The Case For Jesus Analysis
In 2006, a well-known priest, Fr. Robert Barron, met Dr. Brant Pitre. Just a short time into their acquaintanceship, the two found that they shared a strong dislike for the “telephone game” analogy that was used by some who did not believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible. Fr. Barron declared that a book should be written “refuting that stupid comparison!” Dr. Pitre took on that challenge, inspired by his former crisis of faith which grew from his university days. This endeavor resulted in The Case for Jesus, a slim, meticulously organized book seeking to answer one question in particular: did Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? This paper will examine the structure, content, strengths, and weaknesses of The Case for Jesus in order
…show more content…
He begins by considering why people though Jesus was the Messiah, with a particular focus on what prophecies he fulfilled. Then he moves onto a discussion of who Jesus thought he was, that is, did he see himself as just the messiah, or also as God? This is the main question of the book. Pitre’s answer is that Jesus did claim to be God, even in the synoptic gospels, but in a very Jewish way, for example by performing miracles that were associated with God alone in the Old Testament. This then raises a consideration of the so called “messianic secret,” namely, why didn’t Jesus explicitly reveal his identity, and moreover, why did he repeatedly instruct those who knew his identity to keep it a secret? Pitre concludes that Jesus did this for two reasons. First, Jesus did it for practical reasons, to avoid widespread public outcry against him from his opponents. Second, and perhaps more vitally, Pitre characterizes Jesus as deliberately speaking in riddles so that those who were willing to believe would be able to discover the answer, and those who opposed him wouldn’t be able to bring charges against him, at least not until the time was right. Pitre finishes the second section with a consideration of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. First, why and how Jesus was crucified, that is, what charges were brought against him that lead to his death, and how he could have died, if he really was God? Second, why did anyone believe in the resurrection, and what prophecies did it
He begins by considering why people though Jesus was the Messiah, with a particular focus on what prophecies he fulfilled. Then he moves onto a discussion of who Jesus thought he was, that is, did he see himself as just the messiah, or also as God? This is the main question of the book. Pitre’s answer is that Jesus did claim to be God, even in the synoptic gospels, but in a very Jewish way, for example by performing miracles that were associated with God alone in the Old Testament. This then raises a consideration of the so called “messianic secret,” namely, why didn’t Jesus explicitly reveal his identity, and moreover, why did he repeatedly instruct those who knew his identity to keep it a secret? Pitre concludes that Jesus did this for two reasons. First, Jesus did it for practical reasons, to avoid widespread public outcry against him from his opponents. Second, and perhaps more vitally, Pitre characterizes Jesus as deliberately speaking in riddles so that those who were willing to believe would be able to discover the answer, and those who opposed him wouldn’t be able to bring charges against him, at least not until the time was right. Pitre finishes the second section with a consideration of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. First, why and how Jesus was crucified, that is, what charges were brought against him that lead to his death, and how he could have died, if he really was God? Second, why did anyone believe in the resurrection, and what prophecies did it