17 Compare Wells, “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate” p. 24 with Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), especially pp. 18–19.
18 Metzger, Historical and Literary, pp. 11, 20–22; cf. Edwin Yamauchi, “Easter—Myth, Hallucination, or History?” Christianity Today, vol. XVIII, no. 12, March 15, 1974, pp. 4–7 and vol. XVIII, no. 13, March 29, 1974, pp. 12–16.
19 Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels(New York: Scribner’s, 1977), p. 199.
20 Examples include Metzger, Historical and Literary(p. 7) and Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man(p. 91).
21 Donald Guthrie surveys the recent state of Gospel studies on this issue, in his New Testament Introduction(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), pp. 53–56, 84–89, 125–131, 297–303.
Even historians such as Michael Grant accept the earlier dates, again contrary to Wells’ view.^22
Of course, the issue here is not a battle of how many scholars hold these positions, but the reasons behind their views. Still, if the majority of contemporary scholars is correct over against Wells’ position on the dating of the Gospels, then Wells’ assertion that the New Testament does not link Jesus to Pilate prior to AD 90 is also in error.
Even apart from the issue of dating, Wells employs another highly questionable line of reasoning to explain how the early church unanimously chose Pilate’s name—because “Pilate would naturally come to mind . . . . for he was just the type of person to have murdered Jesus.”^23 Here we must ask why would the Gospels all agree in this choice of names, even if Pilate did fit the description? Would Herod not be an even better choice? Wells obviously prefers his thesis because it facilitates his four-stage development of the New Testament. Yet his view is not compelling because it conflicts with the facts.
Page 123456789101112131415161718192021
