Steven Carr

His reluctance to crucify Barabbas was even more of a fiction.

Why didn't Pilate have the disciples crucified?

Rather than have the story told that his soldiers would sleep on guard duty?

neilgodfrey

We have both historical and fictional narrations of crucifixions from this general era. We also have details of triumphal processions with which to compare the crucifixion scene of Mark. The triumphal allusions are in the naming of the place of crucifixion as the place of the skull, the beginning of a procession from the Praetorium with a cohort, the enlistment of a country yokel to carry the weapon of sacrifice ahead of the victim, the mocking of the bystanders, . . . . these are all found in the narratives of triumphal processions but I know of none in accounts of historical and fictional crucifixions.

Neil

spamandham

If Jesus represented Jewish messianic dreams, the passion might have started out as a Roman comedy designed to mock the foolish messianic Jews who's dreams of independence resulted in their own destruction - they basically forced Rome to destroy themselves.

ApostateAbe

OK, you are right. Ehrman should have said, "In all of our other early sources (except the letters of Paul which do not give the name of the man who gave the order for crucifixion), the Roman governor Pilate is said to be responsible." Ehrman knows full well that the letters of Paul are the earliest sources of Jesus. He seems to pass over them, perhaps because they contain very few details of Jesus in comparison to the gospel accounts.

ApostateAbe

Yes, the part of Barabbas does strike me as fictional, though I don't know for sure. It just seems like an unlikely thing for Pilate or a functional justice system to do.

Pilate didn't have the disciples crucified probably because he thought it wasn't necessary. To destroy a cult, you need only to destroy the leader, at least most of the time. Normally, cult members are only suckers. Not in this case, obviously (Peter, James and John took up leadership), but that is how it would have appeared at the time. Pilate couldn't have reasonably anticipated the cult being sustained by a resurrection myth.

ApostateAbe

OK, I think I get what you are saying. You are saying that the "triumphal procession" in the gospel accounts was something like a triumph of the Romans, and Jesus was a conquered victim. That could very well be. I thought you were saying that Jesus was the triumphant person. Sorry.

andrewcriddle

Maybe 1 Timothy was influenced by the Gospels. However it doesn't show much other evidence of being so influenced.

Partly it depends on the date of 1 Timothy. If you date it at the beginning of the 2nd century, as I would, then independence of the Gospels is much more plausible than with a mid 2nd century date.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

This could very well be the opposing view to that of Pilate, the prophetic explanation for Jesus silence. But Pilate 'marvelling' would not be explained in those terms. When asked by Pilate if he was 'the King of the Jews' Jesus replied 'you have said so'. This would be the referent to Jesus' silence in Pilate's mind.

Jiri

Elijah

To the Jewish community it may have seemed like a reference to Isaiah but to the Greek speaking community it may have seemed more like a play on Socrates and his philosopher's mentality to accept death.

“For I deem that the true disciple of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood by other men; they do not perceive that he is ever pursuing death and dying; and if this is true, why, having had the desire of death all his life long, should he repine at the arrival of that which he has been always pursuing and desiring?” Phaedo

And in Gorgias he talks about the reasons to not use rhetoric to defend himself.

”Whether the greatest of evils to a guilty man is to suffer punishment, as you supposed, or whether to escape punishment is not a greater evil, as I supposed.”

“Callicles And do you think, Socrates, that a man who is thus defenceless is in a good position?

Socrates Yes, Callicles, if he have that defence, which as you have often acknowledged he should have-if he be his own defence, and have never said or done anything wrong, either in respect of gods or men; and this has been repeatedly acknowledged by us to be the best sort of defence. And if anyone could convict me of inability to defend myself or others after this sort, I should blush for shame, whether I was convicted before many, or before a few, or by myself alone; and if I died from want of ability to do so, that would indeed grieve me. But if I died because I have no powers of flattery or rhetoric, I am very sure that you would not find me repining at death. For no man who is not an utter fool and coward is afraid of death itself, but he is afraid of doing wrong.”

“And you must not be offended, my dear Socrates, for I am speaking out of good-will towards you, if I ask whether you are not ashamed of being thus defenceless; which I affirm to be the condition not of you only but of all those who will carry the study of philosophy too far. For suppose that some one were to take you, or any one of your sort, off to prison, declaring that you had done wrong when you had done no wrong, you must allow that you would not know what to do:-there you would stand giddy and gaping, and not having a word to say; and when you went up before the Court, even if the accuser were a poor creature and not good for much, you would die if he were disposed to claim the penalty of death.” Gorgias

I don’t know if it would be seen as a sign of guilt or insanity back then but something that was expected of someone studied in philosophy. Online “they” are saying that there was a tradition that Socrates remained silent at his trial back in ancient times but I couldn’t find the source and I’m sure it’s like Jesus where being silent is relative to what he could have said instead of complete silence.

aa5874

What do you mean by " since it's an unusual claim, the author could not get away with it if it wasn't true" when the Jesus stories, as found in the Gospels, are filled with known fiction?

There are multiple unusual claims in the Gospels that are known fiction. The abnormality of a claim is NOT directly related to its veracity.

There is no historical source external of the NT to show or corroborate any thing about the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.

Now, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus as described in the Gospels are implausible or not likely to be historical.

It isNOT credible that the Sanhedrin would have brought false witnesses and it is not credible that Pilate would have released a man convicted of sedition and a murderer after exonerating Jesus of all accusations.

Would Pilate tell Caesar that he released a man guilty of sedition and murder and caused a known innocent man to be crucified?

And further, it is most absurd that Jesus, if assumed a Jewish man, would NOT have asked the Sanhedrin or Pilate to have all the false witnesses executed or imprisoned based on Jewish Law.

This is one of the Commandments.

Exodus 20.16
And this is the remedy or punishment for false witnesses
Deuteronomy 19.
The trial of Jesus appears to be completely fictional.

The crucifixion of Jesus appears to be an invented plot of the writer to blame the Jews for the destruction of the Jewish Temple, that is, the Jews caused the Son of God to be crucified even though innocent so God allowed the Romans to destroy the Temple.