Easter Myth #1: The gospel accounts of Yeshua’s trial are broadly in agreement

Ten Easter Myths

Most leading historians, archaeologists and linguists don’t believe that the four official Christian Gospels can be relied upon as accurate records of historical fact. The Christmas stories, for instance, are known to be complete fabrications based on stories passed down from other traditions, edited to make them appear consistent with ancient Hebrew prophecies. The Easter stories too are highly dubious as factual accounts.

Easter is unquestionably the most important day of the Christian calendar. On Easter Day Christians believe their saviour Yeshua came back to life and was seen in corporeal form for several weeks before ascending on a cloud to ‘heaven’. This is the very basis of their religion.

They believe it because the gospels say it happened, or so they think. But most Christians haven’t studied the scripture in detail and aren’t aware of their inconsistencies. The Gospels are riddled with factual errors, contradictions and unsupported statements that challenge the very basis of the religion.

This series presents ten myths about the Easter stories drawing on Gospel sources and historical records from the period.

Myth #1:  The gospel accounts of Yeshua’s trial are broadly consistent with each other

No they’re not! The gospels differ significantly over the events surrounding Yeshua’s trial.

  • In the First Gospel, Mark, they took him to Caiaphas, the high priest’s, house where the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing council , had assembled. The Jewish leaders gave false and conflicting testimony; Yeshua remained silent. Then Caiaphas asked him if he was the Messiah. Previously he had refused to claim the title, but this time he answered, ‘I am.’ ‘Blasphemy!’ exclaimed the Jewish leaders, ‘The punishment is death.’ [1] But the Jewish authorities had no power to execute a prisoner, only the Romans could do that, so Yeshua was sent to the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.

Pilate is said to be unconvinced; blasphemy was not his concern. The Jewish leaders then accused Yeshua of claiming to be a king; this could be seen as sedition, a capital offence under Roman law. He half-heartedly caved in, had him flogged and then sent for crucifixion – normally reserved for bandits, slaves and non-Romans guilty of disloyalty to the Emperor.

  • In ‘Luke’s’ Gospel, and only ‘Luke’s’, he was also sent to Herod Antipas, the puppet ruler of Galilee, who questioned him but took no action. Herod returned him to Pilate.
  • ‘Matthew’s Gospel added a further dramatic gesture – Pilate washed his hands to signify that he was innocent of Yeshua’s blood.
  • And typically the Fourth Gospel, John, added several lengthy passages of dialogue at all stages of the proceedings.

Moreover, the gospels claim that Pilate was in the habit of releasing one prisoner every Passover festival and appealed to the crowd to nominate Yeshua. But they would not, preferring to plead for a common thief, Barabbas, instead. As for Yeshua, they screamed at Pilate to crucify him.

This is also curious. There is no reference to this custom outside the gospels so we must conclude there was none. And a Roman Governor had absolute discretion. The Pilate of history had a fearsome reputation and would never have allowed the crowd to choose.

So why do the authors of the Second and Fourth Gospels portray ‘the Jews’ as pleading for Yeshua’s death?

After the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its official religion they had every reason to absolve Pilate of his responsibilities. ‘Matthew’s’ Gospel even has the Jewish crowd yelling in unison, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’[2] which has often been cited as one of the causes of centuries of antisemitism.

Incidentally, to condemn Yeshua for sedition would have been a major miscarriage of justice since there is no evidence in any of the gospels that Yeshua had political or military aspirations, only religious ones.

©David Lawrence Preston, 1.3.2017

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Balboa Press, 2015

[1] Mark 14:53 – 15:15

[2] Matthew 27:25

The real Pilate was a ruthless tyrant, not a kindly ditherer

If you’ve seen Michael Palin’s portrayal of Pontius Pilate in Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’, you’ll recall the weak and wavering man with a stutter in awe of his friend Bigus Dickus. Does this in any way resemble reality?

No. Not at all.

The Pilate of history was a vicious and paranoid tyrant who had no hesitation in putting people to death without trial. Roman Prefects could treat members of the subject nation more or less as they wished. Outside the gospel stories there is no record of Pilate ever showing mercy, and it would have been completely out of character to let anyone off the hook. Anyone thought to pose a threat to law and order  would have been quickly and mercilessly dispatched.

Indeed, Pilate was later recalled to Rome to face charges of misrule. He went on to commit suicide in disgrace!

JC

The gospels say it was only when the chief priests convinced Pilate that Yeshua bar Yehosef was a danger to public order was he sent for crucifixion. The authors faced a dilemma – how could they explain why this notoriously vindictive man had to be persuaded to send Yeshua to his death even though he believed that he had no charge to answer?

‘Matthew’ was so keen to absolve the Romans of their responsibility that he has Pilate’s wife advising him in to ‘have nothing to do with this innocent man for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.’ There is no mention of this in the other gospels.

Pilate’s reluctance in the gospels to crucify this articulate Jewish irritant contrasts so much with what is known about him from historical sources that it seems certain that later editors ‘doctored’ the gospels to deflect blame away from Rome.

Indeed, few scholars regard the gospel reports of Yeshua’s ‘trial’ as having any credibility at all!

©David Lawrence Preston, 25.8.2016

Facebook and Twitter

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter

Front cover 201 things

Balboa Press, 2015

The gospels differ significantly over Yeshua’s trial

The gospels differ significantly over the details of Yeshua’s trial and committal:

  • In the First Gospel (‘Mark’), they took him to Caiaphas, the high priest’s, house where the Jewish governing council (Sanhedrin), had assembled. The Jewish leaders gave false and conflicting testimony; Yeshua remained silent. Then Caiaphas asked him if he was the Messiah. Previously he had refused to claim the title, but this time he answered, ‘I am.’ ‘Blasphemy!’ exclaimed the Jewish leaders, ‘The punishment is death.’ But the Jewish authorities had no power to execute a prisoner, only the Roman Prefect could do that, so Yeshua was sent to Pilate. ‘Mark’ claims that Pilate was unconvinced by the evidence and told the Sanhedrin to prosecute Yeshua themselves since blasphemy was not his concern. The Jewish leaders then accused Yeshua of claiming to be a king; this could be seen as sedition, a capital offence under Roman law. Still Pilate could find no reason to execute him. Finally he caved in, had him flogged and then sent for crucifixion. (Mark 14:53-15:15)
  • In ‘Luke’s’ Gospel, and only ‘Luke’s’, he was also sent to Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, who questioned him but took no action and returned him to Pilate.
  • ‘Matthew’ added a further dramatic gesture – Pilate washed his hands to signify that he was innocent of Yeshua’s blood.
  • And typically the Fourth Gospel added several lengthy passages of preachy dialogue at all stages of the proceedings.

What are we to make of this? Is it enough to say it’s true if you believe it’s true? Is any of it true? Which parts? Or none? Only you can decide.

©David Lawrence Preston, 11.3.2016

Facebook and Twitter

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter @David_L_Preston

Front cover 201 things

Balboa/Hay House 2015

Informed ideas for discussion and debate.