Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
Now I realize a plausible reason for Marcion behind the introduction of Pilate in the gospel story (assuming in this thread the priority of Mcn even on Mark).
Basically, a reason to put the first Gospel Jesus under Pilate and only Pilate.
The reason is that Pilate fits perfectly, on both the historical and the legendary level, the image of the marcionite creator god, the Demiurge.
From a historical point of view, Pilate was sadic and cruel, that is a ça va sans dire.
From a Gospel point of view, it's important to realize that Barabbas represents the ''first Adam'' in all our Gospels.
As the story goes, Pilate frees the ''first Adam'', in exchange with the life of the ''second Adam'', Jesus called Christ.
The liberation of Barabbas seems a generous act by Pilate.
But that unexpected generosity (which would make Pilate a positive hero in the story) is compensated by the fact that he takes the life of Jesus in exchange for the release of Barabbas.
We are said ad nauseam that in the more old Jewish-Christian theology, it is God (the god of Jews) who wants the death of Jesus in order to purify the sins of all Israel.
But we observe a curious fact, then, in our gospels: that role that should have been played by God, it is actually occupied by Pilate!
This cannot be a coincidence.
One could argue that Pilate was acting so (to free a prisoner in the place of another) out of habit alone, as the Gospel says:
It was the usual practice at the Passover Feast to let one prisoner go free. The people could choose the one they wanted.
(Mark 15:6)
...but this does not negate the fact that Pilate -- and only him -- is the one who forgives x in place of y.
Therefore I am inclined to think that Pilate is really a parody of the god of the Jews, the marcionite Demiurge. He was introduced in the first Gospel in virtue of this his ''demiurgic'' role.
And who better than the sadistic Pilate of the History could occupy the role of the ''demiurgic'' Pilate in the first Gospel?
The legend of the conversion of Pilate may reflect the conversion of the same creator god (after the his realization of the true identity of Jesus), according to some late marcionite traditions.
Basically, a reason to put the first Gospel Jesus under Pilate and only Pilate.
The reason is that Pilate fits perfectly, on both the historical and the legendary level, the image of the marcionite creator god, the Demiurge.
From a historical point of view, Pilate was sadic and cruel, that is a ça va sans dire.
From a Gospel point of view, it's important to realize that Barabbas represents the ''first Adam'' in all our Gospels.
As the story goes, Pilate frees the ''first Adam'', in exchange with the life of the ''second Adam'', Jesus called Christ.
The liberation of Barabbas seems a generous act by Pilate.
But that unexpected generosity (which would make Pilate a positive hero in the story) is compensated by the fact that he takes the life of Jesus in exchange for the release of Barabbas.
We are said ad nauseam that in the more old Jewish-Christian theology, it is God (the god of Jews) who wants the death of Jesus in order to purify the sins of all Israel.
But we observe a curious fact, then, in our gospels: that role that should have been played by God, it is actually occupied by Pilate!
This cannot be a coincidence.
One could argue that Pilate was acting so (to free a prisoner in the place of another) out of habit alone, as the Gospel says:
It was the usual practice at the Passover Feast to let one prisoner go free. The people could choose the one they wanted.
(Mark 15:6)
...but this does not negate the fact that Pilate -- and only him -- is the one who forgives x in place of y.
Therefore I am inclined to think that Pilate is really a parody of the god of the Jews, the marcionite Demiurge. He was introduced in the first Gospel in virtue of this his ''demiurgic'' role.
And who better than the sadistic Pilate of the History could occupy the role of the ''demiurgic'' Pilate in the first Gospel?
The legend of the conversion of Pilate may reflect the conversion of the same creator god (after the his realization of the true identity of Jesus), according to some late marcionite traditions.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
- Tenorikuma
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
Interesting thoughts, Giuseppe.
What caught my interest recently was how many early Patristic authors talk about the Acts of Pilate, which was apparently already in wide circulation in the mid-second century. Early Christians certainly perceived something important about his role in the salvation drama, once the basic framework was established by Mark.
What caught my interest recently was how many early Patristic authors talk about the Acts of Pilate, which was apparently already in wide circulation in the mid-second century. Early Christians certainly perceived something important about his role in the salvation drama, once the basic framework was established by Mark.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
It's a good question Giuseppe. But ... I don't observe this fact. In Luke and Marcion it seems clear, that Pilate does not want Jesus' death.Giuseppe wrote:We are said ad nauseam that in the more old Jewish-Christian theology, it is God (the god of Jews) who wants the death of Jesus in order to purify the sins of all Israel.
But we observe a curious fact, then, in our gospels: that role that should have been played by God, it is actually occupied by Pilate!
(btw Is it not a bit cherry picking to interpret Mark in a Marcionite sense? Logically, for others it may seem good to puzzle together their own text from various set pieces in order to get the desired result.)
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
Thanks for the comments above.
I am not interpreting Mark as a marcionite Gospel. To my knowledge, in Mark the true father of Jesus is not an alien God, but the creator god. Jesus himself calls him ''abba'.
But what I'm saying is that, if Mcn is the first Gospel, then it's very probable that Pilate works as the just but cruel Demiurge, because his law or ''usual practice'' requires the death of x to save y.
Mark would hide this fact by inserting Mark 14:36, but he can not hide the substantial similarity of role between YHWH and Pilate.
Note the only way that the proto-catholics had to exorcize this identity Pilate=YHWH found in Mcn :
''They were the Jews and only the Jews and uniquely the Jews who had the real power to kill Jesus. Pilate is totally a tiny pawn in their hands. And behind the Jews there was only the envy of Satan. ''
...Even if Pilate released an entire humanity (sic) -- ''Jesus Barabbas'' -- in place of Jesus (action well worthy of a creator god!).
That is just my point: strictly speaking, also the creator god ''doesn't want the death'' of his Son, but he is yet forced, by virtue of a metaphysical need, to kill his Son to atone for the sins of all mankind. Such a creator god is a slave of his own Law. Pilate seems just a parody of this creator god, and even more so as I see that Barabbas works as ''first Adam'' versus ''the second Adam'' who is Jesus (note that Pilate and Barabbas are strictly linked in the narrative: there can not be the one without the other and vice versa).In Luke and Marcion it seems clear, that Pilate does not want Jesus' death.
I am not interpreting Mark as a marcionite Gospel. To my knowledge, in Mark the true father of Jesus is not an alien God, but the creator god. Jesus himself calls him ''abba'.
But what I'm saying is that, if Mcn is the first Gospel, then it's very probable that Pilate works as the just but cruel Demiurge, because his law or ''usual practice'' requires the death of x to save y.
Mark would hide this fact by inserting Mark 14:36, but he can not hide the substantial similarity of role between YHWH and Pilate.
YHWH | Pilate |
doesn't want the death of his Son | doesn't want the death of Jesus |
but he is forced to kill his Son | but he is forced to kill Jesus |
to purify the sins of Israel | because the purifying blood of Jesus has to fall on Jews and their sons (cfr. the irony of Matthew 15:25) |
and so to save the fallen humanity | and so to save the Jesus Barabbas (the first Adam) |
...a fallen humanity who is now freed from the Law | Barabbas is now free from the Roman prison |
Note the only way that the proto-catholics had to exorcize this identity Pilate=YHWH found in Mcn :
''They were the Jews and only the Jews and uniquely the Jews who had the real power to kill Jesus. Pilate is totally a tiny pawn in their hands. And behind the Jews there was only the envy of Satan. ''
...Even if Pilate released an entire humanity (sic) -- ''Jesus Barabbas'' -- in place of Jesus (action well worthy of a creator god!).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
I don't get it completely. But it may not impossible. One of your problems seems to be that Luke and Marcion added Herod to the trial, watering down a bit the "role" of Pilate. I think one would expect that the role of Marcion's Pilate is stronger than the role of Mark's Pilate.Giuseppe wrote:That is just my point: strictly speaking, also the creator god ''doesn't want the death'' of his Son, but he is yet forced, by virtue of a metaphysical need, to kill his Son to atone for the sins of all mankind.
Such a creator god is a slave of his own Law. Pilate seems just a parody of this creator god.
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
The introduction of Herod gives us an ironic point about the negative character of Pilate:One of your problems seems to be that Luke and Marcion added Herod to the trial, watering down a bit the "role" of Pilate.
Pilate feels more sympathy for a false king of the Jews rather than for Jesus.
The image I have about the marcionite Demiurge is one of a right but cruel god: a cold deity.
It may be useful a comparison between the Pilate of each gospel to see which Pilate is more similar to that description.
For example, Mark 15:10
gives us a Pilate who is very good from a moral point of view. A Pilate who takes a positive instance towards Jesus (not simply a neutral instance) as he is able to recognize the wickedness of the Pharisees.He knew that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him because they wanted to get their own way.
Even more so Matthew 27:18:
Pilate knew that the leaders wanted to get their own way. He knew this was why they had handed Jesus over to him.
(From where did Pilate get that special knowledge of the real reasons behind the pharisees? He can know because he is omniscient, just as god! )
But so Luke 23:12:
The similarity of action with Herod argues against the supposed goodness of Pilate in Luke. Herod was the corrupted king by definition in all the canonical and apocryphal gospels. If Pilate was a friend of Herod, then it means that they are complicit in evil.That day Herod and Pilate became friends. Before this time they had been enemies.
Among all the our Gospels, Luke is the more anti-Pilate. Differently from both Mark and Matthew, in Luke Pilate is totally, coldly neutral towards Jesus. There is an abyss between ''to know'' that Jesus is threatened by envy and to see ''no fault in this man''.
In Luke, the mere task of Pilate is to make himself (and the reader) secure that Jesus is apparently innocent.
In both Mark and Matthew, the task of Pilate is to make himself (and the reader) secure that Jesus is not only innocent, but also victim of the envy of the pharisees.
I find 100% expected that in Mcn Pilate doesn't know about ''the envy'' of pharisees.
I find 100% expected that in Mcn Pilate has no dialogue alone face to face with Jesus (see Luke 23:14: He said to them, “You brought me this man. You said he was turning the people against the authorities. I have questioned him in front of you. I have found no basis for your charges against him. )
Therefore the knowledge of Pilate is only superficial. Just as the knowledge of the demiurge.
A synthesis:
Pilate in Luke/Mcn | Pilate in Mark | Pilate in Matthew |
he does not know the intentions of the Pharisees. | does know the intentions of the Pharisees.
(Mark 15:10) | does know the intentions of the Pharisees.(Matthew 27:18) |
He does not have any dialogue with Jesus completely alone and when he questioned him, it does so only in the presence of the Pharisees. Idem Herod!(Luke 23:3-4) (Luke 23:6-7) (Luke 23:10) (Luke 23:14) | he questioned Jesus not in front of pharisees, but privately. | he questioned Jesus not in front of pharisees, but privately. He consults on Jesus alone with his wife, hence definitely not in front of the Pharisees. (Matthew 27:19) |
no wonder by Pilate before the silence of Jesus.
(Luke 23:3) | Pilate is wondered.(Mark 15:5) | Pilate is wondered. The wonder of Pilate is a sign of direct and private relationship with Jesus. (Matthew 27:14) |
Pilate doesn't insist in questioning directly Jesus more than one time.
(Luke 27:3) | Pilate insists in questioning directly Jesus more than one time.
(Mark 15:4) | Pilate insists in questioning directly Jesus more than one time.(Matthew 27:13) |
Pilate is sympathetic to Herod, the false king of Jews.
(Luke 23:12) | Pilate is sympathetic to Jesus, the true king of Jews.
(Mark 15:9) | Pilate is sympathetic to Jesus, the true Messiah. |
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
from another thread:
The justice of the Demiurge is precisely that he forgives x only at a price y.
If you kill an animal on an altar, then your particular sin is removed. If you kill Jesus, then Barabbas is forgiven.
The mercy of the Alien God is precisely that he forgives all without waiting in exchange nothing.
There is not evidence of this in Mcn. The Jews did pray Pilate to kill Jesus (just as the Jews did pray Pilate to remove the Caesar's images in Josephus). The only crucial difference is that in Mcn Pilate doesn't know about the ''envy'' of the Jews (in Mark and Matthew, he ''knows'' magically their bad intentions). The marcionite Pilate knows only that Jesus is apparently innocent. Pilate kills him because the Jews pray him so that he forgives Barabbas: this is justice according to Demiurge.Also the Marcionite material makes it plain that the Demiurge punishes Jesus. It is not forced upon him by others (the Jews).
The justice of the Demiurge is precisely that he forgives x only at a price y.
If you kill an animal on an altar, then your particular sin is removed. If you kill Jesus, then Barabbas is forgiven.
The mercy of the Alien God is precisely that he forgives all without waiting in exchange nothing.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
Curiously, I read this:
Jesus is silent before Pilate, too!!!
And Pilate is amazed because of this silence!
Maybe because is predicted ironically an implicit reversal of the situation?
In the Gospel Jesus is silent before Pilate.
But the implicit idea is that, after the conversion of Pilate, it will be Pilate himself to be silent before the Risen!!!
Just as the creator god.
source: http://stephanhuller.blogspot.it/2009/1 ... onite.htmlAnd when the Lord of creatures saw that he had gained victory over him - neither did he know what to say in reply because by his own Law he was condemned; nor did he find an answer to give because he came forth condemnation in exchange for his death - so having fallen down in supplication, he was praying to him "Whereas I sinned and slaughtered you ignorantly because I did not know that you were a god, but rather I considered you a man, let there be given to you in exchange, for revenge, all of those who wish to believe in you to take wheresoever you wish."
Jesus is silent before Pilate, too!!!
And Pilate is amazed because of this silence!
Maybe because is predicted ironically an implicit reversal of the situation?
In the Gospel Jesus is silent before Pilate.
But the implicit idea is that, after the conversion of Pilate, it will be Pilate himself to be silent before the Risen!!!
Just as the creator god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
I think that you often have a very good and interesting idea. Really. But then again the old Giuseppe. I could make a long list of points, but the first point illustrates it all and I can only repeat myself.Giuseppe wrote:The introduction of Herod gives us an ironic point about the negative character of Pilate:One of your problems seems to be that Luke and Marcion added Herod to the trial, watering down a bit the "role" of Pilate.
Pilate feels more sympathy for a false king of the Jews rather than for Jesus.
...Pilate is sympathetic to Herod, the false king of Jews.(Luke 23:12)That day Herod and Pilate became friends. Before this time they had been enemies.
In Luke/Marcion Herod is no King, only a Tetrarch. What you make is a Marcionite interpretation of Mark. The Marcionite gospel goes against your interpretation.
Re: Why Pilate (if Marcion comes first)
G: Clearly Pilate and God are related here. But why must Pilate be specifically a "parody" of God? I suggest that the two were rather, conflated. Conflated by confused oral storytellers. Who heard of one "lord" - Pilate - working momentous deeds. And later misattributed this Lord as the Jewish Lord, God.