James Cotter said
scholar  dale martin says that the trial of jesus was not historical

dr ehrman says that the empty tomb narrative  is not historical

mark says that the women fled and said nothing to anyone 

who was left to tell the disciples in galilee the details about the crucifixion? if they ran away to galilee, who was left to describe the crucifixion of jesus? 

 

did the disciples just assume he was crucified without knowing any detail?

 

paul does not describe any detail too. no crowds. no nailing. no crown of thorn. no writing.  nothing .  

I think that the (male) disciples escaped out of the city as soon as they heard the news of the crucifixion. Also , one cannot rule out the possibility that some female followers safely could witness a lot of the public part of the execution.

Blackwell said

What evidence is there that the disciples escaped out of the city?  Did they leave the women behind? All the gospels plus the start of Acts suggest that they remained in Jerusalem for some time after the crucifixion. 

I simply assume that the basic plot is true: Jesus was seized by the temple authorities during a night in the Oil Press garden outside Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans and executed the following morning. This happened because he caused unrest in the temple area during the festival, with highly offending actions. Judas, who probably realized that this was silliness, provided the essential information to the temple authorities. The Gospels are highly contradictory on what happened thereafter. According to Matthew, the disciples went to Galilee to meet the risen Jesus, according to Luke, they did not leave Jerusalem.  The gist of all these legends is that the disciples had a period of doubt, with partial retreat to Galilee, before they got re-established in Jerusalem.

A fair guess is that the disciples went into hiding until they got the news of the crucifixion. At that stage they probably realized that they themselves were in deep shit, and fled. Female followers would have had the possibility to observe and collect some more information without fear of being seized, but it is impossible to know if they did. At some time later (several months?)  they returned, and maybe started to collect more information from hearsay and from more distant adherents who did not need to flee. This is the  basis for several decades of oral traditions wandering across the main Christian community centers within the Roman empire. The end result, the gospel stories, cannot be relied upon concerning the details.

I think the stories about Jesus before the High Priest and before Pilate are just reconstructions of the reasons those actors had for their actions, they never took place. It seems to have happened very fast: As soon as the temple authorities had identified the prisoner, he was dispatched to the Romans with a clear recommendation, and the Romans did not spend many more minutes.

As to the details of the execution, it is difficult to say if they are built on the knowledge of public executions in general or if they reflect true elements of the historical execution. One thing is certain : Jesus would have been unable to speak to or with someone when hanging on the cross: his “last statements” is theological fiction.

Blackwell said

gavriel said

Blackwell said
What evidence is there that the disciples escaped out of the city?  Did they leave the women behind? All the gospels plus the start of Acts suggest that they remained in Jerusalem for some time after the crucifixion. 

I simply assume that the basic plot is true: Jesus was seized by the temple authorities during a night in the Oil Press garden outside Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans and executed the following morning. This happened because he caused unrest in the temple area during the festival, with highly offending actions. Judas, who probably realized that this was silliness, provided the essential information to the temple authorities. The Gospels are highly contradictory on what happened thereafter. According to Matthew, the disciples went to Galilee to meet the risen Jesus, according to Luke, they did not leave Jerusalem.
 

The gospels are actually consistent in suggesting that the disciples remained in Jerusalem after the crucifixion.

Matthew 28:16  “The eleven disciples made their way to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to meet him”             There is no indication here that they fled Jerusalem immediately.

Mark 16:14  “Afterwards while the eleven were at table he appeared to them” , referring to an incident on the Sunday evening. (Although this may not have been in the original text)

Luke 24:33  “Without a moment’s delay they set out and returned to Jerusalem. There they found that the eleven and the rest of the company had assembled” .  This refers to the same incident as Mark’s report.

John 2:19  “Late that Sunday evening, when the disciples were together behind locked doors, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them”. This again refers to the same incident.

Acts 1:4  “While he was in their company he told them not to leave Jerusalem. ‘You must wait’, he said, ‘for the promise made by my father’ “.

Authorities could have arrested the disciples at the same time as Jesus but did not do so. After killing the ringleader, why bother with unimportant followers? 

My guess is that the disciples remained in Jerusalem for several weeks after the crucifixion before some of them returned to Galilee, and they certainly did not abandon the women.                          

It is generally agreed among critical scholars that the ending in Mark is late and secondary, and do not have an independent value. It is most likely concocted from the already known other gospel endings. Isolated, therefore, it has the appearance of creating harmony between the gospel resurrection stories.

The resurrection stories in Matthew do not allow for any appearances to the apostles before the incident on the Galilean mountain top. Matthew’s story is in fact little else than an expansion of Mark without the special ending. Matthew knew Mark 14:28 and expanded it. In fact, the original Mark also supposes that the first visions take place in Galilee. Thus, it is completely impossible to harmonize Matthew/Mark  and Luke on this point. 

Compare this to Luke’s treatment of Mark 16:7. He converted it into Luke 24:6, twisting the meaning completely, while at the same time omitting Mark 14:28 from his own rendering of the same pericope. Luke simply erased Galilee from the post-execution stories.

A modern , critical reader is immediately puzzled by the Galilean excursion. Why should they make this troublesome trip to listen to a short message?    It is all to clear that it is an apologetic construct devised to soften the sad fact that they most likely fled to Galilee, in place of trying to support their leader.