Rome and the East
be, first, on examining the general characteristics of the Gospels, viewed as
biographical narratives (which is what they are, however ‘‘kerygmatic’’ their
intentions). This discussion will suggest some reasons why, if any one of the
Gospels can bring us closer to the historical context and overall pattern of
Jesus’ activities than the others, it is John rather than any of the Synoptics;^3
while, of the Synoptics, it is Luke who has the weakest grasp on the realities
of Palestine under Roman domination. It is essential to stress that those reali-
ties provide the only touchstone for whatmaybe veridical in any of the trial
narratives, as in the Gospel narratives as a whole. These realities are genu-
inely accessible, to a significant degree, because—and only because—of the
works of Josephus. In the case of Josephus we know who he was, what his
place was in the Jewish history of his time, what he wrote, when, where, and
to a large degree why. Not one of those questions can be answered with any
confidence for any one of the Evangelists. None the less, it is highly relevant
to note that Josephus’Jewish War,Antiquities,andLifewere themselves writ-
ten in Rome in the s, s and s; a work can truly spring from the Judaea
of before.. without having been written either there or then.
The evidence of Josephus enables us to saynotwhich of the Gospel ac-
counts is ‘‘true,’’ but, firstly, what is significant about the differences between
them; and, secondly, which of the things narrated by them could have been
true, and conversely which could not. To take one example: the two birth
narratives, of Matthew and Luke, are wholly different, and mutually incom-
patible; but Matthew’s account fits with historical reality andcouldbe true in
its broad outlines, while Luke’s does not, and cannot be true. This distinc-
tion does not lose its significance even if we conclude, as I believe we must,
that in fact neither is true.
If we then turn to the trial narratives themselves, we may be able to find
reasons why some are likely to be false, because they do not fit with what we
know from more secure evidence. And we may also be able to show that one
is plausible, that it does ‘‘fit.’’ But that is not the same thing as proving it to be
true. For it lies in the nature of arguments from coherence that we can never
confidently distinguish between an essentially veridical narrative, based on
first-hand reports, and a convincing reconstruction—or fiction—whose au-
thor respected historical realities. We cannot know ‘‘what happened’’; but we
can certainly gain a clearer idea of the significance of the differences between
the several accounts we are given.
. My use of, and emphasis on, John clearly owes much to C. H. Dodd,Historical Tradi-
tion in the Fourth Gospel(), and to J. A. T. Robinson,The Priority of John(). See now
M. Hengel,The Johannine Question().