Pilate and Josephus

[maryhelena]

But surely that's the starting point.

Indeed - finally - the starting point is the story.

[Secret Alias]

What I mean is that the universal Christian belief in Jesus living at the time of Pilate is our starting point. We begin with that not some other crazy time period. There was no doubt or any controversy in that regard. Our question is then why Irenaeus founds his creed - his sacramentum - on the crucifixion occurring under Pilate. He emphasizes that for a reason. Again it is apparent that no one doubted or that there was any controversy over Jesus living at the time of Pilate. That was universally acknowledged. The specific issue, the specific controversy the sacramentum seems to have been addressing was the timing of his crucifixion or the identity of the one crucified under Pilate.

[Secret Alias]

or possibly his having suffered under Pilate as we see in Book 3:

and having suffered under Pontius Pilate

[Secret Alias]

It is noteworthy that the understanding that Pilate and Herod were involved in the death of Jesus doesn't only appear in Irenaeus's Defense but it seems to have been written into Acts (and repeatedly cited in Adv Haer with emphasis) and filtered through Justin. Either Irenaeus got the idea for Herod's involvement from a harmonization of Acts and the gospels or it was a vestige of something older and pre-canonical gospels (i.e. Peter). Again on top of the age of Jesus on the Cross, the dating and schedule of the crucifixion we have further evidence that the gospels weren't meant simply to be cited literally and verbatim to get the truth. The truth was achieved through 'harmonizing' the various texts.

[maryhelena]

Again on top of the age of Jesus on the Cross, the dating and schedule of the crucifixion we have further evidence that the gospels weren't meant simply to be cited literally and verbatim to get the truth. The truth was achieved through 'harmonizing' the various texts.

The opposite to a literal or verbatim approach to the gospel story is not an attempt at some sort of mythical 'harmonizing'. A search for early christian origins requires a historical approach not mysticism. Mysticism will stifle not enlighten. It's rational thinking that is required not escape into otherworldly fantasies of harmony or secret or hidden meanings.....

[Secret Alias]

But you're not getting the context again. I am talking about how Irenaeus worked a century and a half after the events he and his tradition claimed happened. To recap, I think 1 Corinthians chapter 2 is speaking about the apostle (= Paul) writing a 'bare' gospel and then reserving a secret gospel for the perfect. I think Irenaeus knew this and so cites the material in his discussion of the gospels in Book 3 and says:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,(2) who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

Notice the context - here is the first time the four are named, note that it is the context of the gnostic concept of 'bare' gospel and 'full' secret gospel. He says " when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge." Compare with what is said of Secret Mark in Clement:

As for Mark, then, during Peter`s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord`s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former books the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.

Mark could clearly be said here to be an 'improver' on Peter and that his 'secret knowledge' came after the apostle's preach. The 4 gospels of Irenaeus's canon are thus all 'apostolic' (in the sense they were all sanctioned and derived from the apostles and the knowledge that they received at the Pentecost.

[Secret Alias]

The point is that scholars take it that Irenaeus was opposed to gnostic thought or gnosticism but I think that's wrong. He just repurposed the original paradigm in a new way. In other words, there was or were the bare gospel(s) and then a 'secret doctrine' that lay 'between the pages.' I find it difficult to deny a historical context for the bare gospel.

[Secret Alias]

In fact I think I can be a little more specific again. The traditional way of reading this is that the heretics passed along their information by mouth and the Catholics revered the canonical texts. That's partly right. But notice that the reaction of the heretics is to THESE written texts. If we accept Secret Mark into the equation as one of the secret gospels mentioned (remember the letter to Theodore mentions other gospels like secret gospels in the hands of other heretics) the idea is that the heretics had 'secret written gospels.'

It all comes down to what Paul meant by (or what the heretics thought Paul meant by) "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." Does that mean that he didn't write a gospel? Sure Catholic tradition says he didn't - but why is the tradition so adamant that a literate man who obvious wrote didn't write the gospel? Could it be that they wanted to kill the meaning and context of 1 Corinthians 2:1 - 5 - i.e. that it had to do with two written gospels, one which he wrote for Peter and another which was his own and represented exactly what Irenaeus is railing against viz. a gospel beyond the knowledge of the apostles.

[maryhelena]

The point is that scholars take it that Irenaeus was opposed to gnostic thought or gnosticism but I think that's wrong. He just repurposed the original paradigm in a new way. In other words, there was or were the bare gospel(s) and then a 'secret doctrine' that lay 'between the pages.' I find it difficult to deny a historical context for the bare gospel.

Perhaps in time you'll get there....

The historical core to the gospel story is not the gospel story but the historical context in which that story is set. Pilate is fundamental to the gospel crucifixion story i.e. that is where that aspect of the story is set. However, what Pilate does is root the gospel story not just in his own time but roots that story in history itself. i.e. the Jesus story, while not itself history, connects to or relates to history. Jewish history. In other words; the Jesus story makes a historical claim. Hence the need to look beyond or outside of Pilate to view a wider historical canvas for the creation and relevance of the Jesus story.

[maryhelena]

In fact I think I can be a little more specific again. The traditional way of reading this is that the heretics passed along their information by mouth and the Catholics revered the canonical texts. That's partly right. But notice that the reaction of the heretics is to THESE written texts. If we accept Secret Mark into the equation as one of the secret gospels mentioned (remember the letter to Theodore mentions other gospels like secret gospels in the hands of other heretics) the idea is that the heretics had 'secret written gospels.'

It all comes down to what Paul meant by (or what the heretics thought Paul meant by) "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." Does that mean that he didn't write a gospel? Sure Catholic tradition says he didn't - but why is the tradition so adamant that a literate man who obvious wrote didn't write the gospel? Could it be that they wanted to kill the meaning and context of 1 Corinthians 2:1 - 5 - i.e. that it had to do with two written gospels, one which he wrote for Peter and another which was his own and represented exactly what Irenaeus is railing against viz. a gospel beyond the knowledge of the apostles.

Gnostic teachings, mysticism ideas - all well and good if that is what interests one. Methinks, however, that rooting the story, finding it's roots, would be more beneficial if christian origins is ones aim.