5. The Miracles
Raymond Brown, Introduction to NT Christology: 62: "It is noteworthy that Jesus' enemies are not presented as denying that he did extraordinary deeds; rather, they attributed them to evil origins, either to the <p. 63> devil (Mk.3:22-30)...In particular one should be wary of the claim that Jesus was portrayed like the many other miracle-working teachers, Jewish and pagan, of his era. The idea that such a figure was commonplace in the 1st century is largely a fiction [emphasis added]. Jesus is remembered as combining teaching with miracles intimately related to his teaching, and that combination may be unique. The two most frequently cited Jewish wonder-workers are Honi (Onias), the rain- maker (or circle-drawer) of the 1st century BC and the Galilean Hanina of the 1st century AD. Almost all that is known of these men comes from much later rabbinic literature, and by that time legendary and theological developments had aggrandized the portrayal (as pointed out by scholars such as W .L. Green and B. M. Bokser). Almost certainly in the earliest tradition they were not rabbinical teachers, and it is debatable whether they were primarily miraculous wonder-workers by their own power or men of persuasive prayer that brought God's extraordinary help [so, apparently, Josephus, Ant. 14.22-24]. The most popular pagan parallel offered for Jesus is Apollonius of Tyana (1st century AD) for whose activity we are largely dependent on a life written 200 years later by Philostratus, a life that some serious scholars regard as largely fictitious...The miracles of Jesus are far closer to those in the Elija/Elisha cycle than to the suggested pagan parallels."
Parallels between Jesus' miracles and those of Elisha include the following: (a) the miraculous cure of leprosy by Jesus (Mk. 1:40-45 and parr.) is paralleled by Elisha's cure of Naaman the Syrian (2 Kgs. 5). (b) Jesus' multiplication of the loaves (Mk . 6:30-44, 8:1-10 and parr; Jn. 6:1-15) resembles Elisha's multiplication of twenty loaves for 100 men (2 Kgs. 4:42-44), including such motifs as the use of barley loaves, the presence of a boy in the scene, and the objection that so little could not feed so many. (c) The raising of the young man of Nain (Lk. 7:11-17) resembles Elijah's revival of the son of the widow of Zarephat (1 Kgs. 17: 17-24) and Elisha's raising of the son of the Shunammite (2 Kgs. 4:18-27).
Cf. also Isaiah 35: 5-6: "Then shall the blind men's eyes be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout aloud..."
Cures and/or exorcisms (e.g.;Mk.1:29-2:5; 5:1-43; 7:31-37 (with Aramaic formula); 9:17-29; partial cure (Mk. 8:22-25); done through Beelzebub? (Mk.3:22; Mt.12:24-28); as a sign of the Kingdom (Mt.12:28); through faith (Mk.5:34; 10:52; Mt.8:13; 15:28); but not in Nazareth (Mk.6:1-6; Lk.4:22-30); resuscitations: Mk.5:21-24, 35-43 (with Aramaic formula); Lk.7:11-17; Jn.11:1-44 (Lazarus); nature miracles (e.g. Mk.4:35-41; 8:1-10; Mt.15:34-39; 17:22-27).
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1994: 2. 11: "...a decision such as 'God has worked a miracle in this particular healing' is actually a theological not a historical judgment. A historian may examine claims about miracles, reject those for which t here are obvious natural explanations, and record instances where the historian can find no natural explanation. Beyond that, a purely historical judgment cannot go."
D. The Passion of Jesus
[N.B. The chronology problem in Jn.18:28 which makes it clear that Jesus was executed not on Passover, as in the Synoptics, but on the day before. And yet there is no trace in Jn. that the author is deliberately setting out to correct the Synoptics' dating or switching the date and time of the crucifixion in order to make it coincide for theological reasons with the slaughter of the Passover lambs.]
1. The Triumphal Entry
Mk.11:1-11; Mt.21:1-9; Lk.19:28-40; Jn. 12:12-15]
Cf. Zech 9:9: "Rejoice, rejoice, daughter of Zion, shout aloud, daughter of Jerusalem; for see, your king is coming to you, his cause won, his victory gained, humble and mounted on an ass, on a foal, the young of a she-ass." Thus the ass was not a humble animal but the appropriate one. More, the placing of clothing on the ground was a response to Jehu's kingship in 2 Kings 9:13, and was followed by a further ritual proclamation 'Jehu is king." Finally , the use of branches in acclamation ritual followed a precedent noted in 1 Macc. 13:51.
Is the account historical? ["Does not the theological impregnation of the story suggest the creative, rather than merely the interpretative role of scripture?"] In the Synoptics the act was at Jesus' own initiative, in Jn., the crowd's. Was it a messianic procession --"The claims of others that he is a messianic figure are nothing less than his own claim to such a status"-- or a political demonstration? Or a "tense mixture of the spiritual and the political." How did the Romans regard this event that "could well have led to Jesus' execution"?
2. The Event in the Temple
Mk.11:15-19; Mt.21:10-17; Lk.19:45-48; Jn.2:12-22 puts it much earlier in Jesus' public ministry; compare Jesus' sayings about the destruction of the temple: Mk. 13:2; Mt.24:1-3; Lk.21:5-7; at trial: Mk. 14:58-59; Mt.26:61]
J. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61: "It is overwhelmingly probable that Jesus did something in the Temple and said something about its destruction. The accusation that Jesus threatened the temple is reflected in three other passages: the crucifixion scene (Mk. 15:29 & Mt. 27:40); Stephen's speech (Acts 6:13-14), and, with post-Easter interpretation, in Jn. 2:18-22. The conflict over the temple seems deeply planted in the tradition, and that there was such a conflict would seem to be indisputable."
A political interpretation (e.g., S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 1967) has Jesus and his followers attempting to rob the Temple treasury. An ethical interpretation (Jeremias) has him getting rid of trade. An eschatological interpretation (Sanders) reads it as a symbolic demonstration of the Temple's destruction en route to the New Kingdom: "He intended...to indicate that the end was at hand and that the Temple would be destroyed, so that a new and perfect Temple might arise."
As a cause of Jesus' death:
E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 302-303: "The gesture, even if it did not raise much tumult, could have led the Romans to think that Jesus was a threat to public order. In particular the physical demonstration against the temple by one who had a noticeable following looms as so obvious an occasion for the execution that we need look no further.... It was the combination of a physical action with a noticeable following which accounts for and led immediately to Jesus' death. The Jewish leaders could then reasonably and persuasively propose to Pilate that Jesus should be executed. Pilate agreed. It is probable that the Jewish leaders did not see Jesus' followers as posing any threat once their leader was removed. But if they did , they failed to persuade Pilate."
Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, 114: "So why would the priests have acted against Jesus if he publicly predicted the Temple's destruction? Again, because of the readily recognizable meaning of his gesture in overturning tables in the courtyard. To so openly --perhaps flamboyantly-- tell a crowd, during such a holiday-- after such a ministry, when an official such as Pilate was in Jerusalem, that their liberation was at hand and that God's Kingdom approached, no matter how apolitically and nonmilitarily that Kingdom was conceived-- was tantamount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The priests, ever the intermediaries between the populace and the Romans, were peculiarly responsible for maintaining civic order. And if, as the synoptic gospels claim, Jesus continued to preach in the Temple during the period before Passover (Mk. 11:27-13:1 and parr.), and particularly about the signs of the End (Mk. 13 passim), the priests' fears about his potential effect on the crowds - -or, through imperial spies, on Pilate (Lk. 20:20)-- would not have diminished as the holiday approached."
3. The Last Supper
1 Cor.11:23-25; Mk.14:12-31; Mt.26:17-29; Lk.22:7-23; Jn.13:1-30, followed by farewell discourse:13:31-14:31
In an "upper room" in Jerusalem sometime after sunset on Thursday. Whether or not it was a Passover seder (possible in the Synoptics' chronology but not in John's) depends on an analysis of the acts performed at the meal.
4. The Arrest in the Garden
Mk.14:32-52; Mt.26:47-56; Lk.22:47-53; Jn.18:2-12
In the garden called Gethsemane on Thursday night. What did Judas betray to the chief priests? Jesus' real (kingly?) intentions? The time and site of a secret meeting? Who were the arresting officers (see Jn. 18:3: speira) Was there genuine resistance (the political interpretation) or was the ear-cutting of the High Priest's servant a ritual disqualification of the High Priest himself (cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.13,10; Tos. Parah 3:8; Lev. 8:23-24; 14:14, 17, 25, 28)
5. The Caiaphas Trial/Hearing
Mk. 14:52-72; Mt.26:57-75; Lk.22:54-71 (an independent account); Jn.18:13-27
At the High Priest's house in Jerusalem (was rest of Sanhedrin present?) late on Thursday. Was this a genuine Sanhedrin trial (contrary to all apparent custom; a night session; a trial on a feast day; the omission of the statutory second session; the discrepancy between the blasphemy and M. Sanhedrin 7:5;) or simply a "hearing"? (Jn. has a preliminary hearing before Annas and passes over Caiaphas in one verse).
The question: There is nothing in the public teaching attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels to explain the reported (though not in Jn, but compare Jn. 5:18) question of the High Priest: "Are you the Christ, the Son of God?" (Mk.14:6 1; Mt.26:23)." And Jesus appears reluctant to admit to it --only Mk.14:62 gives an unequivocal "yes"-- though all the evangelists obviously so believed. The temple charge is apparently dismissed by the Gospels (Mk.14:59; Mt.26:59-62) and the actual conviction is the capital one of blasphemy: he claims to be the Messiah and the Son of God (an exclusively Christian linkage).
Lk. 22:66 (cf. Mk. 15:1 & Mt.27:1) seems to point to a formal Sanhedrin trial on Friday morning. Is the Caiaphas hearing, at which there were witnesses (Peter and John: Jn.18:15), simply an expansion of the real (closed) Sanhedrin trial of Friday morning?
E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 299-300: "Many...scholars recognize that the earliest Christians knew only the general course of events (a Jewish interrogation, the handing over to Pilate, the crucifixion), but not the details (of the Passion) ...It seems to me that once we grant that we do not know what went on inside --that is, we admit that the long trial scene of Matthew and Mark is not historical-- then we must grant that we do not know (1) if there was a trial; (2) if the whole Sanhedrin actually convened; (3) if there was a formal charge; (4) if there was a formal conviction under Jewish law..."
Ibid.: 300: "The unlikeliness of the charge of blasphemy has led some to search the trial scene and Jewish law for evidence of a formal charge on which Jesus was convicted at the supposed Sanhedrin trial. Those who follow this course hold that t here was a formal trial and a conviction under Jewish law, as the Synoptic Gospels have it, but that the charge was not blasphemy. Bowker has proposed that Jesus was convicted of being a "rebellious elder", and others [relying on later rabbinic sources] have proposed "false prophet" or "deceiver" (mesit)."
6. The Pilate Trial
Mk.15:1-20; Mt. 27:1-31; Lk. 23:1-25; Jn. 18:28-19:16
Cf. Lk. 19:21: "The lawyers and chief priests...watched their opportunity and sent secret agents in the guise of honest men, to seize upon some word of his [i.e. Jesus] as a pretext for handing him over to the authority and jurisdiction of the Governor ."
The trial before Pilate was known in Roman law as a cognitio extra ordinem, at which "the judge is free to proceed as he likes," and the Roman legal technicalities fit: "The trial is pro tribunali, the actual bema of Pilate being mentioned by Matthew (Mt.27:19). Accusations are duly made by delatores, in this case by the chief-priests and the elders of the people acting as such (Mt. 27:12; Mk. 15:3; Lk. 23:1,4).... The charge is clearly indicated, not as a charge against a particular Roman law, but as a charge of particular undesirable actions on which Pilate is asked to adjudicate. Mark and Matthew merely hint at the nature of the charge by giving Pilate the question 'Are you the king of the Jews?' That this means 'a leade r of the resistance' is shown by a parallel from Josephus...Luke is explicit: 'We found this fellow disturbing our people, telling them not to pay tribute to Caesar, and calling himself and king.' (Lk. 23:2) This fits very well with the workings of a cognitio. The accusers allege facts, and the judge decides what to make of them. Since there is no defense, Pilate had no option but to convict. That was the essence of the system." (A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the NT, 24 -25)
It is, however, difficult to reconcile the style and temper of Pilate's ingenuous belief in Jesus' innocence with Roman (and Pilate's) attitudes about the Jews. It is widely held that the Romans are being whitewashed in the Gospels "for political reasons connected with the early mildness of the Roman government in the Apostolic age toward the Christians."
If a Roman trial seems virtually certain, was this Roman trial preceded by a Jewish Sanhedrin trial on religious charges? The latter is hotly debated, and the issue seems to depend on (1) how one regards the historicity of the accounts of that "trial" and (2) whether the Jews actually did not have the right to exact capital punishment as Jn. 18:31 states? Some have thought they did (cf. the execution of Stephen in Acts 7:57-60, and of James in Josephus, Antiquities 20:200-203, and the ru le about pagan trespassers inside the precinct of the Temple). But Sherwin-White, an authority on Roman law thinks they did not.
If they did not, it makes it more likely that there was both a Sanhedrin trial, at which Jesus was condemned for blasphemy, followed by a Roman trial and that "the Jewish leaders, finding or knowing that Pilate was unwilling to confirm an execution for a purely theological offense, added or substituted an alternative charge of sedition (Lk.23:51), which Pilate ultimately accepted as the basis of his sentence. But it is equally possible, in Roman usage, that when Pilate refused a verdict on the political charge, they fell back on the religious charge, which Pilate finally accepted under the sort of political pressure that is indicated in a convincing technicality by John. The telling phrase --'If you let this man go, you are not a friend of Caesar' (Jn. 19:12)-- recalls the frequent manipulation of the treason law for political ends in Roman public life, and uses a notable political term, Caesaris amicus, to enforce its point."
JT Sanhedrin 1:1 states that Jews lost capital powers "forty years before the destruction of the Temple." More probably 6 CE. And when the later Jewish traditions mention the death of Jesus, Jewish involvement is never minimized, but in fact emphasized.
7. Execution and Burial
A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, 1982: 12: "Our knowledge of the times in which Jesus lived and died does not allow us to imagine that anyone might be crucified in any manner on any pretext. On the contrary, those who inflicted the penalty acted within the constraints imposed by the rule of law and the pressure of political circumstances. From the bare fact that Jesus was crucified we can infer some significant information about the circumstances which led to his death and; and this in turn will have a bearing on the kind of person Jesus must have been if he met his death in this way. We must look at the crucifixion not as an isolated event but as one conditioned by the constraints under which it took place..."
The reasoning now proceeds backwards.
"The first question to which we require an answer is, By whom would it have been carried out?...We can say with absolute confidence that at the time with which we are concerned, this form of execution in a Roman province could have been carried out only by Roman officials, and only on the orders of a Roman governor. Under Pontius Pilate is therefore true, not only as a means of dating the event, but as an indication of the authority under which it took place. It follows that the offense for which it was imposed must have been one of which the Roman administration took cognizance. Our evidence from pagan sources leaves us no doubt about the nature of such offenses. Apart from its infliction on slaves and hardened criminals, crucifixion was reserved for the punishment of rebels against the Roman state. It was a deliberately public form of execution....<p. 13> Josephus records a large number of such executions outside Jerusalem under the Roman Procurators, and always for the same reason, rebellion against Roman authority [BJ 2.75, 241, 253]. There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus met a death which was reserved for those whom the Roman governor regarded as a threat to the peace and security of the Roman state..."
Ibid.: 14: "(Thus, on the evidence of his execution) Jesus was crucified as an actual or potential enemy of the Roman authority. But if we turn to the gospels, there is virtually nothing which gives any color to such a charge. Indeed, we can go further. The portrait of Jesus as it is presented to us not only in the gospels but throughout the NT, is utterly irreconcilable with this explanation of his death."
8. The Empty Tomb and Beyond
To begin with, there are serious textual problems, and most scholars agree that (1) Mk. 16:19-20 are an addition to that Gospel which ends oddly and abruptly at 16:18; (2) that there are questions about the authenticity of Lk.24: 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 51 and 52; and (3) That Jn.21 was written by someone other than the author of the rest of the Gospel.
The Gospels do not agree among themselves as to whom the risen Jesus appeared --except that the first discoverers of the empty tomb were women, a fact not likely to be invented-- or when and where; and, in fact, Lk.24:51 suggests that Jesus ascended t o heaven on Sunday night and Acts 1:1-5 that the same event occurred forty days later.
But the total absence of a contradictory allegation --Mt.28:13-15 suggests a possible contemporary claim that Jesus' body was stolen-- is persuasive evidence that it was common knowledge that the tomb empty.