Historical Evidence Jesus Predicted His Death and Resurrection： The Mark Series pt 38 (10_32-34)

Four things to know before historical investigation of Jesus: (1) Historical investigation is limited — historians intentionally bracket inspiration of Scripture. (2) Failure to confirm ≠ denial it happened. (3) History is probabilistic — the best verdict is "extremely likely," never 100%%. (4) Scholars are people with biases — Bart Ehrman rejects miracles by methodology, not evidence ("as a historian you're not allowed to posit miracles").

Framework for historical investigation of Jesus

Argument 1 — Jesus's death predictions are very early: (a) Matthew 16:17-23 contains Semiticisms ("son of Jonah," "flesh and blood," "Hades") pointing to Aramaic origins, not later Greek tradition. (b) Mark 9:31 has a paronomasia (pun) in Aramaic: "son of man handed into the hands of men." (c) 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (Last Supper) is written before the Gospels. (d) Paul distinguishes Jesus's commands from his own (1 Cor 7) — proving he doesn't invent words of Jesus.

Argument 1 — earliness of predictions

Argument 2 — Multiple attestation: Mike Licona found 19+ passages across Mark, M (Matthew-only), L (Luke-only), and John independently attesting Jesus's death/resurrection predictions. Historians consider TWO independent sources "pay dirt" — this has far more. Jesus's prayer in Gethsemane (knowing he'll die) is in Mark 14, Matthew 26, and Luke 22 independently.

Argument 2 — multiple independent attestation

Argument 3 — Criterion of embarrassment: Jesus's predictions include embarrassing elements the early church wouldn't invent. (a) Peter rebukes Jesus for predicting his death — then Jesus calls Peter "Satan" (Mark 8:33). The leader of the church being called Satan is not something the church would fabricate. (b) Disciples repeatedly fail to understand Jesus's predictions — they argue about who's greatest right after. The church wouldn't invent their founders' incompetence.

Argument 3 — criterion of embarrassment

Theological insight from the predictions: Jesus saw his death as purposeful sacrifice, not tragedy. He predicted specifics: delivered to chief priests, condemned, handed to Gentiles, mocked, spit on, scourged, killed — and rise three days later. Progressive Christians who reject substitutionary atonement must explain why Jesus described his death as sacrificial and purposeful in his own words. The predictions show Jesus understood himself as Isaiah's Suffering Servant.

Theological insight — purposeful sacrifice, not tragic death