Steven Carr

On page 89 of 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk)', Bart Ehrman writes about the way the Gospel of Peter says Herod had Jesus crucified 'In all of our other early sources, the Roman governor Pilate is said to be responsible.'

Where does Paul say Pilate was responsible for having Jesus crucified?

Has Ehrman read Acts where there are repeated accusations that the Jews killed Jesus,and the Jews ask Pilate to have Jesus executed, after Pilate had decided to let him go?


Ehrman calls Jesus 'a relatively obscure teacher who was crucified for sedition against the empire'.

So why did Pilate decide to let him go?

avi

I do not know the answer, nor do I understand whether it was Pilate or the Jews, who decided upon the mythical man's execution....

Here's what Ehrman writes in his more recent volume: In other words, no reference to Pilate versus the Jews...

I still don't know how or why Jesus was killed, nor do I understand how we think we know how he was killed. How was the supposed conversation between Pilate and Jesus recorded? Are there any other conversations recorded between a Roman governor of a colonial province, and an insurgent seeking to expel the Romans, facing death after his capture? If not, then, why should this particular scenario be considered anything but a myth? Would you, a powerful, wealthy, Latin speaking senior government official, deign to meet face to face with an unkempt, unwashed, non-Latin speaking barbarian, let alone invite him into your home?
avi

neilgodfrey

Even the "other early sources" of Luke and John, if we read them without any notion of Mark's and Matthew's accounts, seem to say that Pilate handed Jesus over to Jewish soldiers/mob to crucify. John 18:3; 19:14-16 and Luke 23:24-25

and

So to say Pilate is "responsible" is a bit ambiguous. In Erhman's case, maybe intentionally so?

Justin Martyr, mid second century, was so confused that he wrote that Pilate himself joined Herod and the Jews in a government conspiracy against Jesus, in First Apology, 40:

Throughout his Trypho Dialogue and elsewhere in the First Apology Justin as a rule goes no further than saying that Jesus was crucified "under" Pilate -- as if he is as much a chronological marker as an indirectly responsible party.

And all of this is consistent with the Gospel of Peter: we first meet Pilate there leaving the Herod the King of the Jews to do the dirty deed himself, after having come to some agreement that involved handwashing.

Seems to me that the whole idea of Pilate ordering his own soldiers to crucify Jesus is based on Mark's gospel alone, and Matthew's adaption of it. He was the one to bring in the Roman troops in the Praetorium and the centurion's confession at the end.

Luke and John appear to be pulling away from that interpretation and making room for the Jews to be immediately responsible.

N

andrewcriddle

1 Timothy 6:13 has I know this is Deutero-Pauline but it is from the Pauline school and probably independent of the canonical Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

A less suspect part of Paul (1 Cor 2:6-8) claims that Jesus was crucified by the archons (the rulers of this world.) I have read the claim that this refers to the civil authorities or to the archons working through the civil authorities, which would be Pilate, if you import enough assumptions from the gospels.

I don't know why 1 Tim would be considered independent of the gospels.

Elijah

Mark 15:10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up.

In the story it’s pretty obvious he is being used to do the dirty work of someone else and probably wasn’t exactly thrilled with that.

ApostateAbe

I am happy to help. I greatly respect Ehrman, I have the book, and I am glad you are reading it.

From Apocalyptic Prophet
Ehrman's meaning is that the Gospel of Peter makes the claim that Herod ordered the crucifixion of Jesus, not Pilate.

From the Gospel of Peter:

[1] But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor one of his judges. And since they did not desire to wash, Pilate stood up. [2] And then Herod the king orders the Lord to be taken away, having said to them, 'What I ordered you to do, do.'

Ehrman would consider the gospel of Mark to be the earliest account giving details of who gave the order, with the gospels of Matthew and Luke coming next, and the gospel of John coming fourth.

According to the gospel of Mark:

Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Similar passages are found in the other three gospels. It is Pilate who gives the order, albeit reluctantly at the demand of the Jews, and Herod has nothing to do with it. It is only the gospel of Peter where Herod gives the order and not Pilate.

All of the gospels contain anti-Jewish sentiments, probably tainting each gospel account of the trial. Ehrman holds Pilate primarily responsible, because Jesus was a threat, and Pilate was violent enough that he would execute Jesus in a heartbeat. There is no account that claims that Pilate let Jesus go, though I could be mistaken.

I hope that helps.

neilgodfrey

For all we know the Gospel of Peter also included Jesus giving a confession before Pilate. We only pick up the text after some sort of trial has taken place involving both Herod and Pilate, and Pilate leaves Herod to crucify Jesus.

Justin Martyr's several references to the crucifixion are consistent with this view. As per my email above, Justin only says that Jesus was crucified "under Pilate", and once adds that he made a confession before Pilate. But it is always the Jews who crucify him.

This suggests that Mark's gospel with its narrative that Pilate and Roman soldiers were responsible was the maverick innovation. And we can find a theological motive for him making this claim: see Schmidt's "Jesus Triumphal March to Crucifixion". So if there is a bias behind Mark's narrative details then why not also take the Roman responsibility claim with Ehrman's "pound of salt"?

Neil

Chili

Pilate decided to let him go because it is against reason that Jesus should be crucified, which then is why we are still wailing about it 2000 years later while it was the best thing the Jews ever did, did it often and knew exactly how and why to do it.

You must uderstand that this a melodrama that takes place in the mind of one man and that all the characters with influence are volitional forces inside the mind of one man with Peter being the faith of Herod knowing full well that Jesus has to die (via his blessed denial) in effort to set Christ free, who really was the transforming insurrectionist (= to end the saved sinner complex in the mind of Joseph).

The chief priests knew that Jesus had to die and so did the Jews but since they all are subordinate to Pilate who represents Joseph's faculty of reason the final word belongs to Pilate who subdued under Herod after he learned that Jesus was a Galilean and deserved to die. This then is why Pilate and Herod become friends and no longer poised against each other as reason and faith in probably the greatest mystery religion ever known to exist.

neilgodfrey

Mark said that Pilate did not decide to let Jesus go but decided to please the crowd by crucifying him. Pilate did ask the crowd for a reason to crucify Jesus, and saw through the reasons the Jewish leaders wanted to get rid of Jesus. But at the end of the day Pilate was motivated by his desire to please the crowd. Think of Roman potentates and bread and circuses.

Matthew sought to emphasize Jesus' innocence more and shift blame from Romans to Jews. He began by introducing Pilate's wife to put the guilt trip on him over a dream of Jesus' innocence. He changed Mark's Pilate from being a crowd pleaser to one who is desperate to avoid a riot.

Luke depicts Pilate repeatedly "desiring to release Jesus" but he is finally intimidated by the loud shouts of the crowd:

John turned Pilate into a coward who wanted to release Jesus but was too fearful of how the emperor would interpret this:

The popular notion that Pilate wanted to release Jesus was not original to the gospel narrative. It was an evolving notion.