So Dujardin:
https://books.google.it/books?id=WebwDM ... wd&f=false...is absurd to imagine that the crowd would demand the death of an innocent man and would wish his blood to be on their heads and those of their children. But in the thought we recover the sacrificial setting.
How can I reconcile the Dujardin's view (the Crucifixion as the earthly form of an old sacrificial rite) with the Rylands's view about the Jews as killers of Jesus in the Earliest Gospel?
A possible genesis may be the following:
1) when Jesus was only a celestial angel, the crucifixion worked as sacred earthly representation of the his celestial cosmic sacrifice. It was a sacrifice expiatory. The killer of Jesus was just who loves him, i.e. YHWH himself.
2) the Gnostics believed already in a celestial Christ killed by demons (a revealer, not a redeemer). When they met the worshippers of the angel Jesus and a fusion happened between ''Jesus'' and ''Christ'' (thanks to Pillars and Paul), a conflict arose between Gnostics and Judaizers. And equivalently, between the idea of an (not-embarrassing) expiatory sacrifice and the idea of a (embarrassing) death by demons. The question arose:
was the killer of Jesus just his celestial Father (as Abraham who had to kill his son Isaac even if he loved his son Isaac), or Satan and his cruel demons?
3) who wrote the Earliest Gospel was a Gnostic. In the Earliest Gospel, Jesus was crucified by Jews. This fact allegorizes the role of the Jews who, as actors, were simulating the Crucifixion of Jesus as expiatory sacrifice.
But this fact makes a parody of the role of Jews in that sacrificial rite: they were sacrificing their victim Jesus, but they were doing so because they were real haters of Jesus (just as the demonic archons), not because they were pious people.
4) the anti-Gnostic Christians would have reacted against this parody directed against them. The idea that the Jews were the real killers of Jesus was already entered in the History, but the human archons had to share their responsability in killing Jesus. Not only Herod. A ROMAN ''archon'': Pontius Pilate.
In this way the gentiles have warned: if they don't receive the baptism, they are guilty just as well as the Jews, for the death of Jesus.
By Pilate, The killer of Jesus becomes all humankind, therefore the idea of an expiatory sacrifice of Jesus is restored, against the Gnostics.
WHY JUST PILATE?
Because Pilate was notoriously a very bad man, guilty of many crimes.But even him, as unaware killer of Jesus, may be reedemed : it is sufficient the conversion to Christianity (equivalent to identify Jesus as an innocent victim).
The implicit message is: if you Gentile don't receive the baptism, then you remain a sinner just as well as the historical Pilate was sinner for his many crimes. Your sins are not removed by the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus.
______________________________________________________
In more short and Hegelian terms:
THESIS: the killers of ''Jesus'' were pious people and were Jews in need of an expiatory sacrifice (before euhemerization)
ANTITHESIS: the killers of ''Jesus'' were evil Jews and the death of Jesus was not an expiatory sacrifice but only the price to pay to give the gnosis to Gnostics (the primitive Gnostic euhemerization)
SYNTHESIS: the killers of ''Jesus'' were both evil Jews and a innocent Pilate (i.e., all the sinful Gentile humanity). The idea and the need of an expiatory sacrifice on behalf of all the humanity is restored. (after euhemerization)