Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Gordon]

Aren't you assuming there was nobody in the room with Pilate and Jesus? We know that someone in Herod's household (and therefore possibly other people in high places)became a Christian. Clearly the conversation between Jesus and Pilate could have been overheard by a guard or someone else, and found its way into the disciples' network.

Perhaps - but how could you check that; a) that conversations were overheard, and b) what those who did the overhearing documented what was said and that their record is a fair summary. It seems to me you can't, so you're indulging in pointless speculation.

Regarding the conversation itself, Calvin says about Jesus' reply to Pilate ("you have said so"):
<<But as he did not intend to take pains to vindicate himself, as is usually the case with criminals, the Evangelists put down a doubtful reply; as if they had said, that he did not deny that he was a king, but that he indirectly pointed out the calumny which his enemies unjustly brought against him>>
Does this sound made up?
No attempt to vindicate himself, as we would expect if this was fiction.
The details added by John. Are they the kind of thing that is made up? Wake up jeremy.

Of course it could all be made up, Spud: I suspect your gullibility is getting the better of you. 

[floo]

Aren't you assuming there was nobody in the room with Pilate and Jesus? We know that someone in Herod's household (and therefore possibly other people in high places)became a Christian. Clearly the conversation between Jesus and Pilate could have been overheard by a guard or someone else, and found its way into the disciples' network.
Regarding the conversation itself, Calvin says about Jesus' reply to Pilate ("you have said so"):
<<But as he did not intend to take pains to vindicate himself, as is usually the case with criminals, the Evangelists put down a doubtful reply; as if they had said, that he did not deny that he was a king, but that he indirectly pointed out the calumny which his enemies unjustly brought against him>>
Does this sound made up?
No attempt to vindicate himself, as we would expect if this was fiction.
The details added by John. Are they the kind of thing that is made up? Wake up jeremy.

Spud have you heard of the game 'Chinese Whispers', in which a sentence is whispered to a person who passes it on to the next and so on down the line? When the last person is told to repeat it is nothing like it was when it started out. Besides which, can you remember the exact words of something you were told last week, let alone many years later? 

[jeremyp]

Aren't you assuming there was nobody in the room with Pilate and Jesus?

The idea that there were Christians in there certainly rings false.

The details added by John. Are they the kind of thing that is made up? Wake up jeremy.

Yes they are the kind of things that are made up. An imagined conversation that the authors of the gospels could not have heard. Rings false.

It's just one of the many details in the gospels that ring false.

[floo]

The idea that there were Christians in there certainly rings false.


Yes they are the kind of things that are made up. An imagined conversation that the authors of the gospels could not have heard. Rings false.

It's just one of the many details in the gospels that ring false.

Especially as Christianity was created by that guy Paul a good while after Jesus died.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Especially as Christianity was created by that guy Paul a good while after Jesus died.

I think you know what i'm going to ask.

[floo]

I think you know what i'm going to ask.

I am not psychic!

[DaveM]

There have been a number of posts concerning Luke 2:2 and the question of how Quirinius fitted into the picture.  Indeed whether he did so at all.  In this regard it is of interest to consider the literal translation of the Greek into English.  This reads as follows, ‘This enrolment first was governing Syria Quirinius’.  The Greek word translated as first is ‘protos’. But it can also have a number of other meanings including before, or chief, or best.  This has led to a number  of commentators suggesting that another possible translation of this verse would be, ‘This was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.  If this is correct we can then see how the ever meticulous Luke is being careful to distinguish between the troublesome census of AD 6 which was accompanied by resistance and violence and was generally referred to in Scripture simply as ‘the census' (Acts 5:37) and an earlier census when Jesus was actually born.  Whether or not Quirinius played any part in the administration of this earlier census or not then becomes of little consequence.

[wigginhall]

Some historians use the notion of 'dissimilarity', which means in crude terms, that if Jesus says or does something that fits with Jewish or Christian theology, it is likely to be reverse engineered, i.e. it didn't happen.   If he says or does something that doesn't fit, it is more likely to be a correct saying.   

The obvious 'dissimilar' events include being baptized by John the Baptist (since it's odd that the son of God is going to be cleansed of sin), and the crucifixion.  But there are others, e.g. telling people to hate their family.

In fact, there is the view that Jesus' whole mission is a shambolic failure, since his family think he's mad, his disciples obviously don't understand a word he says, and two of them betray him, and he's killed.    This argument then says that this suggests that the broad story is correct, since it's full of theological errors.   Well, maybe.  It's a cute argument.

https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-historical-criteria-for-members/

[DaveM]

The idea that there were Christians in there certainly rings false.

There were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present.  But even this is unlikely.  However, it is also most unlikely that Pilate would have been left totally alone with Jesus.  Almost certainly there would have been some Roman soldiers present for security purposes.  And I would suggest that witnessing the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus would have had a profound effect on some of them with the result that at least one or two who (like the saints in Caesar's household) would in all probability have subsequently joined the ranks of believers.  They could well have related the essential details of the exchange to John and others.

[ProfessorDavey]

There were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present.  But even this is unlikely.  However, it is also most unlikely that Pilate would have been left totally alone with Jesus.  Almost certainly there would have been some Roman soldiers present for security purposes.  And I would suggest that witnessing the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus would have had a profound effect on some of them with the result that at least one or two who (like the saints in Caesar's household) would in all probability have subsequently joined the ranks of believers.  They could well have related the essential details of the exchange to John and others.

Pure speculation from start to end.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I would suggest that witnessing the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus would have had a profound effect on some of them with the result that at least one or two who (like the saints in Caesar's household) would in all probability have subsequently joined the ranks of believers.

If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.

Bzzzzzzz Argumentum ad populum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Bzzzzzzz Argumentum ad populum.

Bzzzzzzz Bzzzzzzz Bzzzzzzz

Not even close - argumentum ad populum means something else entirely.

[DaveM]

Pure speculation from start to end.

I would argue that suggesting that Pilate would not have been totally alone with Jesus but that there probably would have been some soldiers present for his security is a reasonably logical assumption to make and cannot be summarily dismissed as pure speculation.  So definitely not quite from start to end.

[DaveM]

If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.

Well there were probably some ten thousand or more present at the feeding of the five thousand, which number included only the men present.  And who knows how many were in Jerusalem proclaiming, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' on Palm Sunday.  We are also told in many passages about large crowds following Him.

Further we need to recognize that for quite some time after the Cross the Jewish believers still considered themselves as belonging to the Jewish faith and continued to attend the synagogue. Their emergence as a separate religion took time to develop.

We must also remember that within a few years of the Cross believers were subjected to persecution which caused large numbers to take flight to more tolerant countries.  Hence the numbers of letters written to those in the Dispersion.  And then there was a major dispersion following AD 70 of both Jew and Christian.  So we cannot know what the situation in both Judah and Galilee would have in the absence of these events.

[jeremyp]

Especially as Christianity was created by that guy Paul a good while after Jesus died.

Yeah, that's not true. From Paul's own writings, it is clear that Christianity already existed when he converted.

[Gordon]

Well there were probably some ten thousand or more present at the feeding of the five thousand, which number included only the men present.  And who knows how many were in Jerusalem proclaiming, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' on Palm Sunday.  We are also told in many passages about large crowds following Him.

How do you know these estimates are accurate? After all over and under estimates do happen depending on the bias of the claimant: for example, the numbers claimed for Trump's inauguration (by his supporters) was shown to be an over-estimate.

[jeremyp]

This has led to a number  of commentators suggesting that another possible translation of this verse would be, ‘This was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria’.

Any credible ones? The NRSV says "while Quirinius was governor ofd Syria". Is there really any reason to double that translation?

If this is correct we can then see how the ever meticulous Luke is being careful to distinguish between the troublesome census of AD 6 which was accompanied by resistance and violence and was generally referred to in Scripture simply as ‘the census' (Acts 5:37)

So meticulous that he used wording that you claim is ambiguous. That is the opposite of meticulous.

Is there any evidence that this census happened that does not come from Luke?

and an earlier census when Jesus was actually born.  Whether or not Quirinius played any part in the administration of this earlier census or not then becomes of little consequence.

When Herod was king, Judea was a client kingdom. Do you have any evidence of a census that occurred at that time and that client kingdoms took part in?

Can you cite any credible source other than Luke that states that people were allowed to render the census useless by registering in some town other than their homes town?

The whole census story rings false. Therefore, by Spud's ringing criteria, we must discard it.

[jeremyp]

There were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present.

Seriously? The leader of your cult is on trial for his life and you just hang around inside Pilate's house? That rings very false.

But even this is unlikely.  However, it is also most unlikely that Pilate would have been left totally alone with Jesus.  Almost certainly there would have been some Roman soldiers present for security purposes.  And I would suggest that witnessing the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus would have had a profound effect on some of them with the result that at least one or two who (like the saints in Caesar's household) would in all probability have subsequently joined the ranks of believers.  They could well have related the essential details of the exchange to John and others.

Jesus would have been just another one of the hundreds of trouble makers that passed through Pilate's hands. There is no reason to suppose they would have noticed anything special about him. Your hypothesis rings false.

[DaveM]

Seriously? The leader of your cult is on trial for his life and you just hang around inside Pilate's house? That rings very false.
Jesus would have been just another one of the hundreds of trouble makers that passed through Pilate's hands. There is no reason to suppose they would have noticed anything special about him. Your hypothesis rings false.

I am absolutely serious.  You are deliberately misquoting.  What I said was,'there were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present.  But even this is unlikely,'     

[DaveM]

How do you know these estimates are accurate? After all over and under estimates do happen depending on the bias of the claimant: for example, the numbers claimed for Trump's inauguration (by his supporters) was shown to be an over-estimate.

I would suggest that even if the figure of five thousand men represented a 50% over-estimate this would not adversely impact on the truth of the fact that Jesus had a large following in the Holy Land, both during His earthly ministry and subsequent to the cross, at least up until the onset of significant persecutions which dispersed many followers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I would suggest that even if the figure of five thousand men represented a 50% over-estimate this would not adversely impact on the truth of the fact that Jesus had a large following in the Holy Land, both during His earthly ministry and subsequent to the cross, at least up until the onset of significant persecutions which dispersed many followers.

That there were various charismatic itinerant street preachers/soothsayers/conjurors etc, doubtless various of whom had large followings isn't particularly controversial (or interesting) I'd have thought. The challenge though is to establish that the narrative of just one such caught the wind when the others did not because he was a man/god without falling onto the trap of survivor bias. Be interesting to see someone try though.         

[jeremyp]

I am absolutely serious.  You are deliberately misquoting.  What I said was,'there were certainly no Christians present when Pilate interrogated Jesus inside the Praetorium, although it is just possible that there might have been some Jewish disciples of Jesus present.  But even this is unlikely,'   

Can you  explain the substantive difference between "Jewish disciple of Jesus" and "Christian"? Not that it matters. If you were a follower of Jesus, no matter what we label you, you'd keep away from places where you might get arrested and crucified.

I'm glad you admit it is unlikely because that is the crux of the matter. We are always talking about probabilities in these discussions about history. It's highly unlikely that there was anybody present to report the proceedings of Jesus' interview with Pilate to the gospel authors. It is highly likely that the gospel authors invented the dialogue.  This is not the hallmark of somebody trying to write an accurate account. Reliable historians - even back in the day - cite their sources.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bzzzzzzz Bzzzzzzz Bzzzzzzz

Not even close - argumentum ad populum means something else entirely.

Nope Davey is saying that Jesus message was weak because it didn't attract great numbers.
That is a fallacy.

[Gordon]

Nope Davey is saying that Jesus message was weak because it didn't attract great numbers.
That is a fallacy.

Which fallacy, and why?