some Jews were involved in the death of Jesus and help us to understand why they would have been. Plus, the picture of Caiaphas and his associates in the Gospels makes historical and logical sense. These leaders were protecting that which they believed to be essential, including both the temple and their own civic/religious position. The actions of other leaders in similar situations confirm the conclusion that the New Testament Gospels paint an historical reliable picture of Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus.
Finally, there was another Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, a perspective I haven’t yet mentioned. It was the most important Jewish perspective of all, that of Jesus himself. To the question of why Jesus believed he had to die I’ll turn in my next post in this series.
I
In
I
posted June 8, 2007 at 8:27 am
Excellent work. Thanks.
Collin
posted June 8, 2007 at 9:28 am
Looking forward to the rest of this development. For the record I don’t consider this a long post
posted June 8, 2007 at 10:31 am
posted June 8, 2007 at 11:37 am
Marvellous work. It’s so refreshing to see thoughtful, careful, studious and, most of all, humble responses to those who continue to suppress the truth.
Keep up the Good work!
posted June 8, 2007 at 11:44 am
Dr. R,
I would agree with your initial assessment related to careless scholarship. As I had mentioned in a previous post, when you confronted Hitchens about contradictions between the 4 Gospels in the debate, he contradicted himself and bemoaned the fact he didn’t have a Bible in his hotel room. If one presupposes Scripture to be fairy tales, there’s little impetus to look at them objectively and with scholarship. Hitchens is “All hat and no cattle”, as we say here in Texas.
posted June 8, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I concur that when the subject is interesting, a “long post” does not seem that long. Well done.
As I noted yesterday, this is really the way to address a global claim such as Hitchens was making on the radio. As a sound-bite, delivered very smoothly with a wonderful British accent, the “tut-tut, the Gospels contradict each other in every important aspect” line sounds wonderful and dispositive. The only way to address it is to take the structure apart, doorjam by doorjam. Sure, the date and the name could be considered quibbles, but as the third point demonstrates, Dr. Roberts is just getting warmed up. The third point had some heat on it. I think that the “Ol’ Pepper right down the pipe” is yet to be sent across the plate. Too bad today is Friday; waiting until Monday for the next pitch will be tough.
posted June 8, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I agree that Hitchens made some blanket statements that were indefensible on a factual basis. As he confessed in the debate, he is a polemicist at heart, and that shows in his tendency to exaggerate claims. I think it is a shame, because there are legitimate grounds for questioning the validity of the scriptural accounts. But you have to make your assault from a defensible position, and Hitchens is like the undisciplined platoon commander leading a charge out into open ground and exposing his flanks.
There’s no historical doubt that Jesus existed, and that he was crucified by the Romans. There’s nothing controversial about those facts, and any attempt to call them into question just gives the impression of desperation, of spinning conspiracy theories. The only points that are worth questioning are the supernatural claims of his resurrection.
The Christ story has many similarities with other stories that combine history and myth. Dr Roberts, I take it that your upcoming book purports to demonstrate that the natural facts of Jesus’ life and works are so well documented that the supernatural or mythical elements of his story must be accepted on the same basis. You’re arguing that you can’t question one without questioning the other, is that correct?
I think that there is ample precedent to show that the mythologizing of history is a very common, almost inevitable aspect of human culture. Explaining how a group of people could come to believe in a miraculous event that didn’t happen is not a dubious proposition to defend. Such myth-making is not an extraordinary, unusual occurrence but rather a very common event. It happens all the time, even today. New religions and sects form all the time, based on purported claims of divinity or divine revelation. People become convinced that they have been abducted by aliens. Even with events as widely observed as the destruction of the World Trade Center, myths arise that are in direct contradiction to the observed facts.
The human propensity for mythmaking is so common that everyone needs to have a theory as to why people come to believe things that aren’t true, even Christians. Christians need a theory to explain how Joseph Smith came to falsely believe that he received divine communication from the angel Gabriel. If you are a Protestant then you need to explain how thousands of people could falsely come to believe that they witnessed a visitation from the Virgin Mary at Fatima. Given this acknowledged track record of mythologizing and false witness by people across cultures and across time, the burden is squarely on the shoulders of the Christian believer to convince non-believers that the Scripture accounts of Jesus’ resurrection must be accepted at face value. I’d be interested in any arguments you can make on that topic.
posted June 8, 2007 at 1:34 pm
If I may make a comment related to yesterday’s post perhaps more than todays? You said Hitchens made 15 errors and 16 misunderstandings; out of how many “attempts?” I know errors are errors and are important, but knowing it was 15 out of 20 is more likely to persuade people than if it was 15 out of 150.
That said, thanks for doing this. After Da Vinci Code, God Delusion, and Misquoting Jesus, I don’t think I can work up the unction to read another one of these right now. I appreciate your helping me stay informed.
My experience so far with this kind of thing is that the “vast” disagreement between the gospels, when pressed, usually boils down to the location of the angles and how many women showed up at the tomb.
posted June 8, 2007 at 1:58 pm
‘Women were the first witnesses to the evidence of Jesus’s resurrection. (This is especially significant, since the testimony of women was not highly regarded in first-century Jewish culture.’
John 4:39′Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.’
Another crass error in the Bible, because the testimony of women was not considered credible.
posted June 8, 2007 at 2:00 pm
;Jesus, though apparently understanding himself to be Israel’s promised Messiah, was curiously circumspect about this identification’
John 4:25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”
posted June 8, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Mr. Hichens mentioned how the Biblical writers got it wrong; he gave the example of the sun revolving around the earth. So in his mind this discredits all religions.
Yes he would have a point if the Bible was science instead of revelation.
Medical science use to bleed patients of their own blood thinking this would be a cure. Would a mistaken notion in science totally discredit it?
Mr. Hichens arguments to me seem nothing new just packaged for the times, offensive.
posted June 8, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Steven: Thanks for your comments, which show careful attention to the text of the Bible.
The testimony of women was not highly regarded or technically useful in a legal setting, but that doesn’t mean that in all situations the testimony of a woman would be rejected.
Yes, in John 4 Jesus is clear, with one particular woman. But in many other places he is not clear at all, preferring the odd title Son of Man to the title Messiah. This has to do, in part, with the tendency for Messiah to be understood in a way that would have been incompatible with Jesus’s mission.
posted June 8, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Mr. Duquette,
While there are some similarities in the Gospel stories about Jesus and (for example) the mystery cult stories of Mithras and Orpheus, the evidence argues strongy that the mystery cults did not influence the early church.
1. The first believers were Jews. The cults catered to the pagan Gentiles. While the Israelites had a habit of “going native” and adopting the pagan practices of their neighbors, there is no evidence that this took place among the disciples. Indeed, the first dispute in the church was whether Gentiles had to be circumcised – i.e., convert to Judaism – to follow Y’Shua.
2. The adventures of Mithas, et al are always nebulous as to time and place. Jesus’ death and resurrection are very specifically located.
3. There is not enough time for legendary acccretion to occur. Jesus died (and rose) in the year 29 or 30 CE. (I’d always thought that he was born in 3 BCE, not 4BCE, Dr.Roberts. I’m eagerly awaiting your book.) Paul founded the church in Corinth around the year 50. In his letter to them five years later, he makes it clear that the message he preached then was Christ Crucified and Risen. Twenty years is not enough time to merge a pagan mystery cult onto a failed Jewish revolutionary.
4. People will die for a lie they think is the truth, but no one dies for a lie they know is a lie. The eyewitnesses to the Resurrection gladly suffered abuse, imprisonment, torture, and death rather than recant their story of having seen the Risen Christ firsthand. Their eyewitness accounts do not match the psychological phenomenology of Lourdes and UFO experiences. (Your bringing up the 9/11 “truthers” is unintentionally ironic, since they deny the evidence in order to advance a politcal agenda.)
posted June 8, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Mr. Carr,
Perhaps a closer look at the story might clear things up. If you’ll notice, the woman was coming to the well in the middle of the day. Why? Wouldn’t it be better to come in the cool of the morning for the day’s needs? No, because thats when all the other women in town would show up to get water. As a ‘fallen’ woman, she’d have to indure the scorn and ridicule of the ‘respectable’ women in town. Coming in the heat of the day would most certainly avoid that. Conversely, when a social and moral outcast that heretofore has avoided social contact starts going thru the whole town announcing this amazing thing, it stands to reason folks are going to take notice. Obviously, she was changed by the interaction with Jesus. She had nothing to gain by exposing herself to further scrutiny. Why not believe her story?
posted June 8, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Dr. Roberts’ third alleged “error” of Hitchens begins with a shockingly dishonest attempt to move the goalposts away from what Hitchens actually wrote, and ends with a long whine.
Hitchens wrote that the Gospels are in no sense a historical record. Roberts purports to refute this claim by pointing out that the Gospels are historically accurate in some respects. Well, sure. But so what? Most historical fiction is historically-accurate in some respects; this does not magically convert it into legitimate historical record. Hitchens’ basic point — i.e., that it is delusional to treat the Gospels as legitimate history rather than as the Christian myth they are — goes unrefuted.
Roberts then engages in a lengthy whine about the ways in which the Gospels are consistent with one another, by way of attempting to refute Hitchens’ clearly polemical claim that the four Gospels “agree on nothing important”. Here, Roberts’ recitation simply misses the forest for the trees: notwithstanding the ways in which the Gospels do agree, there are enough significant inconsistencies between them that treating them as legitimate history cannot be justified.
I do not share Hitchens’ hostility to religion, and I am sure that serious scholarship can reveal shortcomings in his argument. But Roberts’ nonsense above does not get the job done.
posted June 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Steven Carr,
Concerning the Samaritan woman – You did in fact neglect to quote the verses immediately following the one you do cite:
John 4:41,42: And many more believed because of his own word; and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.
The significance of the testimony of the women of the resurrection is simply that if one wanted to invent such a story, it would not be wise to give credit to Jewish women for the testimony.
That is far different from saying that the words of every woman in the land were ignored. The Samaritan passage shows clearly that bias against women, in that many of the men needed to hear it for themselves.
posted June 8, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Dear Pastor Roberts,
You a are a very elliptical and humorous man – for you chose a passage in which Hitchens erred, and then criticized the correct half of the statement. Indeed, you are correct, Maimonides did not believe that the gospels were a facutally historical record.
It was my pleasure to explain your joke.
Yours,
Doug
posted June 8, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Dr. Roberts,
As to your comment #12 – do I understand you as not equating Jesus’ “Son of Man” self-description with the Messianic prophecy of Da. 7:13,14.
I think He used this term as indicating His Messiahship, not to hide it.
I believe John 12:34 supports the view that His audience recognized this connection – after just speaking of His pending death, they state:
We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever: and how sayest thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?
posted June 8, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Archaelogy has shown on numerous occasions the validity of the Gospel accounts as to place names. One such place was the pool of Bethesda, mentioned in an account of Jesus healing a paralyzed man.
Robert Duquette,
I find it telling that you cite “miraculous events that didn’t happen” as support to deligitimize the possibilty of the supernatural. If you had been there to not see it, or disputre it, then I could understand. Your bias against the miraculous and/or the supernatural renders your points suspect. We take it as fact that Booth sghot Licoln. Why? Because of eyewitness accounts. The gospels are a collection of narrative based on eyewitness accounts, yet you seem to dismiss them out of hand because they contain accounts of the miraculous. Aside from bad debate form, I don’t envy your worldview. I hope the worms are gentle with you.
posted June 8, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Doug, Hitchens’ statement was far more precise than you’re giving credit. By my reading, Hitchens is NOT saying Maimonides belived the gospels are a factually historical record. I think we can safely assume that Hitchens knew, for example, that Maimonedes rejected claims of Jesus’ miracles including the resurrection. So he cannot mean what you claim he meant in that first half.
Rather Hitchens is claiming that Maimonedes believed that they were historical *in some sense*. And that sense would be their attestation to the existence of a man Maimonedes called “Jesus of Nazarene”. Indeed the existence of the man Jesus is widely accepted, and the biblical accounts are part of the body of evidence that supports his existence, even to those who reject the supernatual aspects.
posted June 8, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I am not well-versed enough in Maimonides to comment on what he in fact believed, or even to make a subtle joke. I was just responding to what Hitchens wrote. In think Michael is reading Hitchens fairly by taking “in some sense” seriously.
posted June 8, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Steve-in-Corona: Indeed, Jesus is redefining the notion of messiahship, bringing in the Son of Man imagery (from Daniel 7) and also the Suffering Servant imagery from Isaiah 52-53. Strictly speaking, the Messiah and the Son of Man are related but often distinct strands of Jewish expecation. The Messiah was thought to be a royal figure who would bring political deliverance to Israel. The Son of Man was more of an eschatological figure, even a kind of Superman, if you will, whose role was more one of divine judgment. Both the Messiah and the Son of Man are connected to the kingdom. But Jesus makes this connection much more explicit that it had been before.
posted June 8, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I like Christopher Hitchens’ work very much for its insight and sparkling prose, but much of his critique of Christianity is sophomoric and unworthy of his talents. He says the gospels are totally unreliable because they don’t agree on everything. Christopher, if you had four people witness an auto accident and asked them to write down what they saw, there would be marked differences in their accounts. In fact, wouldn’t one be suspicious if all four gospels AGREED on all points like all of the “news” stories in PRAVDA used to? Furthermore, there are other independent and contemporaneous references to Jesus. Tacitus mentions the Christians as followers of a “dead Jew” in his account of the Fire of Rome in 64 A.D.
Hitchens also seems to think Christianity only spread by force. Really? Sorry, but Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire to become the dominant religon in three hundred years in spite of force and persecution used against it. Christianity spread throughout Scandinavia among the Vikings in spite of force and persecution used against it. Christianity is spreading rapidly in China today in spite of force and persection used against it. This is in marked contrast to Islam which has never spread anywhere peacefully. Mr. Hitchens needs to brush up on his history. Furthermore, I challenge Mr. Hitchens to tell me where Jesus ever advocated war, torture, theft, slavery, conquest, or racism. Did many Christians pervert his teachings? Yes they did, but that is their fault and not His.
I am not any sort of practicing Christian, but I have come to believe in a supreme being for the simple reason that the mathematics tells me that all of this, particularly life itself, could not have occured by blind chance. Darwinian evolution is drivel which would have one believe that a tornado going through a junkyard could assemble a 747 even through all of those “billions and billions of years” Carl Sagan used to drone on about through what often seemed an eternity on his “Cosmos” television series. Mr. Hitchens calls himself a rationalist, but he is a fervent believer in Darwinian evolution in spite of the fact that the fossil record (which Darwin himself said was the only way his theory could be proved) has failed abysmally to show one example of one species gradually changing into another. Mr. Hitchens, at least in the past, believed in some form of Marxist economics despite the fact that Marxism is total nonsense. Now who is being entirely rational, Mr. Hitchens?
Mr. Hitchens should brush up on Thomas Paine or Ayn Rand if he wants to read someone who could skewer religion with a rapier instead of hacking away with a machete.
posted June 8, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Great info to dispute and discredit the infamous village atheist that is Christopher Hitchens! It always helps to be able to pass on good info in conversation, to help keep the believers armed with the truth as ammo.
Hitchens also got the title of his book wrong. In the Bible, sin poisons everything.
posted June 8, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Thank you for answering Dr. Roberts. I knew you must see the Messianic implications from Daniel in the Lord speaking of Himself as ‘Son of Man.’ It just was not clear (to me) in your earlier mentions.
Indeed the expectations for Messiah, and the rabbis attempts to reconcile the suffering passages with the ruling king passages do make for interesting study. I have studied the two ‘branches’ of opinion concerning ‘bar Joseph’ and ‘bar David’ that existed.
Of course, instead of somehow two different Messiahs, the New Testament revelation is that there is only one Messiah – to come twice.
Stephen’s testimony before his martyrdom in Acts 7 makes this point well. The Jews did not recognize their earthly deliverers (Moses, Joseph) the first time they appeared. Nor did they recognize their Messiah – but one day (Praise God) they will.
posted June 8, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Mark Roberts:
”Ancient historians and classicists generally
regard the Gospels as substantially historical,
and regard the hyper-skepticism of many
New Testament scholars as aberrant.”
Dr. Helmut Koester, Professor of Divinity and Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School:
“No direct and first-hand information about Jesus survives. Information from outside Christian sources is unavailable.”
[Helmut Koester. History and Literature of Early Christianity, Volume 2, Introduction to the New Testament, 2d edition. (2000), pg. 78-9]
” What Jesus’ consciousness was and what he might have thought about his own mission lies beyond the reach of historical inquiry.”
“Unfortunately, all materials in the extant gospel literature about Jesus’ meals with his disciples and with many others must be judged redactional. No direct historical information is available.”
[Helmut Koester. History and Literature of Early Christianity, Volume 2, Introduction to the New Testament, 2d edition. (2000), pg. 82, 87]
posted June 8, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Greg: Yes, I’m well aware of what Helmust Koester has written. In fact he was my dissertation advisor. He is a fine scholar (and human being too). I owe much to him, even though I disagree with much that he has written, and am quite sure he would disagree with much that I have written. Helmut is also a fine example of what I was describing. His skepticism regarding the Gospels is extreme, and would be thought so by many classicists and historians. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, of course. Helmut grew up in Germany under the tutelage of Rudolf Bultmann, whose skepticism was part and parcel of his theology that divorced faith from history.
posted June 8, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Dear Mark,
I know you know who Koester is. I know you know what he has written. I read in your account the implication that people who fail to see history in the gospel legends are not to be believed because they are all wearing tin foil hats. The implication is not true.
Your offer a tautology. “Believe me because all reliable scholars believe as I do. Any scholar who doesn’t is an extremist, and does not count.” Even, it turns out, if they’re editor of the Harvard Theological Review.
Mark, no one ever cites the consensus of world geographers, even just the non-extremist ones, in proof of the fact that Kentucky is north of Tennessee. They just get out the map and point to the evidence. That you fail to just point to the evidence is proof you yourself know your theory is unproven.
posted June 8, 2007 at 10:41 pm
2 Timothy 4:3-4
posted June 8, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I believe your question to be quite honest and a logical one. I sincerely understand why a non-believer would ask such a question as yours. .
I am a Christian and believe every word of the Bible. I believe the Bible contains infallible, inerrant, God-breathed words. I believe the Bible when it claims Jesus was born of a virgin, healed the blind, made the lame walk, and rose from the dead on the third day. I believe the Bible has clearly shown itself to be the authoritative word of God. The evidence for this is overwhelming. But what may surprise many is the evidence is found not in the New Testament but the Old.
To understand the evidence some context must be provided. An understanding of the New Testament message (well actually the whole Bible) is necessary. The following is a brief summary of the Bible’s message:
1. All humans are sinners.
2. That sin separates us from God.
3. If we die separated from God, we will spend eternity in hell.
4. But God, because of His love for us, sent Jesus, His Son, to pay the sin debt we could not pay.
5. Jesus lived a sinless life (an absolute requirement) and died on the cross for our sins.
6. He rose from the dead to prove He had to power over death.
7. All that repent (are willing to turn) of the sins, and turn toward Jesus as their Lord are saved and reconciled to God and will spend eternity with Him.
Understanding that, when one studies the Old Testament certain prophecies and pictures stand out as compelling evidence that man could not have written the Old Testament without the moving power of the Holy Spirit. A few examples follow:
1. Exodus 12 : Moses is instructed by God to command the Children of Israel to prepared to leave Egypt (a picture of the bondage of sin) by selecting a lamb without blemish (a picture of Jesus and His sinless life) and to sacrifice the lamb (a picture of the crucifixion) and smear the blood on the top and side door posts of their house. Any house that was “covered by the blood” (a picture a believers faith and trust in the work of Jesus on the cross) would be passed-over when judgment came (a picture of the believer not receiving the final judgment of God). This was written approximately 1445 BC.
2. Psalm 22:16 – As King David foretells the suffering of the Messiah, he writes: “they pierced my hands and my feet”. This was written before crucifixion was invented. This was written approximately 1000 BC.
3. Daniel 9 – Daniel not only foretells that the Messiah would come, but WHEN he would come. This was written approximately 535 BC.
4. Isaiah 53 – The prophet lays out that the Messiah would bear the burden for our sin and would be cut off. This was written approximately 750 BC.
These are just a few examples of the mind-blowing way God hides His plan in plain sight, but the Jews did not see it. The fact that the Jews did not expect the Messiah to go to the cross shows the brilliance of God, by showing there is no way the Jews colluded together to bring these events about. How is it that these men that lived hundreds of years apart told a tale that fits so perfectly together? The Bible tells us in the book of 2 Peter how this is possible:
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
But all the evidence in the world won’t change many people’s minds. Most people love darkness rather than light. The problem is not a head problem but a heart problem.
posted June 9, 2007 at 12:01 am
Oops. My previous post was directed at Robert Duquette.
posted June 9, 2007 at 4:42 am
My favorite debunking of the gospels is by Earl Doherty. A handy summary of his argument can be found at this link: the Jesus Puzzle.
Mr. Doherty has done some amazing research. I was surprised at the conclusions he was able to reach. I would certainly like to see Mark respond to Mr. Doherty’s work.
posted June 9, 2007 at 8:15 am
To Matthew Goggins-
I’ve only had a chance to look at the first “puzzle piece” Mr. Doherty laid out. I would say that the scripture we have dating before Mark was to established Christian communities (and a Christian person in the case of Philemon). The audience of such letters would have already been introduced to the story of Jesus’ life, so the author(s) could presumably move on to deeper topics.
An illustration of what’s most important in the Christian life is found Mark 2. “Son, your sins are forgiven.” He only did the miracle to help along the unbelievers. Clearly, forgiveness was the greater gift. This is why, I believe, Paul focused on the spiritual rather than the historical in his letters.
posted June 9, 2007 at 9:26 am
Why do people continue to debate on ‘facts’ when the issue is faith?
Hitchens attacks the ‘factual’ ‘historical’ record. And others defend it.
Seems to me that a stronger case can be made on both sides for the effects of faith and the effects of non-faith in one’s life. Many may accept Jesus as Lord and Savior , yet not practice their faith. Perhaps it would be better to demonstrate through evidence that people of faith live better lives, or happier lives, or more rewarding lives, or wealthier lives or more positive lives or whatever lives than those of no faith. Then the shallowness of ‘truth nits’ in the historical or biblical record may be understood for what they are.
posted June 9, 2007 at 11:43 am
Corrie says:
3. There is not enough time for legendary acccretion to occur. Jesus died (and rose) in the year 29 or 30 CE. (I’d always thought that he was born in 3 BCE, not 4BCE, Dr.Roberts. I’m eagerly awaiting your book.) Paul founded the church in Corinth around the year 50.
I think legends can establish themselves much more quickly than that. Aren’t we awash in urban legends ourselves? How long did it take to establish the legend of the second gunman on the grassy knoll? Or the legendary accounts about the 9/11 disaster. What about the legends surrounding Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? UFOs? If you open your eyes to how legends, both natural and supernatural, are being created and spread every day, the Jesus resurrection legend does not seem that extraordinary.
4. People will die for a lie they think is the truth, but no one dies for a lie they know is a lie. The eyewitnesses to the Resurrection gladly suffered abuse, imprisonment, torture, and death rather than recant their story of having seen the Risen Christ firsthand. Their eyewitness accounts do not match the psychological phenomenology of Lourdes and UFO experiences.
But that’s the point. People do believe that these legends are true, so no “lying” is necessary. Untruths are only lies when the person declaring it knows it is an untruth. The UFO experiences prove this out. These people aren’t lying, they really believe that they were abducted by aliens. These claimed experiences have been studied by psychologists, and have even convinced one Harvard psychologist that they must have occured:
as reported in the Harvard University Gazette in 1992, Dr. John Edward Mack investigated over 60 claimed abductees, and “spent countless therapeutic hours with these individuals only to find that what struck him was the ‘ordinariness’ of the population, including a restaurant owner, several secretaries, a prison guard, college students, a university administrator, and several homemakers … ‘The majority of abductees do not appear to be deluded, confabulating, lying, self-dramatizing, or suffering from a clear mental illness,’ he maintained. He has encountered only one person who showed psychotic features.” [1] Other experts who have argued that abductees are mostly free of mental illness or delusion are psychologists John Wilson and Rima Laibow, and psychotherapist David Gotlib[2].
So either you have to conclude that people are capable of internalizing false experiences and memories, or you have to take their word for it. But that means, in addition to the resurrection of Jesus you have to accept the claims of alien abductees, Mormon and Islamis prophets, channelers and just about every other legend.
posted June 9, 2007 at 11:44 am
Here’s the link for the above quotation on alien abductions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_abduction.
posted June 9, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Thomas Buck,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your respect and thoughtfulness.
About the claims of the Jesus Puzzle you wrote,
The audience of such letters [as the Pauline epistles] would have already been introduced to the story of Jesus’ life, so the author(s) could presumably move on to deeper topics.
In piece number 4 of the Jesus Puzzle, “A sacrifice in the spiritual realm”, Earl Doherty makes the point that Paul “does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history.” Instead,
According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of “rulers of this age” in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.
So Mr. Doherty would certainly agree with you that forgiveness (and love, and the Golden Rule) are more important messages than the miraculously established divinity of Jesus. So would Mr. Hitchens and myself, for that matter.
But Mr. Doherty’s argument is much more than a scholarly quibble over isolated facts or or a de-emphasis of the miraculous over the spiritual. His thesis is that a close textual analysis of the New Testament, coupled with an exhaustive survey of the first three centuries of the Christian church, leads to the conclusion that Jesus was not a historical person at all.
According to Doherty, Jesus was nothing more than an allegorical figure invented by a handful of small Christian communities near the Syrian/Palestinian border at the turn of the first century A.D. This allegorical figure was not adopted by the mainstream Christian tradition as a historical person until many years later.
Mr. Doherty spent many years doing the research to develop and substantiate his thesis, and it shows. I think his work would be a much better target of Mark’s skills than Mr. Hitchens’, whose dismissal of the Gospels is indeed marked by sloppiness and an unfortunate tendency to engage in unsupported polemics.
(Not that I think Mr. Hitchens’ book is without merit — to the contrary, it is the equivalent of a rousing sermon by an inspired preacher. I myself learned many things from it and took away some valuable lessons. But it does have serious and perhaps fatal flaws.)
posted June 9, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Dear Matthew Goggins:
Not having read much of Doherty, I can’t be sure, but I believe Dr. Roberts has addressed much of what Mr. Doherty uses to come to his conclusions (a believer in gnosticism, sounds like?), in several posting series. Two that have a lot of good material in them are listed on the left-hand side of this page: 1. The Da Vinci Opportunity 2. Are the New Testament Gospels reliable?
As for the Pauline letters, a quick review of Romans shows Jesus being referred to as a man in Rm 5:15. Good enough for me!
Peace to you and God’s blessings.
Tom
posted June 9, 2007 at 6:33 pm
MARK
Yes, in John 4 Jesus is clear, with one particular woman. But in many other places he is not clear at all, preferring the odd title Son of Man to the title Messiah.
CARR
That is true. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is very secretive, and in John, he is very open.
This is known as a ‘contradiction’.
‘Contradiction’ is a useful concept , which produces many insights into the Gospels.
The concept of contradiction often leads to statements like ‘Yes, in AAA, Jesus XXX, but in other places Jesus YYY’
Many Biblical scholars have embraced the concept of ‘contradiction’, and this has led to rich and fruitful analysis of the texts.
posted June 9, 2007 at 6:38 pm
STEVE IN CORONA
Concerning the Samaritan woman – You did in fact neglect to quote the verses immediately following the one you do cite:
John 4:41,42: And many more believed because of his own word; and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.
The significance of the testimony of the women of the resurrection is simply that if one wanted to invent such a story, it would not be wise to give credit to Jewish women for the testimony.
That is far different from saying that the words of every woman in the land were ignored. The Samaritan passage shows clearly that bias against women, in that many of the men needed to hear it for themselves.
CARR
SO a passage which states clearly that some people believed simply on the testimony of a women is twisted to mean that because not *every* person believed on the testimony of a woman, then women were not considered credible witnesses.
If I found a passage where a man testified, and then other men had to hear it for themselves, would I be correct in claiming that the testimony of men was not considered credible?
Of course, in Mark, the women tell nobody, so the whole subject is just irrelevant.
The reader is told by the omniscient narrator, the one who knew what was in Pilate’s heart.
The reader of Mark’s Gospel was not told about a resurrection by any woman.
posted June 9, 2007 at 6:58 pm
ROBERT DUQUETTE
Paul founded the church in Corinth around the year 50.
CARR
And the converts to Jesus-worship in Corinth simply scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.
What life-transforming experience had led them to worship Jesus?
Paul thinks it foolishness even to discuss how a corpse can become a resurrected being, and assures the Jesus-worshippers that Jesus became a spirit.
Paul thinks the body of sin will be destroyed, done away with , and asks in Romans 7:24 ‘Who will rescue me from this body of death?’
posted June 9, 2007 at 8:02 pm
You guys still arguing? I settle this with post #30.
posted June 9, 2007 at 8:03 pm
[grin]
posted June 10, 2007 at 11:53 am
Tom,
Thanks again.
I’ve spent some time reading from the various series posted on the left.
Some of the material addresses gnosticism in a general way, but none of it gets into what Doherty is talking about.
Mr. Doherty is not a gnostic or a Christian, as far as I know. Please excuse me if I wasn’t clear about that.
As for Paul referring to Christ as a man, Doherty says (and documents meticulously) that Paul viewed Jesus as a person existing and struggling with evil in a higher realm, not on the earth itself.
I don’t know if Mark has the time or the inclination to deal with Mr. Doherty’s challenge, but if he did, I would certainly be interested in hearing what he would have to say.
Take care,
Matthew
posted June 18, 2007 at 1:29 am
‘Women were the first witnesses to the evidence of Jesus’s resurrection. (This is especially significant, since the testimony of women was not highly regarded in first-century Jewish culture. Nobody would have made up stories with women as witnesses if they wanted them to gain ready acceptance.)’
Of course, the first witness (accordinbg to the earliest Gospel was not female.
It was a young man.
Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
So the theory that the evangelists would not have had women as announcing the resurrection, because womeb were not considered credible witnesses is an excellent argument with only two drawbacks.
Women were considered credible witnesses and it was a man who first annonced the resurrection.
posted June 18, 2007 at 6:48 am
Re: #45
Steven – The “young man” was an angel, and apparently did not witness to anyone else. That left the spreading of the initial news to some women.
Also, a few verses later, in 16:9, Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene.
posted September 28, 2007 at 11:23 am
Mr. Hitchens wrote that Jesus was born in AD 4. You are very upset that the correct date used to be BC 4 but is now “thought to be around BC 6″ !
This is so much like the old biblical intellectual arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. The greatest minds of the time used to debate that endlessly. Did they ever reach a number they could agree on ? If so or if not, what does it matter ? Mr. HItchens point is that Jesus was NOT BORN in the year Zero. Therefore the second millenium hysteria was just so much numerology. Your own scholarship makes the same point about the year being off.. yet you find it appaling that his date is not this weeks possible tentative assigned year of birth untill the next ancient scroll is found in a cave and everything has to be recalculated. Obviously you just want to say.. Hitchens IS WRONG, GOD IS GREAT. Fine. Just admit it and say it and be happy about it.As he says in HIS book, why can’t people who have faith that everything is going to be just peachy for them forever at least be happy about it ? Attacking such fine points and ignoring the actual point is really not worthy of your effort.