CORROBORATING WITNESS—BART D. EHRMAN
CORROBORATING WITNESS
(Historical Jesus, Temple Judgment, and the Logic of Crucifixion)
THE TESTIMONY OF Bart D. Ehrman
CALLING THE WITNESS
SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Bart D. Ehrman.
(A quiet shift. Not devotion—documentation.)
(The WITNESS is sworn.)
SCOPE AND LIMITS OF TESTIMONY
SPOCK
Professor Ehrman, you appear before this court as a historian of early Christianity and the historical Jesus.
You are not asked to testify to theology, doctrine, miracles, divinity, or supernatural causation.
You are not asked to validate prophecy as predictive certainty.
You are asked to testify to historically plausible sayings, actions, motives, and the political logic of Roman execution.
Do you understand the limits of your testimony?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes, Your Honor.
SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony concerns historical plausibility, not metaphysical certainty.
Proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
IDENTITY AND HISTORICAL METHOD
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and occupation for the court record.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Bart D. Ehrman. I am a historian of early Christianity and the New Testament. My work focuses on what can be said about Jesus using standard historical methods.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
In this court, what does it mean to say a claim is historically defensible?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
It means the claim fits the available sources, coheres with the historical context, and aligns with how similar situations typically unfold—without requiring faith-based premises.
SPOCK
So noted. Method, not confession, governs this testimony.
HANDOFF FROM SANDERS: TEMPLE CENTRALITY
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
You have heard prior testimony establishing that the Jerusalem Temple was the religious, economic, and political center of Jewish life in the early first century. Do you accept that as a historical premise?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes. That is widely recognized among historians.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Within that context, would a public critique or symbolic action against the Temple have political consequences?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes. Such actions would not be heard as private religious opinion. They would be perceived as destabilizing—especially under Roman oversight.
SPOCK
The court restates its guardrail: the Temple is admitted as a civilizational center, not merely a religious building.
Proceed.
JESUS AND TEMPLE LEADERSHIP
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Without invoking theology, what can be said historically about Jesus’ conflict with Temple authorities?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
It is historically plausible that Jesus criticized Temple leadership and its administration.
Such critiques were already present within Judaism itself—concerns about corruption, collaboration with Rome, economic exploitation, and the burden placed on ordinary people.
Jesus fits within a recognizable tradition of internal prophetic critique—comparable to figures like Jeremiah or Amos.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So this is best understood as an intra-Jewish dispute?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes. That is the most historically responsible framing.
SPOCK
The court notes: criticism of leadership is not condemnation of a people. No anti-Judaism is admitted under the cover of scholarship.
Proceed.
TEMPLE JUDGMENT AND HISTORICAL PLAUSIBILITY
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Is it historically plausible that Jesus spoke of judgment on the Temple or Jerusalem?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes, it is plausible.
Multiple strands of Gospel tradition associate Jesus with warnings of coming catastrophe involving the Temple or the city.
From a historical standpoint, one can argue that Jesus anticipated upheaval and expressed that expectation in prophetic language.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
To be precise: are you claiming certainty?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
No. Historians rarely claim certainty. I am speaking in terms of probability and contextual coherence.
SPOCK
Guardrail reaffirmed: plausible does not mean proven.
Proceed.
WHY SUCH LANGUAGE DRAWS ROMAN ATTENTION
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Why would such language matter to Roman authorities?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Rome governed by maintaining order. Jerusalem was volatile. The Temple was a national and political symbol as much as a religious one.
A public figure drawing crowds and speaking of the Temple’s downfall—even without calling for violence—could be interpreted as agitation.
Rome punished perceived threats to stability.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So Rome crucified political destabilizers, not theologians.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
That is a historically grounded way to put it. Crucifixion was designed to deter sedition and public disorder.
SPOCK
The court emphasizes: this explains crucifixion through governance and control, not theology.
Proceed.
THE LOGIC OF CRUCIFIXION WITHOUT DIVINITY
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How does this framework help the court understand why Jesus was crucified?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
It makes the outcome intelligible.
You do not need to assume claims of divinity for Rome to act.
If Jesus was perceived as proclaiming a coming “kingdom,” criticizing authorities, disrupting Temple activity, or predicting its fall—those are precisely the signals that could trigger Roman intervention.
Crucifixion fits that pattern.
COMPARATIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK (HINGE QUESTION)
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
One final question for clarity.
If the Roman government had protections comparable to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution—guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of religion—would Jesus have been arrested and crucified for what he said and did?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Almost certainly not.
Jesus was not executed because his ideas were controversial in a modern free-speech sense. He was executed because Roman law did not protect speech or religious expression that was perceived as destabilizing to public order.
In a system with constitutional protections for dissent and religious critique, Jesus’ actions would likely have fallen under protected expression.
Roman governance did not recognize such protections. Stability took precedence over individual rights.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So his death was contingent on the legal system—not inevitable because of the content of his message alone?
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes. The same speech can be tolerated in one system and punished in another.
SPOCK
Let the record be clear:
This testimony does not speculate on alternate histories.
It clarifies how legal frameworks shape outcomes.
Proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.
(SATAN rises.)
AFTER-THE-FACT WRITING
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Professor Ehrman, the Gospels were written after Jesus’ death.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
That is correct.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So predictions of destruction could be retrofitted.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
They could be. Historians consider that possibility.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Then you cannot claim Jesus predicted anything.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
I cannot claim certainty. I can claim plausibility based on context, multiple traditions, and historical pattern.
POLITICS VS. MEANING
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Rome did not crucify people for religious disagreement.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Generally, no.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So Jesus was a political problem.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
He was at least perceived as one.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And your testimony proves no ultimate meaning.
WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Correct. History explains why authorities act—not what events ultimately mean.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.
(SATAN sits.)
JUDICIAL HOLDING
SPOCK
The witness has testified, within strict limits, to historically plausible dynamics:
• The Temple’s centrality makes Temple judgment politically explosive
• Jesus fits an intra-Jewish tradition of prophetic critique
• Warnings of Temple destruction are historically plausible
• Roman crucifixion is best understood as a deterrent to destabilization
• Legal frameworks—not inevitability—shaped the outcome
No claims of divinity, supernatural causation, or predictive prophecy have been asserted.
This testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes only.
CLOSING REFLECTION — EHRMAN’S CONTRIBUTION
History supplies a floor, not a ceiling.
Jesus’ Temple critique and judgment language were culturally intelligible and politically dangerous.
Crucifixion becomes legible as state response—without theological premises.
This record does not decide what the events mean.
It clarifies why they were feared.
BENCH OBSERVATION
SPOCK
The court reminds the jury:
Explaining why power kills is not the same as justifying it.
History can make an execution intelligible.
Only conscience decides what follows from the knowledge.