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