Historicity of the Resurrection - Revision history

David Persyn: add heading

2015-01-05T23:58:53Z

add heading

David Persyn at 23:57, 5 January 2015

2015-01-05T23:57:40Z

David Persyn: Protected "Historicity of the Resurrection": High traffic page ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

2011-08-05T18:59:00Z

Protected "Historicity of the Resurrection": High traffic page ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

David Persyn: /* Implications of the Historicity of the Resurrection from the Uniqueness of the Early Church’s Development */

2011-08-05T16:49:10Z

‎Implications of the Historicity of the Resurrection from the Uniqueness of the Early Church’s Development

David Persyn: /* Footnotes */ delete temp footnotes

2011-08-05T16:45:43Z

‎Footnotes: delete temp footnotes

David Persyn: /* The Resurrection and the Lordship of Jesus */ footnotes

2011-08-05T16:44:47Z

‎The Resurrection and the Lordship of Jesus: footnotes

David Persyn: /* The Messianic Movement */

2011-08-05T16:30:37Z

‎The Messianic Movement

David Persyn: /* An Argument for the Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection from Mutations in the Notions of “Messiah” and “Kingdom” */ footnotes

2011-08-05T16:28:49Z

‎An Argument for the Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection from Mutations in the Notions of “Messiah” and “Kingdom”: footnotes

Show changes

David Persyn: /* An Argument for the Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection from Early Christian Mutations of the Notion of “Resurrection” */ footnotes

2011-08-05T16:11:59Z

‎An Argument for the Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection from Early Christian Mutations of the Notion of “Resurrection”: footnotes

Show changes

David Persyn: footnotes

2011-08-05T15:35:08Z

footnotes

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ----
-''Introduction''
+== Introduction ==
 The previous unit showed that Saint Paul and all the Evangelists agree on one point (though in very different ways), namely, that Jesus appeared in a transmaterial-corporeal form on multiple occasions to multiple witnesses, implying that these appearances were physically mediated and physically seen.  The many attestations to this point, from different traditions and in very different ways, the early dating of the resurrection narratives (before 50 AD )<ref>See Unit C, Section 1.2.1</ref>, and Paul’s validation of the witnesses’ testimony<ref>See Unit C, Section 1.3.</ref>, bestows considerable historical probity on the testimony of Paul and the Evangelists.  Is there any other way of verifying or corroborating the historicity of the resurrection appearances as described?  In his two exhaustive studies of historical research into Jesus (Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God), N.T. Wright gives three kinds of arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances:

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Unit D
- '''Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?'''
+'''Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?'''
 © Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 E. P. Sanders presents the key insight of Wright’s argument as follows:
-<blockquote>What is unique [about Jesus’ claim to bring the kingdom of God] is the result.  But, again, we cannot know that the result springs from the uniqueness of the historical Jesus.  Without the resurrection, would his disciples have endured longer than did John the Baptist’s?  We can only guess, but I would guess not.<ref>Sanders 1985, p. 240.</ref><blockquote>
+<blockquote>What is unique [about Jesus’ claim to bring the kingdom of God] is the result.  But, again, we cannot know that the result springs from the uniqueness of the historical Jesus.  Without the resurrection, would his disciples have endured longer than did John the Baptist’s?  We can only guess, but I would guess not.<ref>Sanders 1985, p. 240.</ref></blockquote>
 Wright expands this insight by noting that it applies not only to the disciples of John the Baptist, but also to the followers of:
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 The forthcoming two arguments (in Sections 2 and 3) will lend great probity to this conclusion, revealing the reality of what modernity finds quite unpalatable – the glory of God in our midst – the arrival of God’s kingdom in the world.
 == An Argument for the Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection from Early Christian Mutations of the Notion of “Resurrection” ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 5 August 2011
Line 301:		Line 301:

	<references />		<references />
−
−	~~See Unit II-C, Section I.B.1.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-C, Section I.C.~~
−
−	~~Sanders 1985, p. 240.~~
−
−	~~Wright 1996, p. 110. An extensive consideration of all these figures is given in Wright 1992 (Vol. I), pp. 170-181.~~
−
−	~~Wright 1996, p. 110.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-B. See also the many indications of the community’s worship of Jesus in Matthew’s, Luke’s and John’s resurrection narratives (in Unit II-C, Section II).~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-B, Section III. See also Wright 1996, pp. 110-112.~~
−
−	~~Wright 1996, p. 111.~~
−
−	~~Wright 1996, p. 111. He also gives an extensive analysis of these “socio-cultural oddities” of the early Church in Vol. I—Wright 1992, pp. 362ff and 448ff.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-E.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 687.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 687.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, p. 201.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, Chapter 2 – particularly pp. 78-82.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, Chapter 4, particularly pp. 200-201.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, p. 202-203.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, p. 273, and also Unit II-C.~~
−
−	~~See the conclusion to Chapter 4 in Wright 2003, particularly p. 205.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 205.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, p. 272.~~
−
−	Recall from Unit II-C, Section I that a kerygma is an apostolic proclamation – quasi-creedal statement expressing the essentials of the faith. Dodd and others have identified ten of them, nine of which make the resurrection central to the early Church’s preaching -- Acts 2:14-39, Acts 3:13-26, Acts 4:10-12, Acts 5:30-32, Acts 10:36-43, Acts 13:17-41, 1Thess 1:10, 1Cor 15:1-7, and Rom 8:34.
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, p. 274. Paul makes it so central that he claims that if Jesus is not risen from the dead, “our preaching is in vain, and your faith useless.”~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, pp. 401-584.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, p. 706.~~
−
−	~~See Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 18 in particular, and also 6 and 12.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, Chapter 2 – particularly pp. 78-82.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, pp. 689-690.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 690.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, pp. 688-689.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 689.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 697.~~
−
−	~~See Festinger 1957, pp. 258-259, and Wright 2003, pp. 697-698.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, pp. 697-699.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 699.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, pp. 702-703.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 703.~~
−
−	See Quarles’ response to Crossan’s contention that the Gospel of Peter is the source for the canonical Gospels in Unit II-M, Section I. See also Brown’s devastating response to Crossan’s contention that the apostles didn’t know much about Jesus’ crucifixion and burial in Unit II-M, Section I.A.
−
−	Recent archaeological evidence at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher shows details about the placement of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus in the Gospel of John to be remarkably accurate. See the research of Charlesworth 2006(b) and von Wahlde 2006 in Unit II-M, Section I.A.
−
−	This may help to explain why Paul uses the word “sōma” (instead of “sarx”) in 1Corinthians 15:44. “Sarx” is translated “flesh,” while “sōma” has a more general meaning that could even be extended to something like “whole person.” Paul selects “sōma” to emphasize the continuity between the physical body and the spiritual body. Since the continuity is of paramount importance to him, he must avoid the word “sarx” in reference to the physical body. This constrains him to invent a way of referring to flesh while maintaining the word which will express continuity with a spiritual body. He does this by coining the expression “sōma phuchikon” (“natural” or “physical” body). It is difficult to believe that Paul did not have both the corporeal features of the spiritually transformed appearance of Jesus and the empty tomb in mind when he developed this very nuanced theology.
−
−	~~Vermes 1973, p. 41.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-E&G.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-F.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-G.~~
−
−	See Unit II-G, Section VI. Jesus considered Himself to be the messianic shepherd of Israel and to be responsible not only for bringing Yahweh back to Zion, but also for the defeat of evil and the restoration of Israel and the world. Inasmuch as Jesus took on these tasks, He put Himself quite literally (not merely figuratively) in the place of Yahweh Himself. As Wright observes: “Jesus’ prophetic vocation thus included within it the vocation to enact, symbolically, the return of YHWH to Zion. His messianic vocation included within it the vocation to attempt certain tasks which, according to scripture, YHWH had reserved for himself. He would take up himself the role of messianic shepherd, knowing that YHWH had claimed this role as his own. He would perform the saving task which YHWH had said he alone could achieve. He would do what no messenger, no angel, but only the ‘arm of YHWH’, the presence of Israel’s god, could accomplish. …[H]e believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be. … I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation: a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself” (Wright 1996, p. 653).
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 557.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, pp. 557-558.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 558.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, pp. 562-563.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 567.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, pp. 566-568.~~
−
−	~~See Wright 2003, pp. 582-583.~~
−
−	~~Wright notes, “…a sense of the creator god doing something new within creation, not of a god acting to rescue people from creation” (Wright 2003, p. 567).~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, pp. 567-568.~~
−
−	~~Wright 1996, p. 651.~~
−
−	~~Wright 1996, p. 653.~~
−
−	Even though Jesus’ address of the Father as Abba may not have been as unique as Joachim Jeremias has suggested, it certainly was quite special, and along with other references to sonship, indicates that Jesus thought of Himself as Son. Wright observes in this regard, “[the use of ‘Abba’ as an address for God] points…to the Messiah as the special son, the one in whom Israel’s sonship is focused” (1996, p. 649), and Unit II-G, Section I.
−
−	Mark 12:1-12 and pars. Wright believes that this parable originates with Jesus (Wright 1996, p. 501), and that the combination of son (ben in Hebrew) and stone (aben in Hebrew and Aramaic) not only explains Jesus’ action in cleansing the temple and the impending judgment upon Israel (which will lead to the destruction of the Temple) but also refers to the messianic stone who is referred to in the parable as the son. It seems likely, therefore, that Jesus was referring to Himself as the messianic stone-son, that is, the messianic son. See Wright 1996, p. 501and Unit II-G, Section II.B.3.
−
−	~~Matthew 11:25-27/Luke 10:21-22. For the likelihood that this passage originated with Jesus, see Wright 1996, p. 650, and also Unit II-G, Section II.B.4.~~
−
−	~~See above Section III.A.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-G, Section I.D.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-G, Section I.C.~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 733.~~
−
−	~~See Unit II-F, Section IV~~
−
−	~~Wright 2003, p. 731.~~

@@ Line 282: / Line 282: @@
 Yet, Jesus’ continued embodiment does not mitigate the early Church’s experience of Jesus as “God’s own presence” (evident in the transmaterial dimension of His post-resurrection appearance).  It reveals that Jesus is “God’s own presence” in the world – not just in the external world, but in embodiment – that is, intrinsically.  This causes the early Church to believe that creation is good and that God has come (in Jesus) to redeem within the world rather than from the world.  But far more than this, it causes them to believe that God’s own presence is so thoroughly in the world (i.e., both intrinsically and extrinsically) that the world is literally part of God’s kingdom!  It causes them to believe that the kingdom has already arrived and that the final age is initiated – even though Rome was still going strong and Zion had not yet been restored in the way expected by second-Temple Judaism.
-And even more than this, it caused the early Church to believe what Jesus had been saying about Himself all along, namely, that He is bringing the kingdom of God into the world and initiating the final age in His own person.  In Him, the kingdom of God has already arrived in the world, and therefore, He is the Messiah.  But He is more than the Messiah as traditionally conceived in second-Temple Judaism.  He is the Messiah who will fulfill the mission which Yahweh reserved for Himself.  Wright notes in this regard that second-Temple Judaism believed that Yahweh had reserved for Himself a threefold mission:  “the return from exile, the defeat of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion.”   As will be seen in Unit II-G, Jesus certainly held that He was fulfilling these three tasks reserved to Yahweh alone.  Jesus not only took on and fulfilled these tasks; He literally embodied them in Himself.  And so Wright concludes:
+And even more than this, it caused the early Church to believe what Jesus had been saying about Himself all along, namely, that He is bringing the kingdom of God into the world and initiating the final age in His own person.  In Him, the kingdom of God has already arrived in the world, and therefore, He is the Messiah.  But He is more than the Messiah as traditionally conceived in second-Temple Judaism.  He is the Messiah who will fulfill the mission which Yahweh reserved for Himself.  Wright notes in this regard that second-Temple Judaism believed that Yahweh had reserved for Himself a threefold mission:  “the return from exile, the defeat of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion.”<ref>Wright 1996, p. 651.</ref>  As will be seen in Unit II-G, Jesus certainly held that He was fulfilling these three tasks reserved to Yahweh alone.  Jesus not only took on and fulfilled these tasks; He literally embodied them in Himself.  And so Wright concludes:
-I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation:  a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself.
+<blockquote>I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation:  a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself.<ref>Wright 1996, p. 653.</ref></blockquote>
 We now see a second reason why the Church believed that the resurrection confirmed the divine status of Jesus.  It was not only the divine presence within His post-resurrection appearance (e.g., transmateriality resembling or implying divine power, glory, light and the spiritual domain), but also the resurrection’s power to confirm that Jesus had fulfilled the tasks reserved to Yahweh alone, far beyond what second-Temple Judaism had anticipated – literally bringing God’s kingdom into the world.  Now, the only way in which God’s kingdom can be brought into the world, the only way in which the world can be made a part of God’s kingdom, is through the presence of God in the world.  The early Church believed that the resurrection confirmed that Jesus is “God’s own presence” in the world.  The implications for Jesus’ Lordship are obvious.
-Yet there is another piece of the puzzle which grounds the early Church’s belief in Jesus’ Lordship.  Jesus’ transmaterial-corporeal post-resurrection appearance vindicated what he had said about being the exclusive son of the father during his ministry.  He addressed the Father as Abba (implying he was son),  implied that he was the exclusive son of the father in the parable of the wicked tenants,  and He claimed exclusive sonship in a central Q logion (“No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” ).   His post-resurrection appearance also vindicated his claim to be messiah  to fulfill the mission reserved to Yahweh alone  and to bring the kingdom of God to the world in His own person .  As will be seen in Unit II-G, the vindication of these claims led almost inescapably to the conclusion that Jesus could not have been made Son of God at his resurrection, but rather was Son from all eternity.  He is Son, but not just an adopted Son at the time of the resurrection; not even an adopted Son in His messiahship during His ministry; but rather, a real Son – a Son from all eternity.  Wright observes in this regard:
+Yet there is another piece of the puzzle which grounds the early Church’s belief in Jesus’ Lordship.  Jesus’ transmaterial-corporeal post-resurrection appearance vindicated what he had said about being the exclusive son of the father during his ministry.  He addressed the Father as Abba (implying he was son),<ref>Even though Jesus’ address of the Father as Abba may not have been as unique as Joachim Jeremias has suggested, it certainly was quite special, and along with other references to sonship, indicates that Jesus thought of Himself as Son. Wright observes in this regard, “[the use of ‘Abba’ as an address for God] points…to the Messiah as the special son, the one in whom Israel’s sonship is focused” (1996, p. 649), and Unit G, Section 1.</ref> implied that he was the exclusive son of the father in the parable of the wicked tenants,<ref>Mark 12:1-12 and pars. Wright believes that this parable originates with Jesus (Wright 1996, p. 501), and that the combination of son (ben in Hebrew) and stone (aben in Hebrew and Aramaic) not only explains Jesus’ action in cleansing the temple and the impending judgment upon Israel (which will lead to the destruction of the Temple) but also refers to the messianic stone who is referred to in the parable as the son. It seems likely, therefore, that Jesus was referring to Himself as the messianic stone-son, that is, the messianic son. See Wright 1996, p. 501 and Unit G, Section 2.2.3.</ref> and He claimed exclusive sonship in a central Q logion (“No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” ).<ref>Matthew 11:25-27/Luke 10:21-22. For the likelihood that this passage originated with Jesus, see Wright 1996, p. 650, and also Unit G, Section 2.2.4.</ref>  His post-resurrection appearance also vindicated his claim to be messiah<ref>See above Section 3.1.</ref> to fulfill the mission reserved to Yahweh alone<ref>See Unit G, Section 1.4.</ref>and to bring the kingdom of God to the world in His own person<ref>See Unit G, Section I.3.</ref>.  As will be seen in Unit G, the vindication of these claims led almost inescapably to the conclusion that Jesus could not have been made Son of God at his resurrection, but rather was Son from all eternity.  He is Son, but not just an adopted Son at the time of the resurrection; not even an adopted Son in His messiahship during His ministry; but rather, a real Son – a Son from all eternity.  Wright observes in this regard:
-Does this mean that Jesus only became ‘Son of God’, in this sense or any other, at the resurrection?  Certainly not.  The whole point of passages like Romans 5.5-11, 8.3-4 and Galatians 2.19-20 and 4.4-7 is that what Jesus did in his public career and supremely in his death was to be understood as the work of “God’s Son” in this sense as well as the others, and that the resurrection declared that this had been the case.  This is not to say that this conclusion was bound to be drawn by anyone at all hearing about Jesus’ resurrection. … However, within the world of meaning the early Christians found themselves exploring, it was clear that the resurrection did not suggest the adoptionist view that Jesus became, at Easter, something or someone he had not been before.  It made clear to those who followed its inner implications, what had always been the case.  It declared that Jesus always was ‘God’s Son’, in this sense as in the others.
+<blockquote>Does this mean that Jesus only became ‘Son of God’, in this sense or any other, at the resurrection?  Certainly not.  The whole point of passages like Romans 5.5-11, 8.3-4 and Galatians 2.19-20 and 4.4-7 is that what Jesus did in his public career and supremely in his death was to be understood as the work of “God’s Son” in this sense as well as the others, and that the resurrection declared that this had been the case.  This is not to say that this conclusion was bound to be drawn by anyone at all hearing about Jesus’ resurrection. … However, within the world of meaning the early Christians found themselves exploring, it was clear that the resurrection did not suggest the adoptionist view that Jesus became, at Easter, something or someone he had not been before.  It made clear to those who followed its inner implications, what had always been the case.  It declared that Jesus always was ‘God’s Son’, in this sense as in the others.<ref>Wright 2003, p. 733.</ref></blockquote>
-Jesus claimed to be Messiah in a special way, to bring the kingdom of God in His own person, to fulfill the tasks reserved for Yahweh alone, and indirectly claimed to be God’s Son.  He showed that he possessed the power and authority of Yahweh in exorcisms, healings, and raising the dead  and, in His post-resurrection appearances, manifested Himself in God’s power and glory.  His resurrection (in a transmaterial-corporeal form) confirmed all this.  Wright notes in this regard:
+Jesus claimed to be Messiah in a special way, to bring the kingdom of God in His own person, to fulfill the tasks reserved for Yahweh alone, and indirectly claimed to be God’s Son.  He showed that he possessed the power and authority of Yahweh in exorcisms, healings, and raising the dead<ref>See Unit F, Section 4</ref> and, in His post-resurrection appearances, manifested Himself in God’s power and glory.  His resurrection (in a transmaterial-corporeal form) confirmed all this.  Wright notes in this regard:
-…from very early on (it is already taken for granted by Paul), the fact that this Jesus had been raised by this god, when mulled over and reflected on in the light of all that Jesus had done and said, and all that Israel’s scriptures had said about the redeeming and reconciling action of this god, drew from the early Christians the breathtaking belief that Jesus was ‘son of god’, the unique ‘Son ‘of this God as opposed to any other.  They meant by this not simply that he was Israel’s Messiah, though that remained foundational; nor simply that he was the reality of which Caesar and all other such tyrants were the parodies, though that remained a vital implication.  They meant it in the sense that he was the personal embodiment and revelation of the one true god.
+<blockquote>…from very early on (it is already taken for granted by Paul), the fact that this Jesus had been raised by this god, when mulled over and reflected on in the light of all that Jesus had done and said, and all that Israel’s scriptures had said about the redeeming and reconciling action of this god, drew from the early Christians the breathtaking belief that Jesus was ‘son of god’, the unique ‘Son ‘of this God as opposed to any other.  They meant by this not simply that he was Israel’s Messiah, though that remained foundational; nor simply that he was the reality of which Caesar and all other such tyrants were the parodies, though that remained a vital implication.  They meant it in the sense that he was the personal embodiment and revelation of the one true god.<ref>Wright 2003, p. 731.</ref></blockquote>
 Yet in the midst of all of this, there are still two more pieces of evidence which confirm Jesus’ Lordship and divine sonship – the gift of the Holy Spirit (Unit II-E) and Jesus’ miracles in the ministry (Unit II-F).  We will reexamine the divinity of Jesus after investigating these other two evidential grounds of the early Church’s proclamation that Jesus is Lord.

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:59, 5 August 2011
(No difference)

@@ Line 224: / Line 224: @@
 Wright’s basic argument runs as follows:  In second-Temple Judaism, the Messiah was anticipated to defeat paganism, to cleanse/restore the temple, and to initiate a new age for Jerusalem.  In contrast, Jesus dies ignominiously at the hands of the pagans without seemingly cleansing the temple or initiating a new age for Jerusalem; yet Jesus is declared to be Messiah – not only for Israel, but for the entire world, for all time, and for all eternity – which leads almost immediately to a remarkably powerful messianic movement.  If the members of the early Church were not completely self-deluded, their actions require a sufficient explanation (cause).
-The thought of Jesus as Messiah does not begin at His resurrection.  It decidedly originates with Him in His ministry.  His possession of the Holy Spirit,<ref>See Units E & G.</ref> His frequently manifested miraculous power,<ref>See Unit F.</ref> His use of the title “Son of Man,”<ref>See Unit G.<ref> and His taking on the mission reserved for Yahweh alone,<ref>See Unit G, Section 6. Jesus considered Himself to be the messianic shepherd of Israel and to be responsible not only for bringing Yahweh back to Zion, but also for the defeat of evil and the restoration of Israel and the world. Inasmuch as Jesus took on these tasks, He put Himself quite literally (not merely figuratively) in the place of Yahweh Himself. As Wright observes: “Jesus’ prophetic vocation thus included within it the vocation to enact, symbolically, the return of YHWH to Zion. His messianic vocation included within it the vocation to attempt certain tasks which, according to scripture, YHWH had reserved for himself. He would take up himself the role of messianic shepherd, knowing that YHWH had claimed this role as his own. He would perform the saving task which YHWH had said he alone could achieve. He would do what no messenger, no angel, but only the ‘arm of YHWH’, the presence of Israel’s god, could accomplish. …[H]e believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be. … I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation: a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself” (Wright 1996, p. 653).</ref> all indicate that He thought of Himself in precisely that way, and communicated this to His disciples.  Nevertheless, His view of messiahship was quite different from anything anticipated by second-Temple Judaism.  Wright observes in this regard:
+The thought of Jesus as Messiah does not begin at His resurrection.  It decidedly originates with Him in His ministry.  His possession of the Holy Spirit,<ref>See Units E & G.</ref> His frequently manifested miraculous power,<ref>See Unit F.</ref> His use of the title “Son of Man,”<ref>See Unit G.</ref> and His taking on the mission reserved for Yahweh alone,<ref>See Unit G, Section 6. Jesus considered Himself to be the messianic shepherd of Israel and to be responsible not only for bringing Yahweh back to Zion, but also for the defeat of evil and the restoration of Israel and the world. Inasmuch as Jesus took on these tasks, He put Himself quite literally (not merely figuratively) in the place of Yahweh Himself. As Wright observes: “Jesus’ prophetic vocation thus included within it the vocation to enact, symbolically, the return of YHWH to Zion. His messianic vocation included within it the vocation to attempt certain tasks which, according to scripture, YHWH had reserved for himself. He would take up himself the role of messianic shepherd, knowing that YHWH had claimed this role as his own. He would perform the saving task which YHWH had said he alone could achieve. He would do what no messenger, no angel, but only the ‘arm of YHWH’, the presence of Israel’s god, could accomplish. …[H]e believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be. … I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of a vocation: a vocation, given him by the one he knew as ‘father’, to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, God had promised to accomplish all by himself” (Wright 1996, p. 653).</ref> all indicate that He thought of Himself in precisely that way, and communicated this to His disciples.  Nevertheless, His view of messiahship was quite different from anything anticipated by second-Temple Judaism.  Wright observes in this regard:
 <blockquote>…the Messiah was supposed to win the decisive victory over the pagans, to rebuild or cleanse the Temple, and in some way or other to bring true, god-given justice and peace to the whole world.  What nobody expected the Messiah to do was to die at the hands of the pagans instead of defeating them; to mount a symbolic attack on the Temple, warning it of imminent judgment, instead of rebuilding or cleansing it; and suffering unjust violence at the hands of the pagans instead of bringing them justice and peace.<ref>Wright 2003, p. 557.</ref></blockquote>

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ''Introduction''
-The previous unit showed that Saint Paul and all the Evangelists agree on one point (though in very different ways), namely, that Jesus appeared in a transmaterial-corporeal form on multiple occasions to multiple witnesses, implying that these appearances were physically mediated and physically seen.  The many attestations to this point, from different traditions and in very different ways, the early dating of the resurrection narratives (before 50 AD ), and Paul’s validation of the witnesses’ testimony , bestows considerable historical probity on the testimony of Paul and the Evangelists.  Is there any other way of verifying or corroborating the historicity of the resurrection appearances as described?  In his two exhaustive studies of historical research into Jesus (Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God), N.T. Wright gives three kinds of arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances:
+The previous unit showed that Saint Paul and all the Evangelists agree on one point (though in very different ways), namely, that Jesus appeared in a transmaterial-corporeal form on multiple occasions to multiple witnesses, implying that these appearances were physically mediated and physically seen.  The many attestations to this point, from different traditions and in very different ways, the early dating of the resurrection narratives (before 50 AD )<ref>See Unit C, Section 1.2.1</ref>, and Paul’s validation of the witnesses’ testimony<ref>See Unit C, Section 1.3.</ref>, bestows considerable historical probity on the testimony of Paul and the Evangelists.  Is there any other way of verifying or corroborating the historicity of the resurrection appearances as described?  In his two exhaustive studies of historical research into Jesus (Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God), N.T. Wright gives three kinds of arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances:
 (1) implications of the historicity of the resurrection from the uniqueness of the early Church’s development (Section 1),
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 E. P. Sanders presents the key insight of Wright’s argument as follows:
-What is unique [about Jesus’ claim to bring the kingdom of God] is the result.  But, again, we cannot know that the result springs from the uniqueness of the historical Jesus.  Without the resurrection, would his disciples have endured longer than did John the Baptist’s?  We can only guess, but I would guess not.
+<blockquote>What is unique [about Jesus’ claim to bring the kingdom of God] is the result.  But, again, we cannot know that the result springs from the uniqueness of the historical Jesus.  Without the resurrection, would his disciples have endured longer than did John the Baptist’s?  We can only guess, but I would guess not.<ref>Sanders 1985, p. 240.</ref><blockquote>
 Wright expands this insight by noting that it applies not only to the disciples of John the Baptist, but also to the followers of:
-Judas the Galilean, Simon, Athronges, Eleazar ben Deinaus and Alexander, Menahem, Simon bar Giora, and bar-Kochba himself. Faced with the defeat of their leader, followers of such figures would either be rounded up as well or melt away into the undergrowth. The other possibility was to latch onto a new leader…
+<blockquote>Judas the Galilean, Simon, Athronges, Eleazar ben Deinaus and Alexander, Menahem, Simon bar Giora, and bar-Kochba himself. Faced with the defeat of their leader, followers of such figures would either be rounded up as well or melt away into the undergrowth. The other possibility was to latch onto a new leader…<ref>Wright 1996, p. 110. An extensive consideration of all these figures is given in Wright 1992 (Vol. I), pp. 170-181.</ref></blockquote>
 None of this happened to the early church. The disciples maintained their identity and strangely did not replace Jesus as the true leader of their community. Indeed, the early Church acknowledged Jesus as the leader of the community. Wright is justifiably amazed by this and notes:
-in not one case do we hear of any group, after the death of its leader, claiming that he was in any sense alive again, and that therefore Israel’s expectation had in some strange way actually come true.
+<blockquote>in not one case do we hear of any group, after the death of its leader, claiming that he was in any sense alive again, and that therefore Israel’s expectation had in some strange way actually come true.<ref>Wright 1996, p. 110.</ref></blockquote>
-Not only do Jesus’ disciples survive and maintain their identity, they uniquely uphold Jesus as their leader (after the crucifixion) and assert that He is the fulfillment of Israel’s promised destiny.  But this early community is even stranger still.  It actually begins to worship Jesus as Lord, associate Him with divine status, and attribute to Him co-eternity with the Father.   This is not only historically unique, but also apologetically unappealing – so much so that the early Church had to pay the ultimate cost for it (including separation from the synagogue and even persecution).
+Not only do Jesus’ disciples survive and maintain their identity, they uniquely uphold Jesus as their leader (after the crucifixion) and assert that He is the fulfillment of Israel’s promised destiny.  But this early community is even stranger still.  It actually begins to worship Jesus as Lord, associate Him with divine status, and attribute to Him co-eternity with the Father.<ref>See Unit B. See also the many indications of the community’s worship of Jesus in Matthew’s, Luke’s and John’s resurrection narratives (in Unit C, Section 2).</ref>  This is not only historically unique, but also apologetically unappealing – so much so that the early Church had to pay the ultimate cost for it (including separation from the synagogue and even persecution).<ref>See Unit B, Section 3. See also Wright 1996, pp. 110-112.</ref>
-Yet the history of the early Church is stranger still.  The community organized itself in a unique way – resembling neither its Jewish predecessor, nor an ethnic group worshipping a tribal deity, nor a private religious club.   Wright observes:
+Yet the history of the early Church is stranger still.  The community organized itself in a unique way – resembling neither its Jewish predecessor, nor an ethnic group worshipping a tribal deity, nor a private religious club.<ref>Wright 1996, p. 111.</ref>  Wright observes:
-So different was it, after all, that the early Christians sometimes had to argue to the authorities, against apparent appearances, that they were in some sense or other a  ‘religious’ organization.
+<blockquote>So different was it, after all, that the early Christians sometimes had to argue to the authorities, against apparent appearances, that they were in some sense or other a  ‘religious’ organization.<ref>Wright 1996, p. 111. He also gives an extensive analysis of these “socio-cultural oddities” of the early Church in Vol. I—Wright 1992, pp. 362ff and 448ff.</ref></blockquote>
 Yet the early Church’s self-organization was stranger still.  It organized itself into a missionary community that not only went beyond the boundaries of Israel but also to the very frontiers of the Roman Empire, making it one of the most pluralistic religious organizations in history of religions.  With a crucified Messiah as its head, the early Church formed one of the most dynamically expansive communities in history.
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 The answer to these questions requires some kind of cause which would serve as a sufficient explanation for why Christianity does not follow the pattern of other religions or messianic movements.  Why does Christianity pick up momentum from a crucified leader when other messianic movements at the time quickly faded away?  Why didn’t Christianity pick out another leader in the face of its leader’s crucifixion, like other messianic movements whose leaders were executed?  Above all, why did it become such a powerful Messianic movement capable of threatening the Roman Empire within two generations after that same empire executed its Messiah and (with the help of others) tried to extinguish it through persecution?
-It is neither reasonable nor responsible to conclude that these remarkable anomalies which characterize early Christianity (but do not characterize any other religious movement in the first or any other century) do not require a cause (sufficient explanation).  What kind of cause is required?  A powerful one – one capable of overcoming the crucifixion of the movement’s leader, capable of communicating both imminent and transcendent hope in the midst of the crucifixion of the movement’s leader, capable of revealing that God’s kingdom had arrived in the world, and capable of providing sufficient momentum to turn a little Jewish sub-cult into an empire-wide – indeed, worldwide religion within two generations.  This powerful cause would seem to be the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in combination with His gift of the Holy Spirit.
+It is neither reasonable nor responsible to conclude that these remarkable anomalies which characterize early Christianity (but do not characterize any other religious movement in the first or any other century) do not require a cause (sufficient explanation).  What kind of cause is required?  A powerful one – one capable of overcoming the crucifixion of the movement’s leader, capable of communicating both imminent and transcendent hope in the midst of the crucifixion of the movement’s leader, capable of revealing that God’s kingdom had arrived in the world, and capable of providing sufficient momentum to turn a little Jewish sub-cult into an empire-wide – indeed, worldwide religion within two generations.  This powerful cause would seem to be the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in combination with His gift of the Holy Spirit.<ref>See Unit E.</ref>
-The forthcoming two arguments (in Sections II and III) will lend great probity to this conclusion, revealing the reality of what modernity finds quite unpalatable – the glory of God in our midst – the arrival of God’s kingdom in the world.
+The forthcoming two arguments (in Sections 2 and 3) will lend great probity to this conclusion, revealing the reality of what modernity finds quite unpalatable – the glory of God in our midst – the arrival of God’s kingdom in the world.