The Crucifixion Story was Embellished
Bart Ehrman brings recently answered again the question, "Are the details of the crucifixion story accurate?" He points out why they most probably are not.
The crucifixion tale includes the Jesus character having a crowd of followers. Pilate is portrayed as in a quandary about his decision. There were Jews present who wanted Jesus killed and you know all the rest.
Ehrman points out that for this tale to accurately reflect what happened some large assumptions have to be made. One is that Jesus was well known and an important public figure, especially in Jerusalem where all this was supposed to have taken place. This assumption seems far fetched to Ehrman who believes there was a Jesus and that Jesus was killed by the government.
Ehrman takes as accurate that Jesus was from a small rural area distant from Jerusalem. He came to Jerusalem with a small band of followers. That many in that city, natives or visitors, had any interest in an small town preacher is not a realistic assumption.
The temple was know to be a large and crowded place. The assumption one man shouting and creating mischief closed down the temple is unrealistic, Ehrman finds. He might have been arrested but treated like any other insignificant trouble maker.
This leads to another questionable assumption in the tale. It is that Pilate thought this person was important enough to bother discussing his fate. According to Ehrman, a few people were killed by the government each week. While Pilate approved each of them he was known to be ruthless and efficient. There is no reason to think he would have devoted more than a minute to the fate of someone as unimportant as Jesus. Add to that they spoke different languages so translators would have been required to discuss charges.
The theatrical drama described in the Bible is most likely not history.
methinks that St. Bart is the one making problematic assumptions. seems to me that J.C. had a sizable following, one large enough to be noticed in a small country like the Israel of the time (and now). seems also that his provocative statements were of the sort that would get the attention of the temple establishment. and one significant enough to attract the attention of the Romans who, as you should know, were ruling a troublesome province with attention paid to troublemakers of one sort or another. for that matter, J.C. and his followers may have been confused with the Zealots, a group that were most assuredly on the Roman watchlist. I know, of course, that you think that the Gospels are merely a pack of fairytales, having no authority when describing the goings on in the Palestine of the times. so be it.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--It would be helpful if we had just one tiny bit of reliable information about the story. I just looked us the distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem. On today's highways it is 88 miles. That's about a four-day walk. According to the Bible Jesus had not been there before. Ehrman's assumption is he did not have a following in Jerusalem--very little anywhere else. That just seems reasonable to me.
ReplyDeleteas I have suggested several times before, your much sought after corroborating documents may well have perished with the temple in 70AD. and/or with the second Jewish war in 130s. what seems reasonable to you and St Bart does not seem reasonable to me. sorry. in any case, the Gospels indicate that J.C. travelled around quite a bit and probably attracted sizable crowds (sizable by the standards of that time, that is).
ReplyDelete