Yale Religious Studies Prof Shows That Accounts Of Jesus' Trial (and Pontius Pilate) Are Mythical

                                                                                

                                   Yale Religious Studies Professor Dale B. Martin

Holy Week is arguably the most important period in the Christian calendar, but it is mind boggling that so few faith adherents have even heard of  scriptural exegesis  or hermeneutics. Recall that I had written two earlier posts on the basis of the latter, e.g.

• Examining the Basis Of Biblical Hermeneutics. (Pt. 1)

And :

• Examining the Basis Of Biblical Hermeneutics. (Pt. 2)

These were taken from my notes (1964-65) at  Loyola University (New Orleans), where biblical exegesis was taught as a rigorous discipline as part of Theology 220, centered on biblical hermeneutics. We used the actual original forms of the texts in their original languages and the meanings associated with each.

For those who wish to take a deep dive into New Testament hermeneutics there is the easily accessible online course, Introduction to New Testament History and Literature by Prof. Dale B. Martin of Yale University. (Roughly on a par with my Theology 220) The compilation of course sessions, all on video, can be accessed via this link:

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature

And the one I recommend most for those short on time is No.13, dealing with the "Historical Jesus" (link below):

The Historical Jesus

Prof. Martin's accompanying textbook, New Testament History and Literature, is also an essential accompaniment and one which I will refer to in this post - focusing on the issue of Jesus' trial and Pontius Pilate.  For most Christians the trial, the words and actions of Pontius Pilate, and then the crucifixion of Christ are all established events not to be doubted.  But for Prof. Martin these are what he refers to (pp. 182-83) as "constructions of a historiographical account." In other words when historians say they are "reconstructing" some historical account of x, y or z event, they are actually "constructing a historiographical account of something that happened in the past."  

Thus any  claimed "reconstruction of the Jesus of the past is really a construction produced by that historian."

Take the case of the claimed trial of Jesus and appearance before Pontius Pilate. According to Prof, Martin (p. 181)  it is more than probable that there never was a trial of Jesus at all. As he puts it, "the Romans did not need to try a troublesome Jewish peasant in order to kill him."   In other words the entire trial tableaux was manufactured, or constructed by later copyists, scriptural writers.

As Prof. Martin relates (ibid.), the Romans stoned or crucified troublesome, nameless lower class people all the time.  In the case of Jesus, who "had caused a disturbance in the Temple and made radical pronouncements"  the Romans would have "simply taken him by force and crucified him the next day" with a few other nameless  others.  Adding:  

"There was no need for any trial much less two or more different 'courts'.  It would have been more trouble than a Roman governor needed for the desired result."

"Moreover even if there were any kind of trial there is no way any information about it would have been transmitted to his disciples so they could then pass the stories along so they could be recorded in the gospels." 

Further there is no way any lower class peasant follower - say Peter- could have gained access to any actual hearings. Indeed, more than 30 years separated the events at the time from the first recorded scriptures associated with the particular gospels.  The end effect is that all the related accounts, irrespective of which quadriform gospel - were confections, or creations. Myths if you will  or "fiction" short stories in today's parlance.  Or in the words of Prof. Martin (p. 184):

 "Any narrative of any trial is purely the product of  later Christian imagination which thought that since Jesus was the most important man in history there must have been significant trials before his execution."

Prof. Martin is careful on the next page, however, to emphasize that this "historical Jesus" is in no way dependent on the Christian faith. So one can still believe and have faith in Jesus but ignore the elaborate biblical stories and myths erected around him. One can also choose to believe these stories, but ought to know or realize there is no exegetical (or historical) support for them.

All of which conforms with the conclusion of Catholic Scriptural historian, the Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, who wrote in his monograph (A Concise History of the Catholic Church), p. 17:

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or God.”

I have also noted  (in my March 30, 2018 post) the sort of contradictions- to do with the stone being rolled from sepluchre-  in 3 different NT (Matthew 28.2, Mark, Luke) accounts that led to the conclusion they are fictional.

One central problem for the conventional Christian believer inevitably arises in all these exegetical discussions:  how to reconcile his/her faith in a 'God-Man/Savior' Jesus, with the actual historical person. Who was more a radical, "liberal" freedom-fighter against the Roman state.

John Dominic Crossan in his remarkable text:The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, offers a hint ('Epilogue', p. 423):

"Is an understanding of the historical Jesus of any permanent relevance to Christianity itself? I propose that at the heart of any Christianity there is always, covertly or overtly, a dialectic between a historically read Jesus and a theologically read Christ. Christiany is always, in other words, a Jesus/Christ/ianity."

and finally (ibid.)

"This book challenges the reader on the level of formal method, material investment, and historical interpretation. It presumes there will always be divergent historical Jesuses, that there will always be divergent Christs built upon them, but above all, it argues that the structure of a Christianity will always be: *this is how we see Jesus as Christ now*." 

Words to bear in mind today, and over this weekend.

See Also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/apologetics-textual-analysis-and.html