Basic reason why the name of Pilate was absent in the Earliest Passion Story extrapolated from Mark

[Giuseppe]

But you could draw the same conclusion: if Mark cut all that out, he was trying to make Pilate look really bad.

the point is that if I remove the released Barabbas, then I should remove also the releaser: Pilate. And make anonymous (and really bad) the Roman "governor".

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

the point is that if I remove the released Barabbas, then I should remove also the releaser: Pilate. And make anonymous (and really bad) the Roman "governor".

rgprice has pointed out a few times that you are reconstructing a supposed original gospel, although you could essentially get the story from Paul's letters without any major differences. I would argue that I could already get many more elements for Mark's story from Paul than from your short "original" Passion account. You seem to have made it clear that you absolutely want to stick to an Ur-Passion account.

I noted with interest that Martijn judges the Gospels to be older than Paul's letters. In your opinion, is there a common trend here?

(Of course I have the feeling that the critical perspective of the 19th and 20th centuries is being abandoned here and we are falling back into the deepest "superstition")

[Peter Kirby]

(Of course I have the feeling that the critical perspective of the 19th and 20th centuries is being abandoned here and we are falling back into the deepest "superstition")

Following this critical perspective has always been one of your great strengths.

I still find that I can learn a lot from those who are fast and loose with the facts. It's actually a great privilege to be able to do so. You can never really, truly give someone your critical perspective. But you can take all of their good ideas.

[davidmartin]

KK Martijn's proposal is the opposite of superstition, he claims it based on analytical methods. it's exactly what I wanted to hear

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I still find that I can learn a lot from those who are fast and loose with the facts. It's actually a great privilege to be able to do so. You can never really, truly give someone your critical perspective. But you can take all of their good ideas.

I completely agree with you and admit that you are much better at it.

KK Martijn's proposal is the opposite of superstition, he claims it based on analytical methods. it's exactly what I wanted to hear

Everything's fine, Martin. That was also meant to be a little ironic.

Nevertheless, there are currently many who are developing theories according to which the original is exactly what they particularly like. And I'll stick with it that it would be exactly the same, if I were to develop some feminist theory that Mary Magdalene wrote the first gospel.

[maryhelena]

Nevertheless, there are currently many who are developing theories according to which the original is exactly what they particularly like. And I'll stick with it that it would be exactly the same, if I were to develop some feminist theory that Mary Magdalene wrote the first gospel.

Perhaps she would need to listen to what his mother had to say before she puts her own account into print....
Perhaps Colm Tóibín could put his hand to it - after all - her take on gospel Jesus might finally expose the irrationally of taking that storyline as historical reality - exposed once and for all - as the literary concept it is. But perhaps not - after all who likes to have their daydreams shattered.....

He gathered around him, I said, a group of misfits, who were only children like himself, or men without fathers, or men who could not look a woman in the eye. Men who were seen smiling to themselves, or who had grown old when they were still young. Not one of you was normal, I said, and I watched him push his plate of half-eaten food towards me as though he were a child in a tantrum. Yes, misfits, I said. My son gathered misfits, although he himself, despite everything, was not a misfit; he could have done anything, he could have been quiet even, he had that capacity also, the one that is the rarest, he could have spent time alone with ease, he could look at a woman as though she were his equal, and he was grateful, good-mannered, intelligent. And he used all of it, I said, so he could lead a group of men who trusted him from place to place. I have no time for misfits, I said, but if you put two of you together you will get not only foolishness and the usual cruelty but you will also get a desperate need for something else. Gather together misfits, I said, pushing the plate back towards him, and you will get anything at all – fearlessness, ambition, anything – and before it dissolves or it grows, it will lead to what I saw and what I live with now.

Tóibín, Colm (2012-10-24T23:58:59.000). The Testament of Mary . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[Giuseppe]

the point is that if I remove the released Barabbas, then I should remove also the releaser: Pilate. And make anonymous (and really bad) the Roman "governor".

rgprice has pointed out a few times that you are reconstructing a supposed original gospel, although you could essentially get the story from Paul's letters without any major differences.

That is begging the question, since you (and possibly also rgprice) are ignoring a major difference between 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 and the Earliest Gospel Story:

• in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 only the demons are the killers of Jesus: in heaven;

• in my reconstructed Earliest Gospel Story, only an anonymous Roman "governor" crucified Jesus: on the earth.

Hence it is not correct at all the claim that I can "get the same story" from Paul. More precisely, my reconstructed Passion story is the immediate, more direct translation on the earth of the sacred drama believed by Paul happened in heaven.

The difference between a drama in heaven and a drama on the earth is abyssal and colossal. An anonymous Roman governor is never a demon, sorry.

You seem to have made it clear that you absolutely want to stick to an Ur-Passion account.

Exactly. 'Absolutely' insofar the essential reason is that the removal of the released Barabbas implies the logical removal of the releaser Pilate.

I noted with interest that Martijn judges the Gospels to be older than Paul's letters. In your opinion, is there a common trend here?

Unfortunately for Martijn, the Pillar of the mythicism in the last two centuries is that the epistles, with their abyssal silence about an earthly Jesus, precede the earliest gospel and not the contrary.

An exception is Bruno Bauer, who argued that the Ur-Gospel preceded the earliest 'epistle'.
But even the other radical critics accepted the chronological priority of the (fabricated) epistles over the first gospel (and we are talking abour radical critics who were ready to accept even Marcion before the canonicals).

Martijn is completely alone in arguing for the catholics (!) fabricating the epistles, when all the radical critics placed the early fabricators of the epistles in the "Gnostic" ( = anti-demiurgist) field. Possibly Martijn is a genius, but I am too much obtuse to realize that.

(Of course I have the feeling that the critical perspective of the 19th and 20th centuries is being abandoned here and we are falling back into the deepest "superstition")

I don't understand this comment. By judging from the Peter's approval of it, it seems to be critical of the my view. What I see in your view of Mark is a reluctance to remove the Barabbas's episode. I think that you have made it clear why you are reluctant to remove the Barabbas's episode: you don't consider the Barabbas's episode an apology for diplomatic reasons, therefore you are surely more justified to consider original the Barabbas' episode, since usually it is the apology that is introduced later in a story (usually after that the diplomatic incident with the authorities is at least partially exploded), while the allegory may be peculiar to the original story.

Even so, I think that it is really hard not to see the pro-Roman apologetics in action behind the Barabbas's episode.

• In short, I read allegory + pro-Roman apology + anti-Marcionite polemic in the Barabbas's episode: enough to reject it as interpolated.

• While you read only allegory in the Barabbas's episode, without a valid reason to reject the other two factors (pro-Roman apology and anti-Marcionite polemic).

Which makes me to have the suspicion that you want at any cost a proto-Mark very much similar to our current Mark.

[davidmartin]

Everything's fine, Martin. That was also meant to be a little ironic.

Nevertheless, there are currently many who are developing theories according to which the original is exactly what they particularly like. And I'll stick with it that it would be exactly the same, if I were to develop some feminist theory that Mary Magdalene wrote the first gospel.

I'm glad to here it! I like to know why i'm confused
but it's not a feminist theory if you think that's what happened though and they all stole off her and didn't attribute, that happens. someone that opposes feminism isn't going to come up with a theory like that but it doesn't mean only someone that was a feminist would develop it they just wouldn't be in principle opposed to it

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Perhaps she would need to listen to what his mother had to say before she puts her own account into print....

Who knows if there isn't tension between the two. This could get tricky

[maryhelena]

Perhaps she would need to listen to what his mother had to say before she puts her own account into print....

Who knows if there isn't tension between the two. This could get tricky