Loading...An important question I’ve received from another scholar who is interested in New Testament studies but is an expert in a different field.
QUESTION:
Have you ever encountered the argument that the Gospels’ portrayal of Pilate giving in to the crowd’s call for Jesus’ death could be possible in as much as Pilate would have wanted to avoid a riot and so acquiesced for that reason? I am wondering whether this is an old apologist argument of some sort?
RESPONSE:
It is a great question and it has an easy answer. Yes I have indeed. This is a standard argument made by people, including scholars, who think that the Gospel accounts are entirely reasonable and probably accurate. It’s the view I myself had for years. The idea behind it is pretty simple, and works in easily delineated stages:
- Jesus was exceedingly controversial among the crowds in Jerusalem.
- His trial was a major public event.
- The Jewish leaders were intent on having him executed, and they stirred up the crowd by having them shout for Jesus to be crucified.
- Pilate saw that a riot could be starting.
- He didn’t himself think Jesus had done anything to deserve the death sentence; but in order to placate the crowds, he handed Jesus over to be crucified.
The reason this is a popular explanation is that, well, it’s exactly what the Gospels themselves say. So for most people you don’t need to mount an argument that this is what actually happened. Instead, you simply say, “Yup, that sounds reasonable!
The question is whether it actually is reasonable. That is, whether it is plausible given what we know, historically, about how things happened at the time. We can imagine it happening this way, to be sure. But is that our imagination (fueled by Hollywood movies) or is it actually plausible, historically?
Here’s the short story from my end: I absolutely don’t think it’s what happened. In fact, I think just about everything about the imagined scenario …
The rest of this post is for blog members. You too can join this elite crowd of informed readers, interested in the historical Jesus and figuring out what actually happened in his life. Join the blog!
>Jesus was an unknown itinerant preacher from a rural backwater who went with a group of his disciples to Jerusalem to bring his message there during a Passover feast. Lots of other preachers did the same.
Just from modern experience, it does seem likely that street-corner preachers would have been common in Jesus’ time, particularly considering the unsettled social conditions then. But do we have any records of them, any comments in contemporary writings?
Josephus mentions them (he’s about our only source for first century Israel)
Of course there were street preachers in Jerusalem. They are clearly shown in the documentary about Jesus contemporary Brian.
Yeah, that’s what I’m thinkin’…. (I find them hilarious; when I first saw the movie, I was quite offended by the implications)
One of my favorite scenes. A great rubbing of parts! Yae! Just kills me
“Pilate would have held the trial in his Praetorium, in a space designed for public duties.”
It’s nice to know that – once again – Life of Brian got it right.
So much for Bart, but what do the Gospels say?
John Baptist was quite popular. He was seen as an OT prophet, which technically he was. His attack upon religious rulers forced a breach.
Jesus was more famous than John. His name had spread to neighboring countries.
A group of open-minded religious Jews came from all Israel to see him. Maybe ten-fifteen thousand people also came to him from all Israel, on foot and pre-arranged.
Jesus was ignored by most of the religious establishment, the scribes and Barts of the day.
Jesus was known to Herod and to the Romans, for obvious reasons. And he was left alone because he was respected and apolitical.
You would have had to have been a ‘stranger in Israel’ not to know of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion.
The crowds that Jesus drew put fear into the hearts of the Sanhedrin, and this explains his illegal overnight trial.
Afterwards many priests and ordinary Jews came out of Judaism when they saw Jesus was the suffering Redeemer of their Tanakh.
The fact that Josephus ignored Jesus speaks volumes. Here was a huge Jewish movement effecting the Roman Empire – the empire that wanted to know about the Hebrews.
Yes, if you think the Gospels don’t have any mistakes or exaggerations in them, you certainly don’t need historians! But, then again, you are indeed filling in the gaps with your imagination, so that should always be taken into account.
Gawd said it. I believe it. That settles it.
I know there is a disputed quotation from Josephus which cites the crucifixion of Jesus. So, the death of Jesus was given more significance in that passage than what you give it in your post. Given that Josephus was writing at a later date, do you think he was using Christian sources for the story? Or, are you of the opinion that the disputed passages were inserted by scribes at an even later date?
I think he must have ultimately heard about it from someone who had heard about it from Christians, since I’m pretty sure no one else was talking about it.
In context, Josephus was using the incident of Jesus’s crucifixion as yet one more example of how Pilate was so unusual cruel, venal and inept at Jewish-Roman relations that he stood out from other prefects. Also bear in mind that this passage in Josephus was so heavily edited by later Christian copyists that there has been 400 years of debate over what he actually wrote.
Sample point: The passage (Testamonium Flavianum) as it reads today says Jesus was the Christ. But when the third century Church father Origen cites this passage as evidence that Pilate existed, he adds that Josephus didn’t believe Jesus was Christ. So we can be sure that part was added later.
Are there reasons to believe that Jesus expected the apocalypse to happen during the Passover celebrations before he was arrested? The overturning the tables of the money lenders in the temple makes it appear as though he was raising a ruckus, as if he expected a big event to occur at any moment. And I’ve always wondered whether Judas turned Jesus in as a way to spark events, which obviously didn’t turn out well (in the short term at least.)
It’s hard to say. That’s pretty much teh view Albert Schweitzer had (about Jesus expecting God to intervene if he went to jerusalem). As to Judas, it’s one of the four or five good guesses! Another, e.g., is that he was disappointed that events did *not* get sparked and thought Jesus had backed out of it.
What you say is completely reasonable, and very sobering. Even scary. Never, ever, underestimate the power of a cult. They are indeed dangerous. I’m not accusing Jesus of being a cult leader. He wasn’t a Jim Jones or David Koresh. He was a victim of circumstances, if anything. But the people who came later, especially Paul… it seems to me that if human beings were generally saner and more inclined to think things through, Christianity might never have happened. A lot of other things, like the Holocaust, might never have happened. What sort of species are we?
Dr E you are the king of requiring that arguments be based on evidence. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this position? Are there any witnesses either early or late to corroborate this theory?
Yes, there’s evidence, but it is not eyewitness evidence. As you know, historians always make sustained arguments based on all sorts of factors: known conditions at the time, patterns of events otherwise established, plausibility, possibility, and so on. I talk about the event more in my book Jesus Befoer the Gospels.
So, over time, the stories about Jesus got embellished and exaggerated into what the Gospel authors wrote. Do we think the Gospel authors thought they were writing actual historical facts?
We don’t have any way of knowing, since we don’t even know who they were or anything much about them. (It’s hard enough to get into someone’s mind in sustained therapy, seeing them regularly in person) (Hey, now I’m on other peoples’ turf!)
Yes, Dr Ehrman’s description of Jesus’ trial sounds very plausible. I would add that Hollywood has certainly added to the impression of grandeur that most people now associate with this episode. Ben Hur (1959), in particular, has Judea as ‘a jewel in the crown’ province, policed by several legions under Pilate as a viceroy governor general. In reality, Pilate was a minor colonial administrator commanding a handful of auxiliary troops (as an equestrian- middle class- Roman he was not eligible to command a legion of citizen soldiers) in a tiny backwater province. The later Jewish revolt and the vast manpower required to suppress it may have retrospectively amplified Judea’s (and perhaps also Jesus’) importance in the eyes of later generations.
But you need to see the 1925 *silent* Ben Hur! Ramon Navarro — fantastic!
You seem to accept as probable all the diminishing possibilities and reject as exaggeration all of the positive possibilities. One fact can’t be disputed though — Jesus and his followers are the most unlikely historical figures ever. The conversation between Pilate and Jesus could have taken place exactly as described, and has key features we often take for granted. The highest-ranking Roman heard capital cases. The accused faced his accuser(s). The accused could speak in his own defense. What did Pilate ask? Some silly question about truth, which would have given the accused a chance to hurl a personal insult and end the process, or to engage in a philosophical discussion that would have entertained and possibly enlightened the head of the occupying forces. And, although the masses had just laid palm leaves on the ground in front of Jesus as he rode into town, he denied he was any threat to the Roman occupiers by explaining, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
“One fact can’t be disputed though — Jesus and his followers are the most unlikely historical figures ever.”
Of course it can. What was so unusual about them? They appear typical of the people and the times. Perhaps you mean because a religious group preserved legends about them? How did you compare them to stories of others in ancient history and later? Doesn’t the story of Muhammed and God picking him for his prophet also show unlikely historical figures? What about Joseph Smith? Doesn’t his story show God picking unlikely characters?
There are plenty of legends and stories out there about unlikely historical figures.
Thank you for the clarification Dr. Ehrman.
You mentioned that Pilate probably regularly handled cases where non-romans from time to time gathered, planned and conversed publicly about overthrowing the Roman government, the reason we don’t have true or exaggerated records of others but Jesus is because their followers didn’t start telling stories after their leaders’ execution or their stories didn’t gain traction? And since these are relatively common occurrences Romans themselves didn’t care to keep records of the executions?
Yes, the Romans squashed any opposition they heard about, or any rumors of opposition. Romans didn’t keep track of any of their executions; 99.99% of their trials have/had no record.
What do we know about street preachers (both Jewish and pagan) other than Jesus and John the Baptist? Do we have reliable sources on them? Do they get in trouble with government authorities?
Someone should do a study of this — maybe some have! The only ones I know about come from Josephus; and they did indeed get in trouble if they said anything incendiary. I think I’ll devote a post to this down the line.
At such a highly charged time and in such a significant locale would it have been possible for there to have been a “small” ruckus in the Temple during Passover? (With the authorities on guard for just this kind of occurrence?)
Doesn’t it seem likely that the historical Jesus would have been arrested immediately at the Temple as the result of any kind of disturbance? Any such “acting out” would have been considered an implicit attack on the Temple system and thus punishable by crucifixion. Isn’t that the simplest historical explanation as to why Jesus met his fate?
The Roman guards would have been outside, not within. If he just overturned a table or two and shouted for a bit, in the broad commotion otherwise, it may not have been much noticed.
What do we know about these “tables” that is said to have been “overthrown”. Are we talking about some solid benches with guards or some picnic zigzag folding table staffed by one person? An attack on the former would have led to immediate arrest, or ?
We have no record of them, so there is no way to know.
The temple priests warned Pilate: “If you let this man go you are no friend of Caesar.”
No matter how busy you are, you would remember such a chilling sentence. It was Pilate’s number one job to stamp out revolutionaries fighting the imperial system. It can’t have been every week, even in such a religiously fanatical place as Jerusalem, to have someone presented to you as being “King of the Jews”.
The temple priests had a reputation of going behind the governor’s back and complaining directly to Caesar if they didn’t get their way. Tiberius would have gone mad at Pilate’s leniency in letting Jesus go. In AD 31, his trusted Praetorian Guard chief, Sejanus, plotted to kill Tiberius and install himself as emperor in Rome. In revenge, Sejanus was executed along with his wife and children. Pilate would recall this and tremble. He must have had a sharp mind to be Roman governor in so troublesome a place as Judea. For his part, Jesus remained calm throughout his trial. Pilate would remember that serenity. Anyone would. Not for a few weeks, but for a lifetime.
We have no way of knowing what Jesus said or how he conducted himself apart from stories told later. And that applies to every event in his life, including the trial. Of course, we have no idea what the temple priests might have said either. So much fiction, so much invention, so many gaps filled by myth and fantasy.
I’m guessing the stories of Jesus’ importance and popularity during his trial must have seemed believable to Christians decades after Jesus died. After all, if a guy can rise from the dead, is there any great thing he cannot do? But, as you’ve pointed out, it’s not historically plausible.
Interesting discussion!
Quote – “Yes, if you think the Gospels don’t have any mistakes or exaggerations in them, you certainly don’t need historians! But, then again, you are indeed filling in the gaps with your imagination, so that should always be taken into account.”
What portion of my post was ‘your imagination’ ? I stated the Gospels position. It’s there black and white.
I had a supposition about Josephus but then can YOU explain why he ignored Jesus, but gave us half a book on Herod’s family problems?
Really? Read what you said, and then read the Gospels. you are filling in the gaps. that’s what everyone does.
I find it hard to know what to make of the claims that it was the Romans who wanted Jesus dead, versus the claims that it was the Jewish leaders who wanted him dead. Is that all lost to history? (Sure, we have the gospels, but I suspect we cannot trust them, as the writers would certainly have their own agendas.)
It’s really hard to say. The early Christians pointed fingers at the Jewish leaders, but they had every reason to try to be on the good side of the Romans and they despised those who would not admit that Jesus was their messiah — so it’s very hard indeed to cut through the bias. It is fair to say, though, and enlightening, that over time, in the Christian stories the Jews became far more guilty and the Romans far less. If that trajectory traces all the way to the beginning of the Xn movement … it’s hard to say how to work out the relative “guilt.”
In 2011 my wife and I were in Israel and we visited the Church of the Incarnation. It had a profound effect on me. Seeing the bickering between the different Christian groups in charge, a painting of a Jew who be being tortured because he would not disclose the location of the tomb, the fact that Constantine’s mother wanted to find the tomb worked on me. A few weeks later when I had returned to the U.S. I woke up thinking what if Jesus just rotted on the cross. I knew the gospels very well. After a few hours on the internet I was convinced that Joseph of Arimathea was made up. Within a year I came to your conclusion that the scene before Pilate was made up. I now am very angry because I know the line “His blood be on us and our children” was used the justify the Holocaust. I believe you were considering writing about anti semitism. I found James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword is very troubling. This is a painful topic but I am afraid we must face it.
Do you by any chance mean you visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?
Thanks for the correction. I did mean the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It had Christ’s Tomb.
I’d add that, according to the gospels, the priests turned the crowd against Jesus. That’s the same crowd that, according to the gospels, was hailing Jesus as messiah just the day before. Also, the priests would have had to start their program around midnight, after a full day of sacrificing for Passover, and after everyone had gone to sleep.
This post makes me think how different the historical Jesus might be compared to what most people have in mind. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve ever thought, even as an agnostic/atheist, that it would be amazing if you could somehow have a chat with the historical Jesus (say if time machines were real). Have you ever thought, if given the opportunity, you might actually be disappointed? What he actually thought and taught might be very different from what even a scholar of early Christianity thinks likely. Perhaps he wasn’t even as charismatic as you’d might think.
Oh my god. I think about it all the time. And have for many many years.
Look for the sf novel Behold The Man by Michael Moorcock.
Bart,
Your explanation of how Jesus’ death occurred is reasonable and about as convincing as possible given historical knowledge. I was left with the thought; How could a “situation” so minor and unknown have grown into the Christian world we have today! It boggles the mind. I think everything you’ve written contributes to an understanding of how it snowballed as it did. Maybe it met the needs of human nature (the religion altered and fine tuned to do so, bit by bit, over hundreds of years) in combination with beating the longest odds imaginable.
Yup, it’s very long odds. Then again, most of what we experience every day is very long odds, when you think about it. What are the chances? Not good, for most everything. But yup, something of this signfiicance is pretty mind boggling.
If Jesus really was as insignificant as suggested and hardly anyone in Jerusalem had heard of him, then why did so many people believe claims of his resurrection that it was worthwhile for Paul to persecute them?
Why would anyone who had not previously heard about Jesus care what the disciples claimed?
Ah, now *that’s* an important issue! I deal with it at some length in my book The Triumph of Christianity. Short answer: at first very few people did believe it. But some did and they convinced a few others who convinced a few others. It appears they were convincing to some! Just as claims of miracles today are convinding to some, but not to the vast majority. But if a few believe and each of them convinces a few and each of them convinces a few … it goes like that.
The conversion process that you describe is very slow at first and in your blog post of April 23 2013 you suggest that the movement started with about 20 people a few weeks after Jesus’s death. In that case, there would surely not have been enough people to bother persecuting for many years.
Other estimates, such as that by Rodney Stark, suggest about 1,000 Christians by 40CE, which is remarkable if they were mostly in Jerusalem.
After the crucifixion, how long do you suppose it took before the disciples started proclaiming Jesus’s resurrection? How much time then elapsed before Paul started persecution? This must have happened before 37CE if Paul then spent 3 years in Damascus before the death of King Aretas in 40CE.
Is it reasonable to estimate that, between the two extremes, there were not 20 but about 200 committed followers at the time of the crucifixion, doubling to about 400 rather than 1,000 by 40CE, then increasing rapidly due to Paul’s work? This would not have been a significant proportion of the overall population but would have given the movement a solid start and been enough to cause concern to the authorities, as the evidence suggests.
If you’re really interesetd in the subject I deal with it at length, crunching the numbers, in Triumph of Christianity. I wrote Stark about his 1000 number and explained why I didn’t think it could possibly be write, and he replied that it probalby was too high. But there were certainly some Xns around, and Paul happened to hearsome of them. I do not thnk there could have been 200 followrs of Jesus at the crucifixion; the NT would have said so, and nothing anywhere else suggests it.
Would what happened at Jesus’s trial (The original question in this post) have depended on the number of followers he had at that time?
Even if NT accounts of crowds accompanying Jesus in Jerusalem and Paul’s claim to have persecuted the church of God are exaggerated, what evidence justifies a conclusion that when Jesus was crucified he only had about 20 followers?
It seems probable however that only family members were present at the crucifixion.
The NT itself indicates that his twelve disciples went with him, and a handful of women. That’s where the number 20 comes from. (He didn’t have any followers in Jerusalem yet because he had never been there; and there’s no indication that anyone else came with him from Galilee or that anyone else who had come from Galilee independently was one of his followers) How many people first believed he had been raised from the dead? The same ones. So that’s where it all begins.
Bart, is it a problem that if Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the eve of the Sabbath along with two other men, the bodies could be left on crosses during the sabbath, depending on when each one died, and thus creating religious pollution? I see anxiety over this issue depicted only in John. Is that anxiety on the part of the priests simply invented by the author of the Fourth Gospel? Or, if that anxiety should have been their attitude, wouldn’t Pilate know of the problem and not order crucifixions on the eve of the sabbath?
It would definitely be a problem for Jews. It would not at all be a problem for Romans, who didn’t give a damn about local rules and customs when it came to punishing sedition.
Regarding the “cleansing of the Temple” I read an interesting comment somewhere but cannot recall where that I think is very pertinent if it is considered that this act incited The animosity of the authorities. The comment was that the area used by the money changers and sellers of sacrificial animals was the size of a football pitch (English or American makes little difference). Given that it would have been packed with pilgrims (estimates vary but most seem to be in the 10’s of thousands) one man creating a disturbance would have been hardly noticeable and would have hardly been likely to have attracted the attention of the authorities. If it was anything like modern large gatherings disturbances must have been commonplace no?
The temple area was enormous: more like 25 football fields.
I stand corrected – I knew it was large so even less likely to have been noticed. One might ask as to whether disturbances in this area were commonplace? I have no recollection of reading of any.
There were disturbances there recorded by Josephus, involving conflicts between Romans and Jews. And there was some ratherserious polemic against the temple in some quarters, including the Essenes who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Bart,
I very much enjoyed this informative post. Although this discussion thread has raised the topic of Josephus several times, I’d still appreciate some clarification.
If Jesus was relatively unknown in Jerusalem as well as throughout most of the land of Israel, why did Josephus even bring him up?
Tacitus also talked about Jesus but in the case of Tacitus, I think I understand why. Tacitus was describing the great fire of Rome and how the Christian sect in Rome was scapegoated and persecuted by Nero. So in that context, Tacitus explained what he knew about the Christians, the origins of their sect, that Jesus had been crucified, etc.
I get confused in the case of Josephus. I’m aware that many things Josephus purportedly wrote about Jesus were actually later interpolations by biased Christian writers and apologists. If those things can be put aside, why would Josephus have brought up the topic of Jesus at all? Was it also to describe a Jewish sect that had developed and was apart from mainstream Judaism like the Pharisees? Was Josephus simply trying to record the history of this new sect?
Thank you.
Joesphus was writing about 65 years after Jesus death, and says very little about him, in contrast with hundreds of other figures in his book — including a number named Jesus. He mentions him mainly in connection with other people of intersted (John the Baptist, Pilate)
Do you think Paul’s persecutions of Christians may have been tied to who was listening to the prosthelitizers? If God-fearing gentiles were listening and accepting Jewish religious views, a subgroup of Jews saying “Yep this is all true, but let me tell you about how it is fulfilled in my Lord and savior JC” could have been enraging. We know Paul says he was beaten and nearly killed several times for doing just this. This could also explain a. Why he was on the way to Damascus with a “warrant” (always a WTH to me) and b.why he felt converting the gentiles was his life’s work.
I don’t know, but I wish I did. BUt the warrant for arrests in Damascus cannot be right — the high priest in Jerusalem had no jurisdiction outside of Jerusalem. As to converting gentiles: I have a discussion of this in my book The Triumph of Xty, in a chapter I devote to Paul’s conversion and its consequences.
Makes sense to me. On a related subject. Was Jesus buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea? If not, what do you think happened to the body?
I think that’s a legend. My sense is that Jesus was left to rot on the cross and his remains were eventually disposed of in a common grave.
Thank you! Very interesting!
Was Herod a common name for kings back then? According to Matthew Joseph took the infant Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod and didn’t return until Herod died. But in one of the other books Herod was still around to imprison John the Baptist and behead him after he sent one of his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the “one”.
It was the family name. There are three Herods in the NT. Herod the great, who ruled all of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee when Jesus was born; his son Archilaus who took his place as ruler in Judea when he died (the other parts were ruled by others), and Herod Antipas, his grandson, who ruled when the church started out and is mentioned in Acs.
Thanks much for your reply, that clears that up at least. A few years back (way before your blog) you took the time to respond to an email I sent about the two different genealogies of Jesus in Luke and Matthew and I really appreciate you took the time. So glad I happened to hear about your blog on a You-tube episode of yours.
Tom
How likely is it that in order to gain favor and placate their Roman overlords during a possibly tense time in Judea between the Jews and Romans, the leaders of the Jewish people gave up Jesus, not because they ever saw him as a threat, but in order to demonstrate their intolerance for even a hint of rebellion or insurrection? Especially to someone like Pilate? After all, they want to keep relative independence and would hate to lose their temple again if things boil over with the Romans.
I’d say that’s possible, yes.
Bart – it’s possible that Jesus made much more of an impact that week and there was much more impetus to get rid of him? It could’ve burned bright for a few days then quickly forgotten. In your theory, I just don’t see how a person so insignificant with hardly any followers would bring about a crucifixion even if he was saying he’s the king of the Jews. In Roman eyes, he clearly wasn’t or would ever likely be King. Why would they bother? Wouldn’t they just laugh him and his accusers out of “court?”
Actually the Romans did that kind of thing a lot. It’s not that they thought that someone like Jesus would actually be a threat. They wanted everyone know graphically what would happen if anyone said *anything* against Roman rule, as a rather serious disincentive. Most of the time it worked….
Thanks for the reply Bart. Food for thought! Merry Christmas to you and everybody on the blog ?
The idea that Jesus brought to (or inspired in) Jerusalem more than a score of followers is — to put it charitably — unlikely.
The specifics in the gospels WRT the trial are also undoubtedly pure fiction. There was no tradition whereby a Roman governor granted clemency to honor a Jewish festival. Pilate’s putative disavowal of this miscarriage of justice in a pretentious, ritual ablution (per Matthew and Peter) is equally absurd. Nor could any of the gospel authors have had transcripts of trial testimony (from the Praetorium court reporter? 🙄)
OTOH…
Although Pilate would surely not have spent much time on Jesus’ trial, I suspect he didn’t give it quite as short a shrift as, for instance, the other, two cases he heard that morning.
The charge that an impoverished and unconnected peasant from the hinterlands had proclaimed himself “King of the Jews” is ludicrous on its face. Further, the motives of the wealthy and well-connected Temple leaders (whom he probably did not hold in especially high esteem) bringing this bizarre accusation were correspondingly suspect.
Don’t the ubiquitous legends about the trial suggest that there must be *some* historical basis for Pilate having objected to this Sadducee railroading of a harmless, vagabond preacher?
He certainly objects in our sources; but the sources, of course, are also interested in both vindicating the Romans (Pilate) and castigating the Jews (Sadducees). So it’s not clear that they are bias free on the point. My view is that Pilate was quite happy to get ride of a potential trouble-maker. He wouldn’t have given a damn one way or the other.
No doubt about the push/pull on both sides. Proselytizing gospel authors had to exonerate Pilate to lay blame on Caiaphas & Co. The perturbed Prefect’s wish to get on with his day was probably exceeded only by his lack of concern for a nobody peasant from Galilee.
But a reputation for ruthlessness and being nobody’s fool are usually complimentary characteristics. The governor surely must have noticed that he was being played by the Temple glitterati — who didn’t have the authority to eliminate this (apparently delusional, but plainly harmless), bumpkin embarrassment.
Pilate’s ticket out of East Wasteland and back to decent society depended on keeping the peace and the revenues flowing. But getting mostly positive aristocracy evaluations at the end of the semester certainly wouldn’t hurt.
OTOH wouldn’t a disgruntled functionary, consigned to an ignominious outpost on the remote frontier, have made some, minimal effort to actually *do* his job? What else was there to occupy his time? Aside, of course, from taking any opportunities to have a bit of sport with Yahweh’s ignoranimus minions.
Plus there’s the (with apologies to Anthony Quinn) legendary “Barabbas.” Can this — independently attested — tale be as ex nihilo as Matthew’s “wisemen from the east”?
I would say he was indeed doing his job. He lasted ten years there. Then again, he was excessively brutal in doing it at times.
Though it would cost us what may be our most ubiquitous, cultural cliché, the scene of Pilate ostentatiously disclaiming responsibility for the death of Jesus (“All the myrrh of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.” 😏) strikes me as being a premier example of an author taking dramatic license.
Assuming you also suspect this is fiction, do you think that Matthew invented the story himself, or that it was a part of the oral tradition that simply escaped the notice of the other three gospel authors?
Do you count Peter’s version as independent attestation, or deduce that he got it from Matthew?
On Matthew: I wish we had some way to know. On Peter: you mean the Gospel of Peter? It’s much debated. I suppose today (I sometimes flip a coin) I think he knew Matthw. But (on other days) I think they both had heard the same tradition.
As you have pointed out, there is nothing in the record (including all the gospels) that even hints of Jesus ever having publicly proclaimed himself “King of the Jews.”
Your inference — that the charge must have been based on private conversations about Messianic Destiny he had with his inner circle, rather than merely arranging for an expeditious arrest, that Judas actually betrayed — makes perfect sense.
But that means the case against Jesus depended entirely on the testimony of his turncoat disciple. So how could he have been tried — twice — without the star witness (in fact, make that the ONLY witness) to his alleged sedition either time?
(I note BTW that you have several threads on the related tale of Barabbas; so I will review your comments and insights on the historicity of that better-attested anecdote — and take my irksome questions 😉 — there.)
In the Roman world no witnesses were required. Just a charge and a plausible reason for believing it.
WRT Matthew: Given Pilate’s well-attested reputation for ruthlessness (per even independent, secular sources such as Josephus, Philo, etc.) from which you very reasonably deduce both his likely disregard for the Jewish rabble and intolerance of any who would rouse their fellows, isn’t it safe to say that his making a ceremonious show of ritually disavowing responsibility for the death of Jesus is (not to put too fine a point on it) implausible? If so, why not just straightforwardly say that IYHO it never happened?
WRT Peter: Yes, I was referring to the once-was-lost-but-now-is-found gospel attributed to him. Do the textual-critical tools you apply to the original Greek (that so persuasively demonstrate literary dependence of both Matthew and Luke on Mark) either incline towards Peter’s independent authorship derived from oral tradition or that this author more likely plagiarized Matthew?
I about didn’t reply because I didn’t know what WRT meant; I thought it was someone’s initials and you were replying to them. 🙂
1. Yes that’s reasonable and yes, I have said I don’t believe it happened. 2. That’s precisely the debated point, and the matter is less clear because the signs of dependence are much fainter. I think they are too faint. Others think they are clear as day.
Aside from all the indications that Pilate would not have been sanguine about being reduced to a rubber stamp for an obvious, Temple agenda, there is also the earlier trial by the Sanhedrin.
Even if there were no rules of evidence for the praetorium hearing, all three, synoptic gospels express — in substantial detail — the importance of witness testimony.
“Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree.” (Mk 14:55-56//Mt 26:59-60), culminating in the reaction of the High Priest to Jesus’ own testimony: “Why do we still need witnesses?” (Mk 14:63//Mt 26:65//Lk 22:71)
Even John’s somewhat muddled account (entangling Caiaphas’ father) emphasizes the importance of testimony, including by Peter and an unnamed disciple, as well as from Jesus, himself, who says: “Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.” (Jn 18:21)
How could even a kangaroo court have heard so much testimony, yet failed to get a statement from Judas “the betrayer” — the star (and perhaps, ONLY, non-perjuring) witness to support their accusations?
Good question. My view is that there was no trial before the Sanhedrin. Jewish leaders had Jesus arrested and handed over to the Romans.
😨 Apologies, professor, for my use of “WRT” (With Regard To) since you specifically requested some time ago that I refrain from employing such initialisms.
It was, I will note (though not attempt to excuse), merely my unthinking reversion to speaking Bloggian — which isn’t one of your many languages ☺️. Especially in a post that was nowhere near the 200-word border.
Responding to all the member questions you get must be task enough without the hindrance of a “WTF??” (Why The Face?)
😳 While orthodox apologists are undoubtedly (and repeatedly) shocked by your deconstructions of their “sacred” scripture, I must say even this unapologetic heretic finds discounting the very *existence* of a trial by the Sanhedrin to be quite a provocative proposition!
Are you untroubled by transforming 72 verses — across all *four* gospels — into entirely fabricated, post hoc legend? Virgin births and empty tombs pale by comparison!
If, indeed, the quite detailed accounts of the putative, dead-of-night, legal machinations by Caiaphas & Co. are pure fiction, it would certainly go a long way towards reducing the complicity of Jewish officialdom in orchestrating the execution of Jesus. Further, it would dramatically rehabilitate the reputation of Peter in the process — since such a supposition, presumably, removes the coincident tale of his (distinctly unRocklike) pusillanimity, as well.
This (for me, startling) reassessment of the Temple conspiracy to terminate Jesus “with extreme prejudice” makes even the dubious historicity of the infamous, phantom insurrectionist, Jesus bar Abbas, pale to insignificance!
Is this a considered conclusion based on additional factors/evidence that you have detailed elsewhere? Or is it merely a hypothesis that would account for the conspicuous-by-his-absence Judas from the proceedings (by simply eliminating the trail altogether)?
I don’t know of instances in which the Sanhedrin tried capital cases to forward on to Roman authorities. But I’m happy to hear of some! (And to have a formal trial on the Passover?!?)
Jesus was not an ordinary farmer, on the contrary, he was a successful scammer who impersonated the Messiah by performing false miracles and engaged in false charity to deceive money. According to the records in the New Testament, Jesus’ team successfully deceived a lot of money.
So the cause of Jesus’ death should be blasphemy and deception, which is consistent with the reaction of the masses. And it would never be inciting rebellion, as this is inconsistent with Pilate’s reaction.
Jesus’ team was a cult team that deceived money.
If scholars avoid this unbearable fact, then their other explanations can only be far from the truth, just like the New Testament authors two thousand years ago.