Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

188 J.J. Haldane
As regards the trial by Pilate, there is an entirely adequate explanation
given in scripture. Jesus was seen, and saw himself, in the role of prophet.
Accordingly, his words and deeds were viewed as symbolic of the demands of
God. In his visit to the Temple Jesus threw over the tables of the moneychangers,
and on leaving intimated that the Temple itself would be
destroyed: ‘There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not
be thrown down’ (Mark 13: 2). Incidentally, since the Temple was largely
destroyed by fire in 70 AD, had Mark been writing after that date it is likely
that he would have harmonized the prophecy to the known facts. That he did
not do so provides some reason to regard the text as faithfully reporting the
(gist of the) actual words of Jesus.
If you imagine someone turning up at your house and saying, in tones of
anger and without reference to some natural disaster, that within a short time
it will be destroyed, it is easy to see how Christ’s prophecy could be perceived
as both predictive and threatening. In the circumstances of an impending
Passover, when there would have been at least a quarter of a million Jews in
Jerusalem, such a remark, in conjunction with Messianic associations, would
be sufficient to worry both Jewish and Roman authorities. The high priest
had responsibility for maintaining civil order but if he wanted to be assured
of Christ’s death he needed a civil charge. There would be no shortage of
‘witnesses’ willing to provide evidence of a threat to the state; and as we know
from other sources, such as Philo of Alexandria, 15 Pilate was certainly no
stickler for justice. Given Jesus’ evident religious challenge and the prospect
of trouble arising from the Temple episode, it is unsurprising that, as high
priest, Caiaphas was willing to see him condemned to death. But possibly not
being in a position to effect this directly he arranged or allowed for false
testimony sufficient to have Pilate do the deed. Such, in effect, is the story of
scripture. It squares much better with what else we know than does Brandon’s
Zealot thesis, for had Jesus really been seen as the leader of a political group
intent on fomenting revolution it is very likely that Pilate would have had
several of Christ’s followers executed also.
Brandon’s challenge is of an empirical sort that has become familiar in
scriptural studies. Another and now more common critical response to the
Gospels is to deny, on a priori philosophical grounds, that what they report as
having happened could have happened. While not denying the legitimacy –
in the abstract – of this strategy, I observe that hitherto it has been operated
in ways that are quite unconvincing. So, for example, critics who believe that
miracles are impossible then dismiss reports of them as confused, mendacious
or symbolic. Certainly, if miracles are impossible then any claim to the effect
that they have occurred is idle – or worse. But as Smart notes, it is hard to
come up with an argument to show that there is something incoherent in
the very idea of the miraculous. I conclude, therefore, that the suggestion that