On the surprise of Herod and Pilate about a post-mortem Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On the surprise of Herod and Pilate about a post-mortem Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:43 pm

In the past I had already suspected that the true answer of Peter delucidated what the people thought about Jesus (not only what Peter believed):

Mark 8.27-28: 27
Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.”

Hence the part in red was interpolated to make strictly exclusive and specific the relation between Peter and Jesus along the lines of the Jewish Messiah who is recognized as such at least by the his true disciple, despite of the ignorance of the stupid hoi polloi. The quality of the recognition is better than the quantity.
But removing the interpolation in red, the identity of Jesus as the Jewish Christ is questioned insofar it is believed by Peter and by all the people.

The same pattern seems to be in action here:

Mark 6.14-16:
And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.” 15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has risen!”

The part in red, by showing a Herod already sure about who is Jesus (=simply John redivivus) doesn't explain the specific interest of Herod about who was Jesus, not about who was John the Baptist, in Luke.

The surprise of Herod ceases when he sees personally Jesus and this passage in Luke has all the air of being the expedient by Jesus to escape the surveillance by the "archon" Herod:

Luke 23:11 :
Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate...

Hence I would like to imagine that the original source behind Mark 6.14-16 was:

Mark 6.14-16:
And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, Jesus called Christ has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.”

This surprise by Herod for the rapid resurrection of Jesus is surprisingly similar with the surprise by Pilate for the rapid death of Jesus:

Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.

(Mark 15:44-45)

Note the similarity: in both the cases an "archon" is surprised for something made by Jesus during/after the his death, in both the cases an "archon" wants to see clear personally what is happened, in both the cases an "archon" minimizes the presumed miracle and gives a "body" for Jesus (a "robe"/a "corpse").

I think that in both the cases Jesus is escaping the surveillance of the "archon" in question by being identified by the "archon" with what he seems (and only seems) to be: in the eyes of Herod, he is the "elegant robe" put on him, in the case of Pilate, he is the mere "corpse" of a crucified.

So the point is that: Herod kills Jesus: Jesus rises rapidly; Herod is surprised by hearing about the news of the Risen Jesus.

This is eclipsed by a new story where: Pilate kills Jesus; Jesus dies rapidly; Pilate is surprised by hearing about the rapid death of Jesus.

The eclipse of the previous story (where only Herod kills Jesus) is more successfull if John the Baptist takes the place of the Jesus killed by Herod. To give place to the "new" Jesus killed by Pilate.

Quid prodest?

In another post I have suspected that only the "Jewish-Christian animosity toward the emperor Hadrian’s measures in putting down the Bar Kokhba rebellion" was really responsable for the introduction of Pilate in the narrative. Basically: against the gentiles. The original narrative extended on all the Jews the crime of killing Jesus, despite of the fact that all the Jews recognized Jesus as the Jewish Christ.

Our "Mark" (author) was so highly embarrassed by that universal knowledge that Jesus was the Jewish Christ, knowledge just of the entire people who killed him, that the his remedy and apology to mitigate the crime of an entire people who killed deliberately the his own Messiah was to make the Messiah totally unknown for that people. What Wrede called Messianic Secret is this apology and remedy.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the surprise of Herod and Pilate about a post-mortem Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Note that in our versions Herod kills John the Baptist even if Herod personally "respected John".

This resembles what I am saying here about the original narrative: the "Jews" killed Jesus even if they recognized him as their Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the surprise of Herod and Pilate about a post-mortem Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:31 pm

The possibility that the risen Jesus went to Galilee may explain why he "disturbed"/surprised Herod who recognizes that he is risen.

The Galilee was under Herod.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the surprise of Herod and Pilate about a post-mortem Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:29 am

The Gospel of Peter insists on the absolute innocence of Pilate. He is reduced to be a mere observer of the events.

Was GPeter replying against the introduction of Pilate in a gospel where originally he was not there? Herod calls "brother" Pilate after that Pilate aks him the corpse of Jesus.

And Herod said: 'Brother Pilate, even if no one had requested him, we would have buried him, since indeed Sabbath is dawning

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... brown.html

But in Luke it is Pilate who calls implicitly "friend" Herod after that Herod sent him Jesus.

Hence it may be derived with a good certainty that GPeter is replying against Luke: it is not Pilate the boss in action, but Herod. Pilate is put kindly apart but he is definitely considered as an intruder in the narrative.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the surprise of Herod and Pilate about a post-mortem Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:40 am

Correcting the post above, I wonder if Luke was who corrected GPeter and not vice versa.

Whereas in GPeter Herod becomes friend of Pilate only when Pilate receives from him the corpse, in Luke Pilate becomes friend of Herod when he receives from him a Jesus "dressed by an elegant robe", an euphemism to refer to the corpse (being both the corpse and the robe a mere material covering of the Jesus). Afterall, the intention of Luke was presumably to eclipse the role of Herod as killer of Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the surprise of Herod and Pilate about a post-mortem Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:59 am

Note also the great difference between Luke and GPeter:
  • Luke doesn't explain why Pilate and Herod became friends after the ping pong.
  • GPeter explains why Pilate and Herod became friends after the ping pong: Pilate gained from Herod the corpse of someone considered innocent by him. Before that, Pilate didn't approve the killing of Jesus and therefore he was an enemy of Herod.
This proves definitely that Luke comes after GPeter.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply