(9 votes, average: 4.56 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I discussed some of the important differences between our four Gospels in their accounts of Jesus’ trial before Pilate. Just read them, carefully, compare them in detail with one another, and see for yourself! I continue with that discussion here, and then look to see what we can say are (certainly? probably?) “distorted memories” of the event in our accounts. This again is taken from my book Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016).
******************************
Another difference in John’s account is that Jesus and Pilate have several extended conversations. Jesus is not silent before the accusations, as in the other accounts. Instead, he uses the charges brought against him to speak to Pilate about himself, his identity, his kingdom, and the truth. As in Luke, Pilate tries to release Jesus three times, but “the Jews” will not hear of it: they insist that Jesus be executed. Pilate finally brings Jesus outside and shows him to the Jews and tells them to “Behold your King.” The Jews urge him to crucify Jesus. Pilate asks whether they really want him to crucify their king, and the Jewish chief priests reply, “We have no king but Caesar.” Pilate then “handed him over to them to be crucified” (19:16)
This is a stunning sentence. When it says “to them,” whom does it mean? The closest (grammatical) antecedent is “the chief priests.” In this account, Pilate not only gives Jesus over to the will of the Jewish leaders and the people they represent as in Luke 23:25. He gives him over “to them” to be crucified. The Jewish authorities are literally responsible for Jesus’ death.
As we have seen, one indicator that an account may preserve a distorted memory is when it differs from another version of the same event in ways that cannot readily be reconciled. We should recall
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
How could any of Jesus’s followers know what was said to the Jewish authorities or Pilate and the events surrounding the crucifixion when they were in hiding?
They couldn’t!
There is a very simple explanation on how Jesus’ followers could have heard firsthand accounts of the trial. It is documented that Jesus appeared live after the crucifixion to his followers, so he could have told them himself. There are simple human explanations on how Jesus could have appeared live after the “crucifixion” without involving resurrection from death. All it would have taken was some level of interest from Pontius Pilate to prevent Jesus from dying on the cross. The Gospel writings suggest there was interest.
I was thinking that this is exactly what a Christian apologist would say, but I find two problems with that argument. If you assume that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead and appear to living followers, there is no gospel record that reports He told them about His trial. Did He tell them in detail what it was like to be dead for three days, or even how He reanimated? Once you start down the road of, “Jesus probably said…,” there are no limits to what words you can put in His mouth. As a side note, I’ve found it terribly odd that the gospels have so little to say about the resurrected Christ. The truth is, crucifixion was not unusual, yet we have a lot of detail about it. Resurrection is mind-blowing, yet we have little written about the myriad of encounters Jesus had with people. Why are there so few chapters devoted to this? My other major point is that John’s Jesus is very, very different from the synoptic figure. He is more articulate, more philosophical, almost a different personality.
I understand the parallel with Christian apologists. I particularly agree with the argument that the continuation of the Jesus movement after the crucifixion is strong evidence for Jesus appearing live afterward (see my guest post on 5/16/23 and associated discussion regarding an alternative to resurrection). The experience of followers (and Paul) who witnessed the “ultimate miracle” would have been motivation. Jesus’ “ministry”, before the crucifixion, was likely a miniscule movement, barely noticeable to the populace of Judea. If Jesus would have died on the cross, as had countless criminals of that time, the movement would have died with him. Why would followers continue promoting a dead person and/or his disjointed teachings that had nothing to do with Judaism? Why would they make up stories about having seen a living Jesus, or seriously fool themselves with self-hallucinations of the same?
Sightings of loved ones or other close people who have died are not all that uncommon. See for example the story of Appolonius – Bart discusses him in How Jesus Became God. So while it’s true that countless criminals died on the cross, Jesus had a dedicated group of followers who couldn’t accept that their charismatic leader had died, so much so that they may well have begun to see visions of him still alive. They then spent the next 20 years or so – that gap we have in Christian writings – figuring out what that meant. By the time Paul starts writing his letters, the basics of Christian theology – Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead – were in place.
Not definitive, but it seems to me a better explanation than that he somehow survived his crucifixion. The Romans were not about to let that happen.
I question the idea of charismatic. The only description we have for Jesus is that he was a “glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” (Matt 11:19, Luke 7:34) Jesus even admits he came “eating and drinking.” To be assigned a description of “glutton and drunkard” does not sound charismatic. It was noted he interfaced with tax collectors, which couldn’t have been popular with the people.
Regarding love from/for his family, the Gospels specifically call out an odd relationship. Jesus spoke of being without honor in his household (Matt 13:55-57, Mark 6:3-4), forsaking family (Matt 19:29, Mark 10:29), publicly standing up his family (Matt 12:47-50, Mark 3:32-35), and even proclaiming a requirement to hate family (Luke14:26). I don’t mean to be blunt, but this does not sound like a relationship where relatives would pine away at his loss more so than usual.
You can’t call “glutton and a drunkard” a description of Jesus; this is Jesus saying what his enemies were calling him, and he was rejecting their charges. As for charisma, the gospels are constantly talking about the adoring crowds he attracted – “And great crowds followed him from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and from beyond the Jordan” (Matt. 4:25). (Scholars have, indeed, long questioned the real size of the crowds; my point is that these reports describe a charismatic personality, so the reporters – the evangelists – believed he had one.)
For his apostles: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). It takes a charismatic personality to pull that off.
I never said his family pined for him (though mothers will forgive a lot, and his brother James evidently took over the leadership after him). My point was that his followers, his disciples, claimed to have seen him after he had died because they were pining for him.
Being followed by crowds is not necessarily a description of Jesus. I don’t believe the Gospels used the term “adoring” crowds. The crowds could have followed out of curiosity due to miracles he was staging. People have been known to stage miracles to gain attention. Witnessing perceived miracles can lead to a sense of awe and an image of charisma assigned to the performer. But I wonder how fleeting that would be.
“A glutton and a drunkard” are descriptions. You mention it was from his “enemies.” But who were his enemies? They were not necessarily evil, horrible people. They were probably normal people, devoted to their religious values, of which there were probably many in Jerusalem at that time.
I wasn’t meaning to be crass regarding the “pining away” comment. I was just trying to highlight an odd, almost negative family relationship documented in written accounts.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone having a vision of a passed loved one and then insisting that person is alive. I’ve personally had vivid dreams of my parents, that seemed very real and natural in the dream. But I have never woke up thinking, “Oh my gosh, they’re alive.”
An event that may have gone beyond miniscule was the mass-feeding “miracle” in the wilderness. The feeding of a few dozen people in the wilderness could have been staged to appear as a miracle. If it was hundreds or thousands, only a few organizations had the means to pull that off (Pontius Pilate?). Rome was well versed at feeding legions in remote areas.
Did the actions of a lone apocalyptic peasant who died on a cross spawn a religious offshoot of Judaism, or did Christianity inadvertently form from simple Roman meddling in Judea?
The portrayal of Pontius Pilate: was he really at all sympathetic to the Jews? I thought that ancient non Christian writers portrayed Pilate as hateful and resentful of the Jews. In fact, wasn’t he removed for being overly brutal in suppressing a minor Jewish disturbance in 37 CE by the Roman emperor? If so, this would militate against him having any respect for the Jewish leadership–regardless of his/their opinion of Jesus.
I have never heard this discussed by any scholars at all, but when asked if he was the King of the Jews, when Jesus deliberately evaded the direct answer, didn’t he actually lie overtly? If you accept the idea that he was God and he knew what his mission/purpose was and that in fact he was portrayed as the Messiah or at least some kind of leader, then why didn’t he just say: well, I’m really not the earthly king, but this is an abstract philosophical construct to give people the opportunity to experience eternal bliss in an afterlife? Instead he deceives the authorities so he can get crucified and pave the way to eternal life–seems ridiculous and dishonest to me–especially from the man made God, Jesus.
I’m glad you brought up the fact that according to the Gospel of John, only Pilate and Jesus would have been privy to much of the conversation. But according to all the Gospel accounts, Jesus’ followers had fled, and so none of them would have been present at the trial. And so even Jesus’ followers would have been hearing about the trial second-hand or third-hand or etc. How much complexity does that add to the problem of reconstructing what happened?
It probably moves the needle from “really difficult” to “ultimately impossible” (except in broad terms). I myself am not sure there even was a “trial.” There could well have been a simple condemnation. Something that too five seconds: Pilate “He says he’s WHAT?? OK, crucify him.”
Is there evidence that Pilate would have had the mindset of “He says he’s WHAT?? OK, crucify him?” The only written accounts from that time suggest Pilate was reluctant to crucify Jesus, and even “desired” to release him. I realize many members of this blog believe the positive image portrayed of Pilate in the Gospels evolved over decades. Evolved from what? Is there any evidence it evolved from your version? Or are you simply basing it on opinion the way it should have been? Is there any proof of earlier Jesus movement writings that had a tone of indifference relating to Pontius Pilate? In a related question, are there any early writings that showed less negativism towards Judean rejection of the movement?
Yes, if you think the Christian sources written by people who thought Jesus was the Son of God are probably reliable guides for what a ruthless pagan ruling authority who had never heard of jesus before would have thought about him, then you’d want to say that unlike what happened generally in Roman trials for seditionists, in this case Pilate would have been reluctant.
There may be some reliability from written accounts from that time by semi-intelligent people with literacy. There may be something to glean regarding the tone of human events beyond generalizations.
Regarding your reply, how do we know Pilate knew nothing of Jesus?
We have reason to believe Pontius Pilate was cruel, dishonest, and brutal. However, he ruled for ten years, so his personality, if we can begin to understand it, must have been complex. It is documented that he introduced images of Caesar in Jerusalem. Was he naive or was it an open challenge to Jewish religious culture? Can we assume his primary motivation was to impose Roman culture/religion? He removed the images after a five-day passive protest, which suggests character other than just cruelty. We also know Roman soldiers clubbed innocent protestors to death (men and women) in another incident. However, this could have been Roman soldiers going beyond bounds, out of control – maybe the first documented example of modern-day riot police with clubs, not weapons, except with disastrous results.
Whether Pilate was cruel/compassionate, brutal/naïve, greedy/generous, cowardice/brave, inept/competent, stable/obsessive-compulsive, eccentric/scheming, do any of these characteristics preclude him from attempting to manipulate religious forces (perceived source of populace resistance to paying taxes to Rome, perceived source of grassroot resistance to Roman authority, perceived source of social rejection of outside influences)? Doesn’t the imposing of Caesar’s image offer precedent to intent to manipulate/challenge religious forces?
I’d say it’s impossible to know what his motivatoin was; it’s usually thought, I believe, that he was trying to show in a rather concrete way that there was a new sheriff in town and he wasn’t going to put up with any nonsense. Nothing we know from the rest of his rule suggests that he was trying to Hellenize, Romanize, or deconvert Jews per se.
Two things I wish we knew:
Do we know of other cases brought before Pilate or any other Roman procurator/ governor where the High Priests request that a death sentence be sanctioned and executed by Rome, whether it is granted or not?
Which was the dominant motive for the demonisation of the Jews between Jesus’ death and the first written condemnation of all Jews : the alleged deicide- by recommending death- or their rejection of Jesus as…. whatever….Messiah, saviour,God, prophet ?
1. Nothing occurs to me off hand! 2. The charge of deicide came much later — it is first attested in Melito of Sardis at the end of hte second century; the rejection of Jesus the messiah goes all the way back to the earliest years of Xty.
Can we distinguish between “memory”,of whatever type or degree of veracity,and targeted marketing/missionary/propaganda?
“…where did the words of Jesus….come from? Someone must have invented them.They surely represent distorted memories”
If the lines were “invented”,for whatever purpose,they were not memories,accurate or not.They were literary,pious fictions entirely.
The nature of such inventions shows a lack of innocence and historic respect.These were tales made up to support a theology and build a religion.No actual “memories” (of any kind) were necessary.
As a Jewish Messiah,Jesus would have had at the very least to have been properly anointed(Messiah= annointed).A Devil’s advocate could claim that Bar-Kokhva wasn’t anointed either.Yet so many followed him as another Messiah.
Perhaps the most illegitimate item in Christian distortions and appropriations of Jewish belief, custom,written biblical history and patrimony is this issue of “not recognising their own Messiah”- “their”as “one and only”is factually false-betrays a wilful ignorance of the many Messiahs in Jewish history (HB) that were remembered as such( David,Solomon,Cyrus).This spurious accusation denotes how little they cared about inheriting God’s grace together with the Jews and how they preferred to disinherit, demonise and seek to annihilate them,positioning “their” triumphant Messianic foreign version upon their graves.Millions of Muslims still try to this day.
Yes, these are all important questions/considerations about memories and inventions, fabrications, etc.. I deal with the issues at some length in my book. One point to stress is that even if, say, someone “invented” the idea that Jesus walked on the water, today there are about two billion people in the world who think about the event as having happened (that is, they bring it to mind when they think about Jesus; and that’s what “remember” means — to bring a past event back to mind). So it *became* a memory even if it didn’t start as one.
So the entirety of Pilate’s encounter with the historical Jesus could have consisted of the governor pencil whipping a death warrant handed to him by an aide?
Absolutely. Well, minus the pencil….
But didn’t Paul call Jews Christ killers as well? How did he came to that conclusion?
He says the Judeans killed Jesus, yes. That was apparently what he heard. He doesn’t explain what he means. (And never mentions the name Pilate)
To rfleming:
Bart refers to Philo and Josefus portraying Pilate as brutal and harsh. In addition It was in 36 CE Pilate was removed by the Roman emperor Caligula for cruelty and stood trial. he was then ordered to commit suicide by said Emperor.
See this overview at Encyclopedia Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pontius-Pilate
This would certainly militate against Pilate’s deferential/submissive attitude to Jews and Jewish leadership.
In second reply to rfleming :
You seem to except traditional Christian writings on Pilate and other issues as a matter of faith while trying to poke wholes in standard logical historical analysis.
You criticize ancient Jewish writings as bias while not doing so in Christian apologetic claiming in some cases that Pilate became Christian and was considered for sainthood. Those traditions developing hundreds of years after the alleged events. you ignore the fact that someone with the moral deficiencies of Caligula considered Pilate too harsh (ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black) and had him removed–perhaps commanding his suicide. This sound like traditional Evangelical pseudo intellectual jumping jacks to me.
In a situation where information is scanty to say the least, the best way to analyze such evidence is the use of Occam’s razor–an approach strictly avoided by people using circuitous reasoning.
Tertullian (155-220 CE) in Apolojeticus, Chapter V, and Eusebius (260-339 CE) in Church History, Book 2, Chapter 2, also wrote that Pontius Pilate appealed to the Roman senate to have Jesus formally declared a god, but the senate rejected his request. I never meant to imply I interpret Pontius Pilate to be a saint, even though apparently some sects of Christianity consider him so.
Bart,
Whatever one thinks is historical in the Gospels, it seems to comprise only a very small *portion* of the Gospels overall. I’m curious if there are any other biographies (or whatever genre the Gospels are) that were written within seventy or so years after the person’s death where the historical core comprises such a small percentage of the total written record up to that point. Can you please give some examples, or are the Gospels exceptional in this regard?
Sure, there are no doubt lots of them, especially about religious figures. A more modern example would be the the founder of Hasidism; see Dan Ben-Amos and Jerome R. Mintz, eds., In Praise of The Baal Shem Tov [Shivhei ha-Besht]. (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1993).
Thank you. Sounds like a great example.