Feb 17, 2015 5:17 AM GMT
Someone started a post
After researching the arrest and death of Jesus, I have found an interpretation given by Tim O’Neill that is compelling. Tim admits that he is not a professional scholar himself, but he does claim he has been following the “scholarship on the historical Jesus, his Jewish socio-religious context and the origins of Christianity for over 25 years.” For what it’s worth, none of his writings that I’ve read go against the (admittedly little) scholarship that I’ve read. In any case, here is a summary of his interpretation of the arrest and execution of Jesus:
The Romans are in Jerusalem overseeing the Passover festival.
Jesus causes a disturbance in the Temple, one which gives cause for concern to the Roman authorities.
Fearful of a general reprisal against the Passover crowds from Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin finds and arrests Jesus.
The Sanhedrin then hands over Jesus to Pilate in attempt to placate him.
Pilate orders Jesus’ crucifixion.
Now, on to John and the point of this post. If this summary of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion is more or less historical, what do we make of John 18:14?
“14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.”
Obviously this passage fits in perfectly with John’s theology (Jesus is the lamb of God whose blood washes away the sins of the world and saves us from death, etc.), but could it be historical as well? If the high priest was explaining why he needed to capture and hand Jesus over to the Romans, this would be his first and biggest justification for doing so. I can even see how Caiaphas’ justification could ironically play a part in the fertilization of a new theology in John’s community!
After researching the arrest and death of Jesus, I have found an interpretation given by Tim O’Neill that is compelling. Tim admits that he is not a professional scholar himself, but he does claim he has been following the “scholarship on the historical Jesus, his Jewish socio-religious context and the origins of Christianity for over 25 years.” For what it’s worth, none of his writings that I’ve read go against the (admittedly little) scholarship that I’ve read. In any case, here is a summary of his interpretation of the arrest and execution of Jesus:
The Romans are in Jerusalem overseeing the Passover festival.
Jesus causes a disturbance in the Temple, one which gives cause for concern to the Roman authorities.
Fearful of a general reprisal against the Passover crowds from Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin finds and arrests Jesus.
The Sanhedrin then hands over Jesus to Pilate in attempt to placate him.
Pilate orders Jesus’ crucifixion.
Now, on to John and the point of this post. If this summary of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion is more or less historical, what do we make of John 18:14?
“14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.”
Obviously this passage fits in perfectly with John’s theology (Jesus is the lamb of God whose blood washes away the sins of the world and saves us from death, etc.), but could it be historical as well? If the high priest was explaining why he needed to capture and hand Jesus over to the Romans, this would be his first and biggest justification for doing so. I can even see how Caiaphas’ justification could ironically play a part in the fertilization of a new theology in John’s community!
