Why Pilate? Because of ''the Jews''.

[Secret Alias]

But that is not the same as saying that Pilate had to be a part of the story the entire time.

Are you telling me that we can find any avenue toward that goal via the Gospel of Peter. That's the context that we're talking about. I am saying that there are always possibilities but that nothing in the Gospel of Peter is suggestive of what Giuseppe and his source read into that text.

[Secret Alias]

But those accounts which state or imply that the Jews crucified Jesus have to be accounted for somehow,

Why not start by giving the examples you have in mind.

[Giuseppe]

A particularly strong point by Rylands is the first above referred, by me put now in a more analytical form:

THE PROOF THAT PILATE WAS A LATER ADDITION:

1) the titulum crucis has no sense when put by Pilate and his soldiers.

2) in GPeter the Jews put the titulum crucis:

25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews

3) Justin reports a lost Gospel where the Jews say: "Judge us". A similar expression is found in GPeter.

4) "Judge us" is part and parcel of the same mockery addressed against Jesus by the titulum crucis. The two elements (titulum crucis and "Judge us") are inseparable.

5) per the point (4), in the lost Gospel read by Justin, the Jews put the titulum crucis.

6) Pilate as Judge of Jesus was already known by Justin via the our Gospels.

7) so the item "Judge Us" found in the lost Gospel read by Justin couldn't be inserted later than a story where already the Romans of Pilate put the titulum crucis.

8) therefore: the tradition that the Jews crucified Jesus is more old than the tradition that the Romans crucified Jesus.

Corollary: Pilate is of zero utility in a story where the Jews kill directly Jesus. The more simple explanation is that Pilate was completely absent in that story.

[Secret Alias]

THE PROOF THAT PILATE WAS A LATER ADDITION:

Sometimes I wonder whether there is some sort of language barrier in Giuseppe's communications but I am flabbergasted. There is NOTHING in any of this nonsense that rises to the level of 'proof.' At best they are 'suggestions' at worst grasping at straws. So:

1) the titulum crucis has no sense when put by Pilate and his soldiers.

But lots of things don't make sense and they are real. What's more when corruptions enter into a text (or 'Chinese whispers' as they used to be called, telephone tag) they tend to be senseless. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't an original message. Stupid as usual.

2) in GPeter the Jews put the titulum crucis:

The fact that the Gospel of Peter might represent an older or later version of the gospel, that the Jews were or weren't active participants means nothing and has no bearing on whether Pilate was always in the gospel

3) Justin reports a lost Gospel where the Jews say: "Judge us". A similar expression is found in GPeter.

This has nothing to do with Pilate's presence in the gospel.

4) "Judge us" is part and parcel of the same mockery addressed against Jesus by the titulum crucis. The two elements (titulum crucis and "Judge us") are inseparable.

Again this has nothing to do with whether or not Pilate was named or present in the earliest gospels. BTW it's titulus crucis.

5) per the point (4), in the lost Gospel read by Justin, the Jews put the titulum crucis.

Irrelevant to the question of whether or not Pilate was present in that gospel.

6) Pilate as Judge of Jesus was already known by Justin via the our Gospels.

It would be unexpected that Pilate would use two versions of the gospel one which blamed the Jews and another which transferred blame onto Pilate. Moreover Justin is generally regarded as employing ONE gospel harmony or at least that's a dominant train of thought. This torpedoes this whole 'Justin' line of argument. Again, nothing from either the Gospel of Peter nor Justin helps Giuseppe.

7) so the item "Judge Us" found in the lost Gospel read by Justin couldn't be inserted later than a story where already the Romans of Pilate put the titulum crucis.

But again none of this has any bearing on the question of whether or not Pilate appeared in the gospel - and you've already demonstrated that Justin used a gospel which referenced Pilate so case closed. Justin can't be used as a witness that Pilate didn't appear in the gospel.

8) therefore: the tradition that the Jews crucified Jesus is more old than the tradition that the Romans crucified Jesus.

Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. No clear evidence which older. Stupid to claim any 'proof' in any of this stupidity.

Corollary: Pilate is of zero utility in a story where the Jews kill directly Jesus. The more simple explanation is that Pilate was completely absent in that story.

But utility only comes into play in a situation where the gospel story is certainly a myth and fabricated from scratch without any reference to an actual historical incident and that hasn't been established. Pilate could have been in a gospel which blamed the Jews for Jesus's crucifixion.

[Giuseppe]

Pilate could have been in a gospel which blamed the Jews for Jesus's crucifixion.

Well, the GPeter is a such Gospel: the Jews crucify Jesus and Pilate is there only to see and he has even less power than Herod (since he plays only the role of a Joseph of Arimathea, by asking the body from Herod). It is clear that Pilate is a mere marginal actor of no utility beyond the his mere (forced) introduction. If you accept GPeter's source as more old than Mark, then Pilate has to be a mere addition in that Gospel. Your stupidity is to think that a such thing (presence of Pilate + direct Jewish crucifixion of Jesus) could make sense still under a historicist paradigm (if not under a mythicist assumption). No, it makes no sense at all. Alfred Loisy argued that if the crucifixion was not a Roman crucifixion, then Jesus is a pure myth.

Your second mistake is to ignore the titulum crucis item. If it was put by the Jews, then the words of Pilate during the Barabbas episode ("that you called king of jews" in Mark or "Jesus called Christ" in Matthew) become only mere later expansions of the same original Jewish mockery of Christ. Insofar they are not more a Roman mockery of Jesus.

So the priority of GPeter has to be necessarily disturbing for a historicist. Alfred Loisy is more honest than you from this POV.

[Secret Alias]

Maybe I am missing something but how do you go from "change of emphasis" in the Gospel of Peter to Pilate was never there in the earliest gospel? I am not sure that you can follow literary trajectories to the most extreme possibilities. There is no known gospel which lacks Pilate in the judgement seat.

[Giuseppe]

Addition: it is not useful to the discussion that you argue with me from a historicist POV. Jesus was historical so Pilate "has" to be with Jesus. Even if the Jews kill directly him. After all the historicist insistence that the crucifixion was only a Roman penalty.

[Secret Alias]

If it was put by the Jews, then the words of Pilate during the Barabbas episode ("that you called king of jews" in Mark or "Jesus called Christ" in Matthew) become only mere later expansions of the same original Jewish mockery of Christ.

But this is silly. There are a lot anomalies in the Gospel of Peter. The way Passover is calculated in the post-resurrection narrative in unexplainable. Not sure what to make of the text.

[Secret Alias]

:

it is not useful to the discussion that you argue with me from a historicist POV.

oh by all means let's keep the rules of the game favoring your conclusions. only that would be "fair."

[Giuseppe]

And don't ignore the role of Herod. If Pilate asks from him the body, then Herod had given Jesus to the Jewish killers. So Pilate is two times distant from the real cause of the crucifixion. If this was not an addition, then it was only a way to show Pilate and Herod as the mere earthly conspirators against Jesus (per the Psalm about "the rulers of the earth etc"), not even the real killers (the latter being "the Jews").