https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/06/2 ... -theories/
I would agree with dr. Carrier in this judgement, if the first gospel was entirely similar, more or less, to our Mark. But the problem is that the Gospel Passion Story shows signs of early and late layers.
The first layer is surely one where only Pilate, and only him, was the killer of Jesus.
A good description of the situation is posed by Bruce Chilton here:
Magne sees the overall scene of the session of the Sanhedrin as an expansion of the "primitive text," which he takes to be reflected in two passages which frame the scene of the trial and Peter' s denial (Mark 14:53; 15: 1, in the translation of Magne's rendering):
In referring to the passages as "primitive," Magne intends to say that was as much as was known about how Jesus came to be condemned to death by Pilate. Everything else is embellishment. The literary formation of the text is elegantly set out by Magne. Within the primitive reference to the taking of counsel at the opening and the closing of the present sequence, two interior chiasms are formed, one involving Peter and his denial, the other involving the "trial." The artificiality of the devices is evident to Magne. The evidence brought against Jesus is dangerously close to the truth (see John 2:19; Matt 27:40; Mark 15:29; Acts 6:14), so that the reference to false witness in Mark 14:57-59 is maladroit to say the least.
Moreover, the christological question posed by the High Priest (Mark 14:61) is unrelated to what precedes, and the beating of Jesus and the mocking demand for hirn to prophesy (14:65) seem unmotivated. Finally, the notice of people "taking counsel" (Mark 15: 1) is not the language of any sort of legal proceeding, and actually suggests the accused was not present.
Within Magne' s overall understanding of the development of Christianity, as a popular Gnosis, the creation of the vignette of the trial, with its implicit anti-Judaism, makes good sense. Indeed, Magne is inclined to see a great deal within the Gospels as a pure fabrication on the basis of scriptural texts. So the striking feature of his analysis of Mark 14:53-72 is not that he sees so much elaboration, but that he invokes the hypothesis of the historical memory of Jesus being handed
over to Pilate for execution by High Priest, elders, and scribes. Indeed, Magne has revised his analysis since the work cited above, to posit that even the crucifixion, although primitive from the point of view of the memory of events, was also fabricated. [7]
Note 7 reads, entirely:
(my bold)
Hence, as also meant by other sources by Magne himself, the original Passion Story was something of similar to this:
“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
Before a story with that final, I think that dr. Carrier is wrong to assume a Pure Agnostic Position.
I observe from note 7 above that, by his own admission, the same Jean Magne was unable to find a text "which he alleges inspired a narrative of the crucifixion".
I believe that I have found that text. But to conclude so, I should read a particular book.
If the reading of the book in question confirms even only indirectly my view (remember that his author is a historicist scholar), then dr. Carrier is definitely not more justified to profession of mere Jesus Agnosticism when he deals with the only Gospel tradition.