Resurrection of Jesus

From Free net encyclopedia

Topics related to Jesus

Template:Gospel Jesus

According to the Trinitarian interpretation of the New Testament, Jesus was both human and God, so he had the power to lay his life down and to take it up again; thus after Jesus died, he came back to life. This event is referred to in Christian terminology as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and is commemorated and celebrated by most Christians annually on Easter Sunday.

Most Christians, even those who do not interpret other parts of the Bible literally, accept the New Testament story as an historical account of an actual event central to their faith, though some do not accept a literal bodily resurrection. Non-Christians generally view the story as legend or allegory.

Contents

[edit]

Resurrection accounts

[edit]

The New Testament

The primary accounts of the resurrection are in the last chapters of the Canonical Gospels: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21. There is a large amount of suspicion in scholarly circles that neither John 21, nor the traditional ending of Mark 16, were originally part of their respective Gospels ([1]), somewhat complicating matters. Many modern translations of Mark 16 end at Mark 16:8 with for they were afraid, sometimes adding the traditional ending in italics, or in a foot note; the New Revised Standard Version uses the so-called short ending after Mark 16:8, which doesn't make any explicit reference at all to Jesus having been resurrected.

All the Canonical Gospel accounts agree that Jesus was crucified late on Friday afternoon and placed in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. On Sunday, after the Saturday Jewish day of rest, one or more of Jesus' female followers, one or more of whom were called Mary, returned to the tomb, to complete the burial rites. When they arrived they discovered that the tomb was empty, or more accurately it did not contain Jesus' body. They then conversed with (an) angel(s)/male youth who informed them that Jesus was resurrected/not there, and so they departed. According to the traditional ending of Mark 16, and the surviving versions of the other Gospels, the women returned with some of Jesus' disciples to confirm the emptiness of the tomb. However, ancient manuscripts of Mark 16 vary heavily after this point, some ancient manuscripts even halt at this point, and most scholars do not believe the traditional ending was the original one.

Due to the synoptic problem, and Markan priority, this makes it extremely difficult to tell what originally happened next, since the accounts in the other Canonical Gospels theoretically have a dependency on Mark 16. Some scholars have even argued that Mark never originally contained a resurrection narrative at all, and that the original ending was one which came to embarrass the church when the theology of a resurrection began to circulate, hence the text was altered to suit. There is a large variation between the Gospels from this point on, and those scholars who argue that the resurrection was not mentioned in Mark, also argue that the variation is due to the resurrection accounts in these Gospels also being later, artificial, additions; this is consequently one of the more active areas of research in textual studies of the Gospels.

Both Peter (Acts 2:22-32) and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:19) argue that the resurrection event was the cornerstone of Christianity, and the resurrection is mentioned in nearly every New Testament book.


[edit]

Spreading the word

What happens once Mary (and Mary) has seen the occupier(s)/empty tomb is again one of the more variant parts of this narrative. According to Mark, even though the man in the tomb instructs Mary and Mary to inform the disciples and Peter, they flee as they are afraid, and do not tell anything to any man. The other Gospels completely contradict this, presenting the obvious - that Mary (and Mary) must have told someone for the Gospel writers to know about it. Like Mark, Matthew presents Mary and Mary as being instructed by the tomb's occupant to inform the disciples, but unlike Mark's account they happily do so, and Peter has no special status amongst the others. Luke, again, merely presents Mary and Mary as telling the eleven and the rest, but presents them as doing so apparently without being instructed. John's account is quite different; John only describes Mary (just the one) as informing two people - Peter and the Beloved Disciple, an individual that is usually considered, by both scholars and Christians, to be a self-reference by the author of John. Most modern scholars, however, feel that this is fraudulent testimony on John's part, since they consider that the Gospel was written at a later date, and that the Beloved Disciple is hence a fictional invention of the author, and the near-equation in status with Peter designed to claim that John has more authority than the synoptics with which it often varies substantively.

John's account also recounts that Mary told them that a third party had taken the body and she didn't know where they had put it. The third party is not identified, and Brooke Foss Westcott, amongst others, considers there to be three possibilities as to who Mary is meant to be referring to:

  • Grave robbers, as grave robbery was a problem in Palestine during the era
  • Jewish leaders, though it is unclear what motive they could possibly have
  • Grave keepers, merely moving the body to another tomb - aside from putting the body somewhere, the Greek word tihenai also can be translated as buried.

There are a couple of textual curiosities in John's account here; Mary refers to Jesus as lord while John had not previously described any of the followers as using this title, and Mary also states that we don't know where they put him even though only Mary is described as having been to the tomb, at this point. To those who believe in inerrancy, lord is used here because Jesus only gained the title on dying, and that we is evidence that John actually agrees with the synoptics and merely didn't regard the other women as worth mentioning. However, most textual scholars see this as a typical contradiction by John of the synoptic gospels, arguing that we is a later modification to hide the discrepancy, as evidenced by some ancient manuscripts of John which have I instead of we at this point. Brown, on the other hand, has proposed that as the remainder of the passage wasn't subjected to such harmonising, the speech by Mary must have been written by a different author from the rest of the gospel.

[edit]

Checking the story

With Mary and Mary having told no-one, Mark does not present any further involvement of the tomb. Matthew doesn't either, but unlike these two, John and Luke describe Peter as running to the tomb to check for himself, and John adds that the Beloved Disciple did so too. It is never explained why the disciple(s) move(s) from merely travelling to running, and it has often been speculated that running only occurred on the last stretch once the tomb had come within sight. John Calvin instead speculated that the rush was due to religious zeal. In particular, John describes the Beloved Disciple as out-racing Peter, though waiting for Peter to arrive before entering the tomb, with some scholars seeing the out-racing as a metaphoric elevation of the Beloved Disciple above Peter. However, many Christian scholars object to this interpretation, instead arguing that since the Beloved Disciple is usually interpreted as a reference to the author of John, it would be necessary for him to be considerably younger than Peter, and hence his speed could be due simply to youthful vigour. The other question is why the Beloved Disciple pauses outside the tomb, and while many view it as being due to not wishing to violate death ritual by entering a tomb, hence attacking Peter who has no such qualm and instead enters immediately, most scholars believe he is simply being depicted as deferring to Peter, particularly as the Beloved Disciple enters the tomb once Peter is inside.

Although John describes the disciple only as making a cursory glance at the linen, Peter is described as carefully examining the scene. After making their examination, and the Beloved Disciple apparently drawing a conclusion, Luke merely states that after seeing the vacancy of the tomb, Peter was wondering what had happened. Luke and John both have the disciple(s) return home, but while several scholars view this as implying that (t)he(y) embarked on the long journey from Jerusalem back to Galilee, according to Brown the majority interpret home as the location that the disciple(s) had been staying in Jerusalem, and hence a substantially briefer journey. A few scholars believe that Peter and the Beloved Disciple departed to separate areas, since when Mary met them to tell them the news, she is described as meeting first Peter and then the Beloved Disciple, in a manner which these scholars consider to mean two separate meetings.

[edit]

The belief of the Beloved Disciple

Image:Disciples-visit-tomb.jpg

Once Peter has entered, John describes the Beloved Disciple as entering the tomb whereupon he believed as they knew not about the scripture. What exactly the Beloved Disciple believed, and who exactly they are, and what scripture exactly is being referenced, is not explained. The word used to mean scripture is singular and most of the time this form is used to refer to single quotations. Several passages from the Old Testament have been proposed as likely candidates for this source such as Psalm 16, Hosea 6:2, and Jonah 1:17. Since most of the New Testament was written before the Gospel of John, candidates have also been suggested from these texts. John only indicates that Peter and the Beloved Disciple were present, but it is possible that one or both of the people named Mary may also have been there, and thus some scholars, such as Hartmann, believe they refers to Peter and Mary being in ignorance about a resurrection.

Since the only mention in John of the tomb having any content describes it only as having grave clothes, this paucity of evidence for anything more than the body being stolen would make the Beloved Disciple rather gullible if it was a resurrection he suddenly believed in. A question also arises as to why, according to John, the Beloved Disciple doesn't tell Peter and them about this. A long line of major scholars including Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin have thus argued that the Beloved Disciple simply came to believe Mary Magdalene's story that the body was gone. Unlike Hartmann, and those sharing his view, most scholars regard they as referring to Peter and the Beloved Disciple, pointing to them both being ignorant about any resurrection, and pointing to the conclusion that the Beloved Disciple had come to believe some other issue.

Scholars of textual criticism, however, have in modern times argued that the passage does actually refer to belief in a resurrection, but that the reason it seems odd in light of the surrounding narrative, especially that it isn't mentioned again, is because the reference to him believing is a later addition to the text, a view expounded for example by Schnackenberg. The version of John in the ancient Codex Bezae has the passage reading that he saw and did not believe, which seems a more logically in keeping with the rest of the chapter, and may indicate that most modern texts are derived from an ancient scribal error, much like the typographic error in the Wicked Bible. Bultmann has called John 20:9 a gloss of the ecclesiastical redaction, also arguing that the verse is a later addition, particularly since it references scripture as indicating that Jesus must rise from the dead, which is out of character in John, since John almost always prefers instead to use the wording ascend from the dead. A few scholars however believe that the statement is original but misplaced, feeling it should follow John 20:11, though Bruce disagrees, arguing that since it presents itself as an explanation of a prior passage, it makes the link to the currently preceding text clear.

[edit]

Appearances after resurrection

Template:Main Image:Caravaggio.emmaus.750pix.jpg After the discovery of the empty tomb, the Gospels indicate that Jesus made a series of appearances to the disciples, with the most notable being to the disciples in the upper room, where Thomas did not believe until he was invited to put his finger into the holes in Jesus' hands and side (John 20:24-29); along the road to Emmaus, where people talked about their failed hopes that Jesus would be the messiah before recognising Jesus (Luke 24:13-32); and beside the Sea of Galilee to encourage Peter to serve his followers (John 21:1-23). His final appearance is reported as being forty days after the resurrection when he ascended into heaven (Luke 24:44-49), where he remains, until the Second Coming.

Both Peter (Acts 2:22-32) and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:19) argue that this event was the cornerstone of Christianity, and the resurrection of Jesus is mentioned in nearly every New Testament book.

When compared, the accounts give different details and are difficult to reconcile into a single sequence of events according to some, though John Wenham and other scholars have argued that they are reconcilable. Also, Christians have answered by noting that multiple eyewitnesses to any event tend to give differing accounts and that the resurrection account has many details. (see below)

[edit]

Other Christian records

Image:Grunewald - christ.jpg

Some of the earliest records of the resurrection outside the New Testament are found in the writings of Ignatius (50 - 115), Polycarp (69 - 155) Justin Martyr (100 - 165), and Tertullian (160 - 220), and also the first epistle of Clement.

Ignatius makes many passing references, but two extended discussions are found in the Letter to the Trallians and the Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

All of the main Creeds mention the resurrection, eg the Nicene Creed (325) states that "On the third day he rose again"

Several works that are now regarded as part of the New Testament apocrypha also make mention of the resurrection. Particularly the Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel of Nicodemus, which had a heavy influence over depictions in mediaeval and renaissance art, as well as being the source for the concept of the Harrowing of Hell, which does not biblically occur.

[edit]

Noteworthy non-Christian records

An extremely disputed passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum, which occurs in surviving copies of a 3rd century quotation by the Christian apologist Eusebius, in which he supposedly quotes the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93, stating that

[Jesus] appeared to [the disciples] alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold - Testimonium Flavianum

Many scholars consider this passage a clear forgery since Josephus was a life long Jew, while the passage uses terminology only Christians would use, and the text reads more fluidly if the passage is cut out, as if the passage was crudely inserted. However, discoveries from the 8th century suggest that a more plausible, far less Christian, version of the passage may have existed originally.Template:Fact

[edit]

Significance of the resurrection

Image:09nolim1.jpg The resurrection of Jesus perhaps the most significant part of the New Testament, where, according to Christian Theology, it is the point in scripture where Jesus gives his ultimate demonstration that he has power over life and death, thus he has the ability to give people eternal life.

While Easter Sunday is the main day on which the resurrection of Jesus is celebrated directly, Emperor Constantine I of Rome, in order to harmonise Christianity with the other main religion of the time, that of Sol Invictus (unconquerable sun), declared that weekly church gatherings would no longer occur on Saturdays (the Jewish Sabbath), rather that it should occur on the day of the week dedicated to Sol Invictus (since renamed to Sunday), so effectively Sunday church gathering celebrates the resurrection.

Jesus' death and resurrection subtend a variety of theological interpretations as to how salvation is granted to humanity. A common feature of all these interpretations is that they place greater emphasis on the death and resurrection than on the actual words said to have been taught by Jesus himself on the subject of atonement. (eg. Matt. 6:14-15). Sceptics, too, may find meaning in the resurrection, and summaries of the different perspectives follow:

[edit]

Roman Catholic view

Held by the majority of Christians, the Catholic view is that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself as an act of perfect obedience, atoning for the disobedience of Adam, and thus cleansing Mankind of the stain of original sin. Jesus's sacrifice was an offering of love that pleased God more than man's sin offended God, so now all who believe in Jesus and keep his commandments may receive salvation in his name.

Catholics believe one can fall from grace again if one continues to sin after being saved. One can be restored to grace through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Confession).

[edit]

Judicial view

By contrast, the Catholic view off-shoot titled the judicial view was held by Martin Luther, and a major cause of the Reformation. It is held by the majority of Protestants.

This view emphasizes God as Judge. Humanity had sinned and God was therefore required, in His justice, to punish humankind. However, God sent His Son, who was sinless, to take the sin of the world on his shoulders, so that anyone who accepted the gift of Jesus's act could be freed from the consequences of his sin, without violating God's judgement.

The result is that through Christ's death, the Old Covenant passed away and all things became new. The veil separating man and God was torn, and the people were free to work out their own salvation through the only true Mediator, Jesus Christ, rather than seeking salvation through rituals, rules, or an exclusive priesthood. People who hold this view generally believe that only acceptance of Christ's sacrifice is necessary for salvation, not a ritual or a sacrament.

This view of the theological significance of Jesus's resurrection is analogous to the Jewish Day of Atonement, by which the sins of the Israelites were put onto a flawless scapegoat, who was then released into the wilderness, taking the sins of the people with him.

[edit]

Christus Victor

The Christus Victor view, which is more common among Eastern Orthodox Christians, holds that Jesus was sent by God to defeat death and Satan. Because of his perfection, voluntary death, and Resurrection, Jesus defeated Satan and death, and arose victorious. Therefore humanity was no longer bound in sin, but was free to rejoin God through faith in Jesus.

In contrast to the Judicial view, the Christus Victor model emphasizes a spiritual battle between good and evil. The Judicial view would require Christians to believe that God voluntarily punished Jesus for their sins, whereas the Christus Victor view sees humanity as formerly in the power of Satan, who was defeated by Jesus; and God, through Jesus, broke us out of Satan's power.

The Christus Victor sometimes has also been used to argue that Jesus defeated sin and death for everyone, whether or not they hear of Jesus, granting non-Christians the chance of eternal life (or a guarantee thereof, depending on the particular theology in question).

[edit]

First Man view

The First Man view, held by a small minority of Christians and some Pelasgians, states that Jesus was a person just like the rest of humanity, but due to his remarkable faith, purity, sinlessness, and perfection, he earned eternal life, and was resurrected because Death could not hold him. They also believe that by following his teachings and example others may also ultimately earn eternal life.

The First Man view can be compared with the Old-Testament stories of Enoch and Elijah, who walked with God to such a degree of faithfulness that they were not required to die. Enoch 'was no more,' and Elijah was carried in a whirlwind. In the same way, Jesus was faithful to such a degree, that even though he was killed, his Faith earned him Eternal Life. And in the same way, if we are radically faithful to the same degree, we can also be free from death.

[edit]

Liberal views

Liberal Christians consider the significance of the resurrection to be a religious symbol of hope, and accept it as a richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. The question of the resurrection is not one of history but religious attitude.

[edit]

Sceptical views

Almost all non-Christians do not accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus. They therefore either deny the resurrection as a form of myth, or agree with liberal Christians that the resurrection was a devoutly held, powerful myth (for instance, Carl Jung suggests in his essay "The Answer to Job" that the crucifixion-resurrection story was the forceful spiritual symbol of, literally, God-as-Yahweh becoming God-as-Job),

[edit]

The historicity of the resurrection

Template:Main For Christians, the historicity of the resurrection is seen as crucial, as most tend to assume that if Jesus has power over life and death, then he is the Son of God. The resurrection, then, becomes the point of falsifiability for Christianity, and is often the focus of religious debates.

As with all study of ancient history, it is important to use proper historical methodology. In this process, the records of the accounts of the witnesses are analysed for their reliability and plausibility. Defending the resurrection's historicity is a field of study known as Christian apologetics. In more recent times, Christianity has come under pressure from academic analysis of history in fields such as Biblical criticism, as well as more amateur arguments against the resurrection occurring.

Historically, there was a tendency for most people to assume that the Gospel writers were not lying, and those who argued against the resurrection just believed that the Gospel accounts had been misinterpreted. Consequently several hypothesis have evolved:

  • The stolen body hypothesis: the disciples stole the body from the tomb and then fabricated the resurrection.
  • The swoon hypothesis: Jesus either fainted from exhaustion on the cross or was drugged, and was later revived in the tomb and survived.
  • The vision hypothesis: Rather than a physical resurrection, Jesus appeared as a vision to various followers as either a divine vision or a hallucination.
  • The Jewish view of Jesus as stated in the Toledoth Yeshu is that the body of the crucified Jesus was removed in the same night.
  • The Islamic view of Jesus as stated in the Qur'an is that Jesus was not crucified, but someone who looked like Jesus died in his place - (Sura 4:156).
  • The Gospel of Barnabas, written as mediaeval anti-Christian propaganda, claims that Jesus escaped crucifixion, Judas dying in his place.
[edit]

See also

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Ancient Texts

[edit]

Modern Apologist

[edit]

Modern Sceptic

fi:Jeesuksen ylösnousemus hr:Uskrsnuće Isusa Krista id:Kebangkitan Yesus sv:Jesu uppståndelse vi:Sự Phục sinh của Chúa Giê-xu

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Resurrection_of_Jesus"