In Lecture 21 of his Great Courses+ lecture series, The Historical Jesus, Dr. Ehrman states that:
Unfortunately, we have no reliable way of knowing what happened when Jesus appeared before Caiaphas. In part, we are hampered by our sources. According to the accounts, the only persons present were Jesus and the Jewish rulers. Apparently, none of Jesus’ disciples was present.
However, in the Synoptics, Peter is said to have followed Jesus “at a distance” (Mark 14.54; Matthew 26.58; Luke 22.54). Furthermore, in John, both Peter and another, unnamed disciple followed Jesus and were even let into the facility (John 18.15-16). According to Luke, Peter was close enough that he could see Jesus and Jesus could see him (23.61). So, when it comes to what our accounts tell us, Dr. Ehrman just gets this one wrong. Of course, one could doubt whether the accounts are accurate and present reasons for thinking that its claims are false on this point. However, that’s not precisely the concern Dr. Erhman raised here; he raised the concern of what is “according to the accounts” and he misstated what the accounts record.
But aren’t you misinterpreting Ehrman’s comments? In these stories the disciples remain on the margins. Outside looking in. None of them were in the room with Jesus and Pilate. None of them attended the “trial” before the Sanhedrin.
Although these episodes make great theater, I doubt they’re historical. Most likely the historical Jesus would have been arrested immediately on the Temple mount for any kind of disturbance big or small. And that would have been more than sufficient to get him crucified. A personal interview with the governor? The Romans had no judicial bureaucracy? The stories are there because they make the points the gospel writers wanted to make. In that sense they are true stories.
Why do we insist on imposing concrete certainty and detail on a story that intends only to be suggestive and full of wonderment and mystery? Neither confidence nor doubt can be conclusive, nor serve as “proof.” The story as we have it has threads that sometimes agree and sometimes conflict, include some that we find hard to accept at face value and omit much that we might like to know. The Victory statue in the Louvre is lacking arms and a head. We can admire the statue as it now exists or drown our admiration of what survives in a focus on the loss. It has a power as it remains.
Stephen said
The stories are there because they make the points the gospel writers wanted to make. In that sense they are true stories.
I just don’t understand this attitude towards truth. Bald-faced lies often make the point that the liar wants to make (that is why the liar tells them in the first place), but that doesn’t make them true.
A witness in a trial might be absolutely convinced that the accused is guilty, and he might therefore claim under oath to have seen things (which he did not in fact see) that establish the accused’s guilt beyond any doubt, but the fact his testimony makes the point he wants to make (and even if that point–that the accused is in fact guilty–is true) that doesn’t mean his testimony is true.
But if we just go by the standard of “did the representation make the point the speaker wanted to make” then even a person who knows the accused is innocent and still bears false witness against him to secure a conviction would still be telling the “truth” because his false testimony made the point he wanted to make; it just happens the point he wanted to make was a point he knew to be false.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)