vijeno

I have often heard the argument from christian that goes like this:

"The crucifixion was the most shameful death in the ancient world, therefore people wouldn't have believed that Jesus was the messiah, therefore there must be another reason why christianity became successful - so Jesus must have been the messiah."

Now, please, I'm not primarily interested in whether the argument has any merit or not. This is one interesting point of debate, obviously.

What I'd really like to know is this:

Where did this argument originate? Who brought it up? Is it an ancient argument, or a modern one?

Thanks for your opinions on the matter!

Toto

This is a modern argument. It is the result of the application of the "criterion of embarrassment" which grew out of the quest for the historical Jesus in modern times.

vijeno

Ah thanks. I knew I had already read about that somewhere, but I had no clue how to look it up.

stephan huller

For what its worth I am starting to think Mark originally ended at 16.8 and the idea that the man on the cross was subsequently resurrected only was added by Matthew and Luke. The idea is that “we should deliver this (animal) body to Satan” (1 Cor 5). For what its worth

Roger Pearse

A form of the argument is found in Tertullian, De carne Christi (On the flesh of Christ) 5:4.

The context, however, is a rather different one; whether Jesus, although divine, was really human or not.

The second century heretic Marcion -- who is the object of the work in question -- was well aware that the crucifixion of Jesus was highly discreditable in pagan eyes. Consequently, like other early heretics, he therefore asserted that it did not actually happen, in some way; that Jesus was not really crucified (and therefore, did not die and was not resurrected). Marcion asserted that the Jesus who walked around Judaea was in fact a phantasm, whose flesh was not real.

Tertullian responds that it is precisely from the narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection that we can tell that Jesus really was human. He points out that this story can't have been faked up, precisely because it destroys any credibility that Christianity has. If the Christians were lying, they wouldn't make THAT lie. In short, it is clear that Jesus really was human and had normal human flesh.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

It was HERETICAL to claim Jesus was only human so Tertullian could NOT have claimed Jesus was just human.

Tertullian is claiming that Jesus is GOD Incarnate NOT a man deified.

The Jesus of the Church is GOD Incarnate, the Word that was God, the Creator, and how he died was irrelevant to his existence.

The crucifixion of Jesus, based on Tertullian, ONLY signified that he had human FLESH but STILL had GOD for his Father.

When Celsus claimed Jesus was a man Origen claimed it was a LIE.

"Against Celsus"1 32 The Jesus of Tertullian is GOD with human flesh.

GakuseiDon

Justin Martyr touches on this in his First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

For they [the pagans] proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all...

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man...?

aa5874

For the record, it must be shown how Justin Martyr DESCRIBED that man.

"He is THE WORD, the first-birth God born WITHOUT Sexual union

"First Apology" XXI It was the WORD that was crucified.

It was just words not reality.

Just Words.

Nothing but words.

Toto

This is an interesting quote. Justin does not say it is embarrassing, therefore no one could have made it up and it must be true; he says that he knows it is true (not the crucifixion, but that Jesus was begotten by God) because it was foretold in the Jewish scriptures.

DCHindley

Toto,

It seems to me that we must take the whole kit and kaboodle, including crucifixion, as included among the "testimonies concerning Him published before He came" (presumably in the Jewish scriptures) that the proto-orthodox had "found" there as they rationalized the consequences of Jesus' demise.

DCH