|
|
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| ==Jesus died by crucifixion== | | ==Jesus died by crucifixion== |
|
| |
|
| | The crucifixion of Jesus should be considered historical fact based on the ''criterion of embarrassment''. If Jesus’ actions, sayings or crucifiexion would have embarrassed or caused difficulty for the early church, then why include these if you’re inventing them? Why depect a shamed, humiliated, crucified Messiah — unless it actually happened? The discrepancy between the shameful death of a Jewish state criminal and the confession that depicts this executed man as the preexistent divine figure who becomes man and humbles himself to a slave’s death is without comparison in the ancient world.<ref>Paul Copan, “True for You but Not for Me” (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 159–160</ref> |
| | Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader. |
|
| |
|
| | The crucifixion of Jesus should be considered historical fact based on the ''criterion of multiple attestation'' - confirmation by more than one source - because of the agreement of all sources on the fact that Jesus died by Roman execution on a cross. Death by crucifixion also meets the ''criterion of rejection'' - it is not disputed by any ancient sources. It is also firmly established that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus – referring to the mentions by Josephus and Tacitus. |
|
| |
|
| | Most scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, consider the crucifixion indisputable. |
| | |
| | As a result, '''we can conclude that Jesus died by crucifixion.''' |
| | |
| | ==Appearances of Jesus post-crucifixion were documented== |
|
| |
|
| [[John P. Meier]] views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that, based on the ''[[criterion of embarrassment]]'', Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.<ref name=JMeier126/> Meier states that a number of other criteria — the criterion of ''[[multiple attestation]]'' (i.e., confirmation by more than one source), the ''criterion of coherence'' (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) and the ''criterion of rejection'' (i.e., that it is not disputed by ancient sources) — help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.<ref name=JMeier126/> Eddy and Boyd state that it is now firmly established that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus – referring to the mentions in [[Josephus on Jesus|Josephus]] and [[Tacitus on Christ|Tacitus]].<ref name=EddyB127>{{cite book|author1=Eddy|author2=Boyd|date=2007 |title=The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition|publisher= Baker Academic|isbn=978-0-8010-3114-4| page=127}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| Most scholars in the third [[quest for the historical Jesus]] consider the crucifixion indisputable,<ref name="autogenerated145"/><ref name=JMeier126>John P. Meier "How do we decide what comes from Jesus" in ''The Historical Jesus in Recent Research'' by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 {{ISBN|1-57506-100-7}} pp. 126–128, 132–136</ref><ref name=Craig211>''Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey'' by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 {{ISBN|0-8054-4482-3}} pp. 211–214</ref><ref name="autogenerated136">''A Brief Introduction to the New Testament'' by Bart D. Ehrman 2008 {{ISBN|0-19-536934-3}} p. 136</ref> as do [[Bart Ehrman]],<ref name="autogenerated136"/> [[John Dominic Crossan]]<ref name="autogenerated145"/> and [[James Dunn (theologian)|James Dunn]].<ref name="JDunn339" /> Although scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it, e.g. both [[E. P. Sanders]] and [[Paula Fredriksen]] support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion, and that [[Son of Man#Predicting His Death and Resurrection|his prediction of the crucifixion]] is a Christian story.<ref name=Ernest125/> [[Geza Vermes]] also views the crucifixion as a historical event but believes this was due to Jesus’ challenging of Roman authority.<ref name=Ernest125>''A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain, 1902–2002'' by [[Ernest Nicholson]] 2004 {{ISBN|0-19-726305-4}} pp. 125–126</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|