REL 2240 Summer 2010: Comments on first essay

When Jesus died and resurrected he confirmed that he was the King fo the Jews and by confirming this also proved to the authorities that he was not blaspheming and that he was not against the Roman Empire. Jesus probably caused a huge commotion by those times by resurrecting because he died because he was 'blaspheming' and by proving wrong he probably made the church tumble. The Church in those times probably did not want to accept that Jesus was the King because of all the troubles it was going to cause them. The son of God made human and dying for the forgiveness of humans was something they believed but they chose not to believe that Jesus was the one because of where he came from and because of the doubting situation.

First, you are supposed to write in a scholarly manner. Everything you say must be backed up with evidence. As you've seen, every time we discuss something supposedly said by Jesus, we have to weigh up the sources carefully to decide whether he said it or not. Yet here, the resurrection is taken for granted as an historical event. No arguments, no evidence, it is just written about as something that happened. The reference to 'the Church' is, I suppose, a reference to the High Priest and the Sanhedrin. This is not how they should be referred to: the Church is always used to refer to the early Christian community. There is no evidence that these people were expecting the Son of God to die for their sins. They were hoping for a Messiah - a leader chosen by God - but not someone like Jesus. It is suggested that they rejected Jesus "because of the doubting situation." What exactly does that mean? It is like saying that a team did not win a match "because of the losing situation". Also, I note that the word "probably" appears many times. I suspect that this word is meant to give the impression of scholarly work. It is, indeed, the kind of word scholars are fond of using - E.P.Sanders is always careful to distinguish claims about what definitely happened - that Jesus was crucified; what probably happened - that he caused a disturbance in the Temple; and what possibly happened - his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. But what matters is each claim is backed up by arguments. Just inserting the word "probably" once in a while is not enough.

Here is a better attempt:

The Pharisees were interpreters of the law. It is possible that their name is rooted in the Hebrew word paroshim which means "those who distinguish precisely" (Theissen and Merz, 135) Another alternative regarding the origin of this term is that it emerged from a Persian term meaning "separated ones" (Theissen and Merz, 38). Either way, they suggest accurate characteristics belonging to this Jewish sect. Through their extensive study of the laws, the Pharisees provided the Jewish people with guidance for living according to the will of God through their many regulations. This earned them much popularity and respect. Although the Pharisees had no real political power, their influence over the people remained strong (Sanders, 39, 45-46)

Here, we have a concise summary of relevant information about the Pharisees, backed up by two good secondary sources. All the relevant information has been brought together. Good work.

Back to REL 2240