The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 12: Chapter 19

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 1 through Part 9 of this series, I showed that it was very likely that the Gospel of John in general provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

In Part 10 of this series, I argued that even if, contrary to the reasons presented in the first nine posts, the Gospel of John were assumed to be historically reliable, that would also result in serious damage to the cases for the resurrection put forward by Christian apologists.

In Part 11 of this series, I showed that it is very likely that the contents of Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John are historically unreliable. 

In this current post, I will show that there are several significant historical problems with Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, and that these problems cast serious doubt on the historical reliability of the contents of that chapter.  

HISTORICAL PROBLEMS IN CHAPTER 19

Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John can be divided into four main events/sections:

I. Jesus Sentenced to Be Crucified (John 19:1-16)

II. The Crucifixion of Jesus (John 19:17-27)

III. The Death of Jesus (John 19:28-37)

IV. The Burial of Jesus (John 19:38-42)

I. Jesus Sentenced to Be Crucified (John 19:1-16)

In Part 11 of this series, I pointed to several good reasons to believe that the Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate are historically unreliable. I also showed that we have good reasons to believe that the specific account in the Gospel of John of the trial of Jesus before Pilate is historically unreliable. 

Here are some of the historical problems in the part of the account of Jesus' trial before Pilate that is found in the opening sixteen verses of Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John:

• The author presents this story as a short play, indicating that this story is a work of creative storytelling.[1]
• In the Gospel of Mark, Pilate condemns Jesus to be crucified before the Roman soldiers mock Jesus (Mark 15:15-20), but in the Gospel of John, the Roman soldiers mock Jesus before Pilate condemns Jesus to be crucified. 
• In the Gospel of John, Pilate presents Jesus to the crowd after Jesus was flogged and mocked by the Roman soldiers (John 19:1-5), but in the Gospel of Mark, Pilate does not present Jesus to the crowd after Jesus was flogged and mocked by the Roman soldiers (Mark 15:15-20). 
• In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus remains virtually silent before Pilate (Mark 15:1-5), but in the Gospel of John, Jesus converses with Pilate two or three times (John 18:33-38 and John 19:8-11).
• In the Gospel of John, the alleged conversations between Pilate and Jesus occur inside Pilate's headquarters (John 18:28 & 33-35 and 19:8-11), where there are no disciples of Jesus and no Jewish leaders, so it is unlikely that any of Jesus' followers would have known what Pilate and Jesus said to each other during Jesus' alleged trial before Pilate.
• The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew both indicate that Jesus was interrogated by Pilate outside of the praetorium (Mark 15:15-20 & Matthew 27:26-31), but the Gospel of John states that Jesus was interrogated by Pilate inside the praetorium (John 19:1-5).[2]
•  In the Gospel of Mark, Pilate does not state that he thinks Jesus is innocent (Mark 15:1-15), but in the Gospel of John, Pilate insists three different times, "I find no case against him." (John 18:38, 19:4, and 19:6).
• The accusation of the Jewish leaders that Jesus "claimed to be the Son of God" (John 19:7) is anachronistic, relating to Jewish conflicts with Christians that developed years or decades after Jesus' crucifixion.[3]
• In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is crucified after Passover (Mark 14:12-16), but in the Gospel of John, Jesus is crucified on the day of Passover (John 19:14).
• In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was crucified at about 9am (Mark 15:25), but in the Gospel of John, Jesus' trial before Pilate ends at about noon (John 19:14), so Jesus would not have been crucified until about 1pm or later.

When the account of Jesus' trial before Pilate in the Gospel of Mark conflicts with the account of Jesus' trial before Pilate in the Gospel of John, that does not necessarily mean that the Gospel of Mark is correct on all of those points and the Gospel of John is incorrect on all of those points.  For one thing, both accounts might be completely wrong and unhistorical (i.e., there might have been no trial of Jesus before Pilate). But this does mean that at least one of these accounts must be incorrect on some of these points of disagreement. 

Since the Gospel of Mark was probably written two or three decades before the Gospel of John, we should view the account of the life and words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark as being more historically reliable than the account in the Gospel of John, other things being equal.  So, when the two accounts disagree, we should view Mark's account as more likely to be correct, other things being equal.

Given that it is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, and given the above list of considerations that raise significant doubts about the historical reliability of the content of John 19:1-16, we may conlude that it is very probable that this passage in the Gospel of John about Jesus being sentenced to death by Pilate is a historically unreliable account of this alleged event.

II. The Crucifixion of Jesus (John 19:17-27)

Here are some of the historical problems with this event/section about the crucifixion of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John:

• In the Gospel of Mark, another man carries the cross for Jesus (Mark 15:20-22), but in the Gospel of John, Jesus carries the cross himself (John 19:17-18).
• All four Gospels have Jesus crucified with two other men (John 19:18, Mark 15:27, Matthew 27:38, Luke  23:32-33), but this detail is suspect because of the "Rule of Three" in storytelling.[4]
• The complaint of the chief priests to Pilate (in John 19:21-22) about the sign placed on Jesus' cross is historically dubious: where and when did this conversation take place, and who was present at the time to hear it? It is doubtful that Pilate and the chief priests would be present at Jesus' crucifixion, and it is unlikely that the chief priests would shout such a complaint to Pilate in a public setting.
• All four Gospels have the Roman soldiers gamble for Jesus' clothing (John 19:23-25, Mark 15:24, Matthew 27:35, Luke 23:34), but as the Gospel of John points out (in John 19:24), this was believed to be a fulfillment of an alleged Old Testament prophecy (Psalm 22:18) . In that case, this alleged event might well have been based on the Old Testament passage rather than based on eyewitness testimony or historical evidence.
• In the Gospel of Mark, some of the women who were followers of Jesus were "looking on from a distance"  from the cross (Mark 15:40-41), but in the Gospel of John, the women who were followers of Jesus were "standing near the cross" (John 19:25).
• In the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Matthew, there is no mention of the presence of any of Jesus' male disciples at the crucifixion (Mark 15:25-41 & Matthew 27:35-56), and they imply that his male disciples went into hiding when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:48-50 & Matthew 26:55-56).  But in the Gospel of John, the "beloved disciple," who is male (John 13:23-25 and John 21:21-22), is allegedly present at the crucifixion (John 19:26-27).
• In the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus never speaks from the cross to any of his followers.  But in the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks from the cross to his mother and to the "beloved disciple" (John 19:25-27).[5]
• It is unclear whether the "beloved disciple" is an actual historical person or is a fictional character in the Gospel of John.[6]

Given the previous conclusion that it is very likely that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, and given these significant historical problems with the account of the crucifixion of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, we have good reason to conclude that it is very likely that this section of Chapter 19 is a historically unreliable account of the crucifixion of Jesus.

III. The Death of Jesus (John 19:28-37)

Here are some of the historical problems with the account of the death of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John:

• In the Gospel of John, shortly before Jesus dies, he says: "I am thirsty." (John 19:28-30), but in the Gospel of Mark, in the Gospel of Matthew, and in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus never says "I am thirsty" from the cross, or anything like that (Mark 15:21-39, Matthew 27:32-54, Luke 23:26-47).
• In the Gospel of John, shortly before Jesus dies, he is given some sour wine (John 19:28-30), and the author of John views this as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Psalm 69:22), so this event might well be based on the OT passage rather than on eyewitness testimony or historical evidence. The other Gospels agree that Jesus was given some sour wine while he was hanging on the cross, but this also might well be based on the same OT passage, viewed as a prophecy by early Christians.
• In the Gospel of John, Jesus' last words were: "It is finished." (John 19:30), but in the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus' last words were: “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:33-37 & Matthew 27:45-50). In the Gospel of Luke, the last words of Jesus were: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” (Luke 23:56).
• In the Gospel of John, "the Jews" (the Jewish leaders?) ask Pilate to order that the legs of the crucified men be broken, so that the men would die quickly, so their bodies could be burried before the Sabbath began that evening at sunset. Then Pilate ordered the Roman soldiers to do this, and the Roman soldiers broke the legs of two of the crucified men (John 19:31-37), but none of the other Gospels mention any request to Pilate to break the legs of the crucified men, none of the other Gospels mention that Pilate ordered the legs of any crucified men to be broken, and none of the other Gospels mention that the soldiers broke the legs of any of the crucified men (Mark 15:21-39, Matthew 27:32-54, Luke 23:26-47). Furthermore, in the Gospel of Mark, when Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for the body of Jesus, Pilate "wondered if he were already dead," and asks a soldier to find out if Jesus was already dead (Mark 15:42-45).  This makes no sense if Pilate had previously ordered that the legs of the crucified men be broken, because Pilate would then have expected that the crucified men would all be dead soon after he had issued that order. 
• In the Gospel of John, Jesus' legs were not broken, because the soldiers believed that Jesus had aleady died, but this is very unlikely, because Pilate had ordered them to break the legs of the crucified men, including Jesus' legs, and it is very unlikely that Roman soldiers would ignore this order from the Roman governor of Judea on the grounds they thought it was unnecessary to break Jesus' legs (John 19:31-37).
• In the Gospel of John, when the soldiers decide to not break Jesus' legs, one of them pierces Jesus' side with his spear, and blood and water allegedly came out of that spear wound (John 19:31-37). But none of the other Gospels mention that a soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear, none of the other Gospels mention that Jesus had a wound in his side while on the cross, none of the other Gospels mention that blood and water flowed out of Jesus's side, and none of the other Gospels mention that the risen Jesus had a wound in his side, as does the Gospel of John (John 20:19-27). 
• The Gospel of John claims that the spear wound incident was observed by an eyewitness (John 19:35). NT scholars interpret the eyewitness to be the "beloved disciple" who was present at the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John (John 19:25-27), but as noted previously, it is unclear that there was an actual "beloved disciple," and none of the other Gospels indicate that a "beloved disciple" was present at the crucifixion.
• The author of the Gospel of John believed that the alleged decision of the soldiers to not break Jesus' legs was predicted by an Old Testament prophecy (John 19:36, see also Psalm 34:20). That means that this alleged event might well have been based on the OT passage rather than on eyewitness testimony or historical evidence.
• The author of the Gospel of John believed that the alleged piercing of Jesus' side with a spear was predicted by an Old Testament prophecy (John 19:37, see also Zechariah 12:10). That means that this alleged event might well have been based on the OT passage rather than on eyewitness testimony or historical evidence.

Given the previous conclusion that it is very likely that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, and given these significant historical problems with the account of the death of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, we have good reason to conclude that it is very likely that this section of Chapter 19 is a historically unreliable account of the death of Jesus.

IV. The Burial of Jesus (John 19:38-42)

Here are some of the historical problems with the section of Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John about the alleged burial of Jesus:

• Although all four Gospels agree that Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus and placed the body of Jesus into a stone tomb, this story might well be fictional or a legend. First, the Romans did not permit victims of crucifixion to be honorably buried.[7] Second, it would have been very shameful and embarrassing to Christian believers if Jesus had not received an honorable burial.[8] Third, early Christians probably believed there was an Old Testament prophecy about the burial of the messiah.[9] Fourth, the "empty tomb story" could have been created as an apologetic response to the skeptical view that the "appearances" of the risen Jesus to his disciples were simply sightings of a ghost.[10] Fifth, it is unclear whether the town of "Arimathea" actually existed.[11]
• In the Gospel of John, Joseph of Arimathea was a follower of Jesus and there is no mention that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the council that condemned Jesus to death (John 19:38), but in the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Luke, Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the council that condemned Jesus to death and there is no mention that Joseph of Arimathea was a follower of Jesus (Mark 15:43-45 & Luke 23:50-52). 
•  In the Gospel of John, a man named Nicodemus helps Joseph of Arimathea with the burial of Jesus, but no other Gospel mentions that Nicodemus helped Joseph of Arimathea bury Jesus, no other Gospel ever mentions Nicodemus, and no other Gospel mentions that another person helped Joseph of Arimathea bury Jesus.
• In the Gospel of John, Jesus' body is prepared with a large amount of "a mixture of myrrh and aloes"(John 19:39-40) by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, but no other Gospel indicates that myrrh and aloes (or any spices) were used in the preparation of Jesus' body for burial. In the Gospel of Mark, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses watch the burial of Jesus, but Mary Magdalene and another woman return early on Sunday morning with spices to annoint Jesus body, which makes no sense, because (if the account in John was correct), Mary Magdalene would have known that Jesus' body had already been prepared with a large amount of spices. In the Gospel of Luke, at least five women (including Mary Magdalene) followed Joseph of Arimathea and saw Jesus buried in the stone tomb, then the women prepared spices and ointments that they brought back to the tomb on Sunday morning (Luke 23:50-56 & 24:1-10).  Again, it is very unlikely that the women would have prepared spices and ointments for Jesus' body if they had just seen Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus use a large amount of myrrh and aloes to prepare the body of Jesus for burial on Friday evening.
• In the Gospel of Mark, Joseph of Arimathea lays the body of Jesus "in a tomb that had been hewn out of rock." (Mark 15:46).  But in the Gospel of John, Joseph of Arimathea lays the body of Jesus in "a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid" which was located in "a garden" nearby (John 19:40-41). These additional details are suspect, because they make Jesus' burial more honorable and dignified (as with the alleged use of a large amount of spices in John 19:39-40).[12]
• In the Gospel of John, the "new tomb" of Jesus is in "a garden" near the crucifixion site, but it is unlikely that there would have been a private cemetery right next to a crucifixion site.[13]
• In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus' body is simply placed into a linen sheet (Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:59, & Luke 23:53), but in the Gospel of John, Jesus' body is wrapped in linen strips or wrappings, along with a large amount of spices, making Jesus' burial similar to the burial of a king or chief priest (John 19:40 & 20:3-7).

Given the previous conclusion that it is very likely that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, and given these significant historical problems with the account of the alleged burial of Jesus in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, we have good reason to conclude that it is very likely that this section of Chapter 19 is a historically unreliable account of the alleged burial of Jesus.

CONCLUSION ABOUT CHAPTER 19

Because it is very likely that the Gospel of John in general provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, and because there are several significant historical problems with each of the four events/sections of Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John, we may reasonably conclude that it is very likely that Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John provides historically unreliable accounts of the alleged events that it describes.

END NOTES

1. The trial of Jesus before Pilate is presented as a short play in the Gospel of John, as indicated by the NT scholar Gail O’Day:

John 18:28-19:16a is the supreme example in the Fourth Gospel of the the Fourth Evangelist’s use of dramatic structure, irony, and symbolism in the service of theological interpretation. Jesus’ trial before Pilate is the theological and dramatic climax of the story of Jesus’ hour. 

 

Like the Pharisees’ interrogation of the blind man in John 9, Jesus’ trial before Pilate is structured as a drama. The trial narrative opens with an introductory verse (18:28) that establishes the time and location for the drama. This introduction is followed by seven scenes. 

“The Gospel of John” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.813. 

The eminent NT and Jesus scholar Raymond Brown agrees with O’Day on this point: 

All the Gospels have Jesus led from/by the high priest to be tried by the Roman governor, but in John this trial is a much more developed drama than in the Synoptics [Mark, Matthew, & Luke]. Careful stage setting is supplied, with “the Jews” outside the praetorium and Jesus inside. Seven episodes describe how Pilate shuttled back and forth trying to reconcile the two adamant antagonists…

An Introduction to the New Testament (New York, NY: Doubleday,1997), p.357.

2. The eminent NT scholar Raymond Brown acknowledges this conflict between these Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate:

Then in Mark 15:16 and Matt 27:27 the soldiers to whom Jesus is given over for crucifixion will first lead him away or bring him into the praetorium--a scenario different from John's, where Pilate questions Jesus inside.

The Death of the Messiah, Volume One (New York, NY: Doubleday,1994), p.635.)

3. According to both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, when the Jewish high priest interrogated Jesus, he asked if Jesus was the messiah and the son of God (Mark 14:61 and Matthew 26:63).  The eminent NT and Jesus scholar Raymond Brown, however, argues that this question was not asked of Jesus by the high priest, because this question is anachronistic; it reflects a theological conflict between Jews and followers of Jesus that developed in the decades after Jesus was crucified:

Thus there is reason in the Gospels, read perceptively, to think that unlike “the Messiah,”the title “the Son of God” was not applied to Jesus in his lifetime by his followers or, a fortiori, by himself. It was a revealed, early post-ministry insight. This would mean that the high priest’s question phrased in Mark 14:61,“Are you…the Son of the Blessed [= God]?” was not the formulation in a Jewish investigation of Jesus in AD 30/33.

The Death of the Messiah, Volume One (New York, NY: Doubleday,1994), p.482.

But more likely such a rejection of Jesus’ messiahship as blasphemous came after his condemnation and crucifixion, not as the cause for condemnation. It came with the proclamation of the risen Jesus as the Messiah-Son of God. Overall, then, if Jesus was accused of blasphemy in AD 30/33, it is not likely that the sole or even principal basis for that accusation was that his followers hailed him as the expected Messiah of the House of David.

The Death of the Messiah, Volume One (New York, NY: Doubleday,1994), p.535.

But if the high priest did not ask Jesus if he was the messiah and the Son of God, and if Jesus was not condemned at a Jewish trial for blasphemy because of claiming to be the messiah and the Son of God (since these concerns did not arise until years after Jesus had been crucified), then the accusation of the Jewish leaders to Pilate in John 19:7 is also anachronistic and thus probably unhistorical. 

4. “The Rule of Three” from Wikipedia.

5. In addition to the fact that Jesus does not speak to any of his followers from the cross in the other three Gospels, there is also the problem that most Christian apologists accept and promote the asphyxiation theory, which asserts that crucifixion caused death by preventing the victim from being able to exhale, except when the victim lifted or pushed himself upward on the cross in order to exhale.  But this would mean that crucified victims would not be able to talk, especially after they had been hanging on the cross for an hour. 

6. Some NT scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a fictional character.  Also, NT scholars who think the "beloved disciple" was a historical person cannot agree on the identity of that person. Many NT scholars reject the traditional view that the "beloved disciple" was John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve disciples.  

Not only do the other three Gospels never mention that there was a "beloved disciple", they also do not agree with the descriptions of the alleged events in the Gospel of John involving the "beloved disciple":  

• John 13:21-26: In the Gospel of John, the "beloved disciple" is leaning on Jesus at the last supper, and Peter motions to the beloved disciple to ask Jesus which of his disciples would betray Jesus, and the beloved disciple asks the question.  But in the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Matthew, there is no mention of a "beloved disciple" at the last supper, no mention of a disciple leaning on Jesus, and no mention of Peter motioning to one disciple to ask Jesus who the betrayer was.  Instead, various disciples ask Jesus this question (Mark 14:17-20 and Matthew 26:20-25). In the Gospel of Luke, there is no mention of a "beloved disciple" at the last supper, no mention of a disciple leaning on Jesus, no mention of Peter motioning to one disciple to ask Jesus who the betrayer was, and none of the disciples ask Jesus this question; they all talk to each other about this question (Luke 22:21-23).
• John 19:25-27: In the Gospel of John, the "beloved disciple" and some women, including Jesus' mother, are near the cross, and Jesus speaks to his mother and to his "beloved disciple" while hanging from the cross. But in the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus never speaks to any woman or to any of his disciples from the cross, and Jesus does not say that one of his disciples should act line a son to his mother, i.e. take care of her (Mark 15:25-41, Matthew 27:38-56, and Luke 23:32-49).
• John 20:1-10: In the Gospel of John, when Mary Magdalene discovers that Jesus' tomb is empty, she runs and tells Peter and the "beloved disciple" that the tomb was empty and that she did not know where the body of Jesus had been moved to. Peter and the "beloved disciple" then run to the tomb, and they also find it to be empty. But in the Gospel of Mark, Mary Magdalene tells nobody about finding the tomb empty, and none of Jesus' male disciples go to visit Jesus' tomb on that first Easter Sunday (Mark 16:1-8).  In the Gospel of Matthew, Mary Magdalene is told by an angel that the tomb is empty because Jesus has been raised from the dead, and she goes to tell the disciples that Jesus has risen from the dead but she is met by the risen Jesus on her way, so Mary Magdalene clearly would NOT have been puzzled about where the body of Jesus had been moved to when she told the disciples about finding Jesus' empty tomb (Matthew 28:5-10). In the Gospel of Luke, when Mary Magdalene and some other women find out that Jesus' tomb is empty, two men in dazzling clothes (angels?) tell them that Jesus had risen from the dead.  Mary and the other women go and report this to the eleven remaining disciples. Peter then goes to visit the tomb, but there is no mention of any other disciple going to the tomb with Peter (Luke 24:1-12).
• John 21:1-14: In the Gospel of John, sometime after Jesus was crucified, a number of his disciples including the "beloved disciple," were fishing from a boat on the Sea of Galilee, and they spotted the risen Jesus on the shore. The disciples go to meet Jesus, then Jesus cooks some of the fish they caught and serves them breakfast. In the Gospel of Mark, it is implied that the disciples return to Galilee and see the risen Jesus there, but there is no story about this, and no mention of a "beloved disciple" seeing the risen Jesus (Mark 16:1-8).  In the Gospel of Matthew, the disciples return to Galilee and see the risen Jesus on a mountain top, and there is no mention of a "beloved disciple" being with them on the mountain (Matthew 28:5-10 & 28:16-20).  There is no story in the Gospel of Matthew about the disciples seeing the risen Jesus on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. In the Gospel of Luke, unlike in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, the disciples are not instructred to return to Galilee to meet Jesus, rather the risen Jesus meets his disciples in Jerusalem on the first Easter Sunday (no mention is made of a "beloved disciple"), and tells them to remain in Jerusalem, which they do. So, there are no stories in the Gospel of Luke about any appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Galilee (Luke 24:46-53).
• John 21:15-23: In the Gospel of John, after the risen Jesus appears to some of his disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, he has a conversation with his disciple Peter and indicates that Peter will die a martyr's death. The "beloved disciple" is nearby, and Peter asks Jesus, "What about him?" But there is no mention in the other Gospels about the risen Jesus appearing to some of his disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, there is no mention in the other Gospels of an alleged conversation between the risen Jesus and Peter near the Sea of Galilee, and there is no mention in the other Gospels of the risen Jesus ever indicating to anyone that Peter would die a martyr's death. 

7.  NT scholar Bart Ehrman came to the conclusion that Jesus was probably not given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea:

I do think there are certain parts of the stories that are almost certainly historically correct:  Jesus was almost certainly crucified by the Romans; and afterwards some of his disciples claimed they saw him alive again (we don’t have good evidence that all the disciples said this; but some of them certainly did at least).

What I don’t think we have good solid evidence for is the burial and empty tomb.   On the burial, it would have been highly unusual, in the opinion of a number of historians, for the Romans to have granted a proper burial for someone they chose to disgrace and humiliate through crucifixion.  More commonly they would simply have left the carcass to rot on the cross, as part of the humiliation, or possibly thrown it into an open pit with other decaying bodies. 

[...]

My guess is that like others (the two killed with Jesus that day, for example, and others crucified during that same Passover season), Jesus was thrown into a common tomb where he experience [sic] corruption like everyone else, so that within days he was no longer even recognizable.   It’s just a guess.   But it’s more historically plausible than the idea that the Romans would allow a decent burial. 

"The Burial of Jesus: A Blast from the Past" (posted March 20, 2017)

Jesus scholars Marcus Borg and John Crossan agree that Romans usually did not allow victims of crucifixion to be given an honorable burial.  They are skeptical about the idea of Pilate giving the body of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea for an honorable burial:

This is a remarkable departure from customary procedure, since, as mentioned earlier, the body of a crucified individual was not given an honorable burial. 

The Last Week by Marcus Borg and John Crossan (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), p.153. 

8. Proper burial was very important to the Israelites and Jews:

In the Greco-Roman world, the dead were often cremated, but the Israelites and Jews, along with most ancient peoples, normally dug graves or constructed tombs for deceased members of their societies.  Indeed, the Hebrews held strong beliefs about the importance of proper burial and fear of exhumation (1 Kgs. 14:11; 16:4; 2 Kgs. 9;37; Ps. 79:3; Ezek. 29:5; Rev. 11:9); in horrifying terms, Jeremiah preached about the exposure of corpses (Jer. 7:33; 8:1-2; 16:4-6; 22:19).

"Tomb" by Gerald Mattingly in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), p.1319. 

This was a common attitude in the ancient Near East:

Among most peoples of the ancient Near East, burial was an especially sacred act; a disturbance or desecration of the burial place was considered a heinous act.  Even in times of war, conquering armies allowed for the proper disposition of the dead.

"Burial" by R. Dennis Cole in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p.203.

See also End Note #13.

 

9. The Gospels and Acts quote Isaiah 53 as containing various prophecies about Jesus: 

• John 12:38=>Isaiah 53:1 
• Matthew 8:17=>Isaiah 53:4 
• Acts 8:32=>Isaiah 53:7-8
• Luke 22:37=>Isaiah 53:12

Note that the Christian evangelist Philip (and the author of the book of Acts) treats Isaiah 53:7-8 as a prophecy about Jesus in Acts 8:26-35.  The very next verse in Chapter 53 of Isaiah talks about the grave of the suffering servant/messiah: 

He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

    and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

    nor was any deceit in his mouth.

(Isaiah 53:9, NRSV Updated Edition)

Also, an NT letter ascribed to Peter quotes part of Isaiah 53:9 (see 1 Peter 2:21-23) as a characterization of Jesus.

Christian apologists in the 20th Century interpret Isaiah 53:9 as making a prediction that the messiah would be buried in the tomb of a rich man (i.e., Joseph of Arimathea). For example, Josh McDowell does so in Evidence that Demands a Verdict (1972) on page174.  Early Christians might well have given this verse the same interpretation, since they viewed Isaiah 53 as a collection of messianic prophecies.

10. An obvious skeptical response to the claim of early Christians that the risen Jesus had appeared to some of his disciples after his crucifixion is that the disciples merely saw a ghost or the spirit of Jesus, not a physically resurrected Jesus. In response to such skepticism, both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John emphasized the physical embodiment of the risen Jesus in their stories about the risen Jesus appearing to his disciples (Luke 24:36-42 and John 20:19-28).  

The empty tomb story would serve the same apologetic purpose: it supports the view that Jesus' dead body was transformed into a new and eternal physical body on Easter Sunday.  If the tomb was empty on Sunday morning, then that fits nicely with the view that God raised Jesus from the dead by transforming Jesus' dead body into a living and immortal body. Thus, the empty tomb story might well have been invented in order to counter a common skeptical objection to the Christian claim that God had physically raised Jesus from the dead. 

11. The evidence for the existence of Arimathea is weak:

There is no external evidence for the existence of Arimathea, and some scholars suggest that it may have been a literary device used in the Gospel narrative.

"Arimathea" in Wikipedia, viewed 11-09-25

Also, the prefix "Ari" means "best" or "excellent", and the term "mathea" means "student". In NT Greek, "Arimathea" is: Ἀριμαθέα

So, the name "Arimathea" literally means "best student" or "excellent disciple", and it would be perfectly in keeping with a major theme of the Gospel of Mark--the doubt, the obtuseness, and the cowardice of Jesus' twelve disciples--to suggest that Joseph was acting like an excellent disciple for providing Jesus with an honorable burial, in contrast to Jesus' twelve disciples, one of whom betrayed Jesus (Judas), one of whom denied knowing Jesus (Peter), and all of whom abandoned Jesus when he was arrested. 

In the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Matthew, none of the disciples were present at Jesus' crucifixion (presumably because they were in hiding or had left town), and none of the twelve disciples helped, or were even present, when Jesus' body was buried. Thus, the author of the Gospel of Mark might well have invented the town of "Arimathea" in order to emphasize the contrast between Joseph and the twelve disciples of Jesus.

12. Jesus scholar John Crossan notes that there is a tendency of the burial stories to increase the honor and dignity of Jesus' burial as the story developed over time:  

The trajectory of the burial tradition sought, after a rather negative beginning, to move from burial by enemies to burial by friends, from inadequate and hurried burial to full, complete, and even regal embalming.

 

Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Crossan (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), p.155.

In the Gospel of Mark, Joseph of Arimathea is a "prominent member of the council", that is to say, a member of the Sanhedrin that had condemned Jesus to death. Joseph simply wraps the body of Jesus in a linen cloth or sheet, and places the body into a "tomb cut out of rock" (Mark 15:43-46). But in the Gospel of John, written about three decades later, Joseph of Arimathea is now described as a "disciple of Jesus" and there is no mention that he was a member of the Sanhedrin who had condemned Jesus to death.  Another man, Nicodemus, brings a large amount of spices, "a mixture of myrrh and aloes," to use in the burial of Jesus, making the burial similar to that of a king or chief priest.  Instead of simply wrapping the body of Jesus in a sheet, they use "strips of linen" along with the spices, and the tomb where they lay the body is now described as "in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid." (John 19:38-42).

In short, in the Gospel of John, Joseph of Arimathea is upgraded to being a follower of Jesus, the burial process is upgraded to being a burial fit for a king, and the tomb is upgraded to being a brand-new tomb in a garden setting.    

13. The scholars of The Jesus Seminar make this relevant comment about the alleged burial of Jesus:

If the place of execution was the location of frequent crucifixions, it is unlikely that a private cemetary was close by.  Christian memory, however, did not like the thought that Jesus had been buried in a common grave, so storytellers made it a private burial plot. Christian memory liked even less the notion that Jesus had not been buried at all.  The fact is, Christian storytellers may well not have known what happened to Jesus' body.

The Acts of Jesus by Robert Funk and The Jesus Seminar (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1998), p.440.

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel – Part 11: Chapter 18

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series, I argued that we have good reasons to believe that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. The main problem is that the characterization of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the Gospel of John conflicts with the characterization of Jesus’ ministry and teachings in the Gospel of Mark, which was written decades before the Gospel of John.

In Part 5, I argued that at least three alleged discourses by Jesus in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable.

In Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9, I argued that at least five one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and some individual in the Gospel of John are probably either fictional or historically unreliable.

Since there are these additional significant historical problems in the Gospel of John (with three alleged discourses of Jesus and with five alleged one-on-one dialogues between Jesus and individuals) that make it probable that many of the alleged words of Jesus in the Gospel of John are either fictional or historically unreliable, we now have good reason to conclude that it is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. Thus, passages from this gospel cannot be used as a part of a reasonable case for the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

Furthermore, there are a number of specific historical problems with key chapters of the Gospel of John (i.e. Chapter 18, Chapter 19, and Chapter 20) that cast doubt on the historical reliability of the contents of those key chapters. In this post, I will point out a number of specific historical problems in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John.

HISTORICAL PROBLEMS WITH CHAPTER  18

Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John can be divided into four sections/events:

I. Jesus was Arrested (John 18:1-14)

II. Peter’s Denials of Jesus (John 18:15-18 & 18:25-27)

III. Annas Questions Jesus (John 18:19-24)

IV. Jesus before Pilate (John 18:28-40)

I. Jesus was Arrested (John 18:1-14)

The Gospel of John, Chapter 18, verses 1 through 6 (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition):

1 After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. 2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place because Jesus often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” 5 They answered, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus replied, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they stepped back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So if you are looking for me, let these people go.” 9 This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken, “I did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me.” 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. 11 Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?” 12 So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people. 

First, it is not clear that Judas Iscariot was an actual historical person, as indicated in the entry about him in The Oxford Companion to the Bible:

Accounts of Judas are varied, inconsistent, and influenced by theological opinions of the writers, the belief in the fulfillment of scripture, and the idea that God brings death to ungodly persons (2 Macc. 9.5-12).  It is therefore difficult to assess the historicity of Judas and his action. [1]

Jesus scholar Robert Funk believes that the Gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest are fictional, as well as the character of Judas Iscariot:

...virtually every detail with the passion was based on some scripture. ...The stories of the arrest in the gospels are themselves fictions...

In addition to events and details suggested by scripture, the passion story contains a number of pure fictions.  Judas Iscariot the betrayer is in all probability a gospel fiction.[2] 

Second, the story of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas could have been generated either by an alleged Old Testament prophecy and/or by an alleged prophecy of Jesus, and thus lacked a factual or historical basis.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus points to a specific OT passage (Psalm 41:9) as a prediction of betrayal by Judas:

18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ 19 I tell you this now, before it occurs, so that when it does occur you may believe that I am he. ...

21 After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” 22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking. 23 One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining close to his heart; 24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. 25 So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot.

(John 13:18-19 & 21-26, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition) 

Suppose the author of the Gospel of John believed that Jesus made this prophecy/prediction.  In that case, the author might well have concluded that Judas must have betrayed Jesus, without having any factual evidence that Judas actually betrayed Jesus.  On the other hand, suppose the author did NOT believe that Jesus made this prophecy/prediction.  In that case, the author would be lying by attributing these words to Jesus, and the credibility of the author and of the Gospel of John would thus be seriously damaged.

The other Gospels also have Judas betray Jesus.  In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus predicts that one of his twelve disciples will betray him, but does not indicate the specific disciple that would do this (Mark 14:17-21).  Although the author of Mark does not quote Psalm 41:9, the passion narrative in the Gospel of Mark was heavily influenced by Old Testament passages, especially by passages from the Psalms that early Christians viewed as containing prophecies about the final days and hours of Jesus' life.  

Thus, the story of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas in the Gospel of Mark could also have been based on Psalm 41:9 and/or on an alleged prophecy by Jesus, rather than on the basis of reliable testimony or historical evidence.  Since Mark was a primary source used by the authors of the other two Gospels, the betrayal of Jesus by Judas in the Gospel of Mark would have been the basis for this event in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

Third, although the Gospels agree that Jesus was betrayed by Judas, they provide conflicting accounts of the details of Jesus' arrest:

• In the Gospel of Mark (and the Gospel of Matthew), Judas singles out Jesus by giving him a kiss, but in the Gospel of John, Judas merely leads a group of armed men to the place where Jesus and his other disciples are, and Jesus steps forward and clearly identifies himself, making it unnecessary for Judas to identify Jesus.[3]
• In the Gospel of Mark (and the Gospel of Matthew), Judas is accompanied by "a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders," but in the Gospel of John, Judas comes with "a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees". It is unlikely that the chief priests would have wanted or needed Roman soldiers (as indicated by the Gospel of John) to achieve the arrest of Jesus, especially since they had him arrested at night, when there would be little chance of a skirmish with a crowd of Jesus' followers.[3] 
• In the Gospel of Mark (and in the Gospel of Matthew), nothing miraculous or amazing happens when Jesus is arrested, but in the Gospel of Luke, and only in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus performs a miracle. When a follower of Jesus cuts off the ear of a man to prevent Jesus from being arrested, Jesus instantly heals the injured man's ear.[4]  In the Gospel of John, and only in the Gospel of John, when Jesus announces his identity to the detachment of Roman soldiers and Jewish police, they all fall to the ground! There is no hint of such amazing events in the account of Jesus' arrest in either the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew, indicating that these alleged events are legendary embellishments to earlier accounts.[3]  
• The words allegedly spoken by Jesus during his arrest are different in each of the four Gospels, indicating that each author probably invented what Jesus said during his arrest.[3][4]
• In the Gospel of Mark (and in the Gospel of Matthew), Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane, which was probably an olive grove, but in the Gospel of John, Jesus was arrested in a garden.[5]
• In the Gospel of Mark (and in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke), Jesus is taken to the house of the high priest, i.e., Caiaphas, and questioned by Caiaphas.[6] But in the Gospel of John, Jesus is taken to be questioned by Annas, who was not the high priest at that time.[7]

Given these various conflicts, especially between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, and given that the Gospel of Mark was probably written two or three decades before the Gospel of John, we have good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the account of Jesus' arrest found in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John.

II. Peter’s Denials of Jesus (John 18:15-18 & 18:25-27)

There are at least three reasons to doubt the historical reliability of the story about Peter’s alleged three denials of Jesus.

First, it is unlikely that Peter, who allegedly fled in fear along with the other disciples when Jesus was arrested[8], would be so daring as to follow armed soldiers and an armed crowd that took Jesus to the house of the high priest. 

Second, this story follows “the rule of three,”[9] a common feature of jokes, storytelling, and fairy tales, indicating that this is an imaginative bit of dramatic storytelling. 

Third, the author of the Gospel of John stated that Jesus predicted Peter would deny him three times before a rooster crows: 

36 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus answered, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward.” 37 Peter said to him, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” 38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times."                                        (John 13:37-38, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition) 

Either the author believed Jesus made this prediction or the author did not believe Jesus made this prediction.  If the author believed Jesus made this prediction, then the author would probably tell this story even if there was no reliable testimony or historical evidence supporting the story, simply on the basis that this is what Jesus predicted would happen.  If, on the other hand, the author did not believe Jesus made this prediction about Peter, then the author of the Gospel of John lied about Jesus making the prediction, seriously damaging the credibility of his other claims about the words and actions of Jesus.  

Thus, we have good reasons to doubt the historical reliability of these verses about the alleged three denials of Jesus by Peter in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John.

III. Annas Questions Jesus (John 18:19-24)

Here is the passage about the questioning of Jesus by Annas:

19 Then the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. 20 Jesus answered, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.” 22 When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.                                          (John 18:19-24, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

First, according to the Gospel of John, two of Jesus' disciples were present, but they were outside, while Jesus was being questioned inside[10], so we have here another example of omniscient narration by the author of the Gospel of John. It is doubtful that the two disciples could hear the conversation between Annas and Jesus from the courtyard outside, so it is unlikely that these details of what was said in that alleged conversation were based on eyewitness testimony or reliable historical evidence.

Second, the questioning of Jesus by Annas clearly violates a basic principle of Jewish law.  A person charged with a crime can only be convicted on the basis of the testimony of two or more witnesses to the alleged crime.  The Jewish leadership, according to the Gospel of John, thinks Jesus should be put to death.  So, this is, in essence, a capital case, which clearly demands a formal trial involving testimony from two or more witnesses.  In this passage, Jesus is correctly pointing out that Annas is failing to follow some basic principles of Jewish law.  

It might be objected that this is only an informal interrogation and that a more formal trial of Jesus was going to happen later, but the Gospel of John says nothing about there being a trial of Jesus after Jesus' arrest.  

Annas was a former high priest and the father-in-law of the current high priest, so he was very familiar with Jewish legal principles and was a very influential Jewish leader.  There is no reason to believe that Annas was an evil or morally corrupt leader, and the Gospel of John repeatedly shows a strong anti-Jewish bias, blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus.  So, we have good reason to doubt this characterization of Annas as someone who would ignore basic principles of Jewish law and justice, especially in a case where the punishment of the alleged crime would be death.  Thus, it is unlikely that this alleged conversation between Jesus and Annas is historically accurate.  

Third, the striking of Jesus in the face by a Jewish police official during questioning by Annas seems unlikely, unless we had good reason to believe that Annas was an evil or morally corrupt leader, in view of the anti-Jewish bias of the Gospel of John, and in view of the fact that the Old Testament was believed by early Christians to have predicted that Jesus would be physically abused and struck. The Gospel of Mark also has Jesus struck when Jesus was interrogated by the high priest (Caiaphas), and this event appears to have been inspired by a passage from Isaiah:

For what happened to Jesus at this point, Mark's source had gone to Isaiah 50:6 in the Septuagint: "I gave my back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows [hrapismata]; and I turned not away my face from the shame of spitting [emptusmaton]," and follows it closely: "Some began to spit [emptuein] on him, blindfolded him, and struck him [hrapismasin]" (Mark 14:65).[11] 

 If the striking of Jesus after being questioned by the high priest was based on an Old Testament passage that early Christians believed was a prophecy about Jesus, then the striking of Jesus after being questioned by Annas might well also have been based on the same Old Testament passage rather than being based on eyewitness testimony or reliable historical evidence.

These considerations provide good reason to doubt the historical reliability of this section of Chapter 18 about the alleged interrogation of Jesus by Annas.

IV. Jesus Before Pilate (John 18:28-40)

In Part 6 of this series, I argued that the Dialogue between Jesus and Pilate in Chapters 18 and 19 of the Gospel of John is probably either fictional or historically unreliable. 

Furthermore, in Chapter 6 of my book, I provide ten reasons for believing that the Gospel accounts of the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate are either fictional or historically unreliable (see section 6.3 Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical Injuries).

Also, in one blog post, I show that several Jesus and NT scholars have expressed serious doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts about the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate: 

NT and Jesus Scholars on the Alleged Trial before Pilate

In another post, I show that the eminent NT and Jesus scholar Raymond Brown has serious doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts about the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate:

Raymond Brown on the Trial of Jesus before Pilate

Based on the considerations presented in the posts just mentioned and in Chapter 6 of my upcoming book, we have good reason to believe that the account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate in Chapters 18 and 19 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable.

CONCLUSION

In this post, I have shown that there are good reasons to believe that the content of each of the four main events/sections of Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John is historically unreliable.  

Given that I have shown in previous posts in this series that it is very likely that the Gospel of John in general provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, we may now reasonably conclude that it is very likely that Chapter 18 of the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the alleged events and alleged words of Jesus described in that chapter.

END NOTES

1. Edwin Freed, "Judas Iscariot" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,1993), p.395)

2. Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996), pp. 233 & 234.

3. See Mark 14:43-50 and Matthew 26:47-56, then compare their accounts with John 18:2-11.

4. See Luke 22:47-53.

5. The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew imply that Gethsemane is on or near the Mount of Olives (Mark 14:26-32, and Matthew 26:30-36), and the word "Gethsemane" derives from the Aramaic word for "oil press" (see "Gethsemane" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible). Thus, those Gospels imply that Jesus was arrested in an olive grove. The Gospel of John, however, does not mention "Gethsemane," and it states that Jesus was arrested in "a garden" (John 18:1-3).

6. See Mark 14:53-54, Matthew 26:57-58, and Luke 22:54-55. Matthew explicitly identifies the high priest as being Caiaphas, and the Gospel of John agrees that Caiaphas was the high priest at that time (John 11:49-51, 18:13, and 18:24). There was only one person serving as high priest at a given time, and accoring to the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, Caiaphas was the high priest between 18 C.E. and 36 C.E., so Caiaphas was high priest when Jesus was crucified around 30 C.E. (see "Caiaphas" article in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible). 

7. See John 18:12-13.

8. See Mark 14:43-50 and Matthew 26:47-56.

9. “The Rule of Three” from Wikipedia.

10. According to the Gospel of John, Peter and another disciple of Jesus were outside in the courtyard warming themselves by a fire when Annas questioned Jesus (John 18:15-18).  Annas and Jesus were presumably inside the house/building where it was not as cold as outside in the courtyard. 

11. Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988), p.120.