Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest

Post by Giuseppe »

There is surely theological embarrassment in action, here. A Jesus beaten directly before the high priest is a Jesus too much enemy of the god of the Jews.

Afterall, who better than the high priest himself could represent YHWH on the earth?

Now, it is curious that in Mark Jesus is beaten before the high priest and the only function of Pilate is to crucify Jesus. Pilate himself wanted him only beaten (but not dead) and so he confesses indirectly which is the intention of the evangelist for the introduction of Pilate: to crucify and only crucify Jesus.

This fact in my view betrayes the older myth reflected in Ascension of Isaiah, where it is said that Jesus is before killed and only after crucified.


Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et occidet illum, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidit nesciens qui sit.

The god of this world kills Jesus (=the high priest is beating Jesus)

The archons crucify the corpse of Jesus (=the Romans of Pilate crucify Jesus)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest

Post by Giuseppe »

Note the change of the identity of the killer here:


Before the killer is singular:

And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son,

...and then the killer becomes plural:

...and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

Now, for me the difference is because "they" are the archons in the service of the Demiurge ("the god of this world". Translated ("euhemerized") in gospel terms: the Romans are in the service of the high priest.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest

Post by Giuseppe »

So "Luke" replaces the high priest the Beater with Herod the Scoffer. Now Herod is who represents "the god of this world", and not more the high priest.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:56 am So "Luke" replaces the high priest the Beater with Herod the Scoffer. Now Herod is who represents "the god of this world", and not more the high priest.
If Herod represents "the god of this world", couldn't it be the other way around? That is, the AoI author means "Herod" when they write "god of this world."
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:56 pm If Herod represents "the god of this world", couldn't it be the other way around? That is, the AoI author means "Herod" when they write "god of this world."
Very improbable. Even if AoI was a historicist document (thing of which I doubt), the “god of this world” is allegory only of himself. To realize the absolute implausibility of the your interpretation, it is sufficient to ask the same question about the “archons of this age” mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 2:6-8: could Paul mean “Pilate” or “Herod” or “Caipha” when he wrote “rulers of this age”? Clearly not. Idem for the author of AoI.

So a historicist reading of AoI can only see the Romans behind “they” in the following passage:


And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they [the Romans] will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

But clearly this is an ad hoc interpretation. “They” are more probably demons, IHMO. And as such, they can't allegorize but themselves.

Again and again, AoI supports mythicism more than historicity.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:56 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:56 pm If Herod represents "the god of this world", couldn't it be the other way around? That is, the AoI author means "Herod" when they write "god of this world."
Very improbable. Even if AoI was a historicist document (thing of which I doubt), the “god of this world” is allegory only of himself.
I wish you'd use "earthly Jesus" document rather than "historicist" document. I think AoI counts towards the idea of an earthly Jesus but not necessarily towards a historical one.

I was being a little cheeky in my earlier response, but there is some precedent to the idea. Jesus quotes Psalm 82 to say "you are gods" and Philo wrote that Moses was a god to Pharaoh. So the sense is one who has power over another, the power to judge and punish.

Not that I'm really floating it as a possibility, but I'd wondered how you would respond when someone uses your own methods against your readings.
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:56 amTo realize the absolute implausibility of the your interpretation, it is sufficient to ask the same question about the “archons of this age” mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 2:6-8: could Paul mean “Pilate” or “Herod” or “Caipha” when he wrote “rulers of this age”? Clearly not. Idem for the author of AoI.

So a historicist reading of AoI can only see the Romans behind “they” in the following passage:


And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they [the Romans] will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

But clearly this is an ad hoc interpretation. “They” are more probably demons, IHMO. And as such, they can't allegorize but themselves.
Again, let me use your own methods to interpret the passages. For argument's sake, lets assume that Paul and the AoI mean "demons" in those passages. Let's assume that they have an allegorical meaning.

According to Dr Carrier (page 560 of OHJ), gMark 'euhemerizes' the demons to becoming Jesus' earthly enemies. Also, gMark equates 'demons' with Roman soldiers in the 'Legion' story.

So reverse the allegorizing. When Paul and the AoI refer to the "demons" crucifying Jesus, Paul and the AoI author mean "Jews" and/or "Romans", with Herod or Pilate being the "god of that world". gMark's story about the man with the demons (which get put into pigs) is an allegory about actual Roman soldiers. So we see demons being equated to Romans.

So:
And the god of that world [Satan] will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they [the demons] will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

becomes:
And the god of that world [Herod/Pilate] will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they [the Romans/Jews] will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

How would you argue against that?

ETA: Now that I am getting into the idea: In the same vein you could argue that when Paul writes 'Satan', he means earthly authority like the Roman Emperor. One could even argue that Paul and the AoI are using coded language to hide the real anti-Roman meanings. 'Deliver to Satan for destruction!' = turn over to the Roman authorities. 'Satan put a thorn in my side' = Roman authorities hindered me. Just turn all cosmic-sounding passages into earthly ones. The power of allegory compels you!
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why in Luke Jesus is not beaten before the high priest

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:08 pm Not that I'm really floating it as a possibility, but I'd wondered how you would respond when someone uses your own methods against your readings.
Frankly I don't understand your point, here.


But here I see surely a mistake:

Again, let me use your own methods to interpret the passages. For argument's sake, lets assume that Paul and the AoI mean "demons" in those passages. Let's assume that they have an allegorical meaning.
If Paul and pseudo-Isaiah mean ''demons' in those passages, then they are only demons, they can't mean another entity. Paul and pseudo-Isaiah aren't allegorizing nothing. They are saying that demons killed Jesus. Period.


Who is allegorizing, instead, is gMark, as you write:
According to Dr Carrier (page 560 of OHJ), gMark 'euhemerizes' the demons to becoming Jesus' earthly enemies. Also, gMark equates 'demons' with Roman soldiers in the 'Legion' story.

Now, the following thing is not possible even under the best historicist case:
So reverse the allegorizing. When Paul and the AoI refer to the "demons" crucifying Jesus, Paul and the AoI author mean "Jews" and/or "Romans", with Herod or Pilate being the "god of that world".
The entire consensus assumes that the archons are demons. So they aren't allegory of Romans or Jews. As historicist, I may say rather that Paul and pseudo-Isaiah mean that the archons are behind the Romans and/or Jews who killed Jesus. But 'to be behind X' is not 'to allegorize X'.

Your mistake is to confuse the two things: if, for Paul and pseudo-Isaiah, a demon is factually behind Pilate, then the demon isn't allegorizing Pilate and Pilate isn't allegorizing the demon.

The following thing is correct, since only gMark is who is allegorizing who:
gMark's story about the man with the demons (which get put into pigs) is an allegory about actual Roman soldiers. So we see demons being equated to Romans.
Now, your following interpretation is completely impossible (and I would say this even if I was historicist):
So:
And the god of that world [Satan] will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they [the demons] will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

becomes:
And the god of that world [Herod/Pilate] will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they [the Romans/Jews] will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

...since when Paul or pseudo-Isaiah say ''demons', they mean 'demons'. Period. Not other beings. As historicist, I may say that Paul is assuming implicitly that, when he says 'demons kill Jesus', then he is assuming 'the demons, by using the romans, kill Jesus'. But this is absolutely not the same thing of saying: 'the demons allegorize the Romans who killed Jesus'.

How would you argue against that?
As you see, your error is to believe that the Christians are allegorizing when they say that demons kill Jesus. No, they mean precisely that thing, beyond if Jesus existed or not (historically).

ETA: Now that I am getting into the idea: In the same vein you could argue that when Paul writes 'Satan', he means earthly authority like the Roman Emperor.
No, no! When Paul writes 'Satan', then he means 'Satan', period. You are joking wildly with the confusion 'the demons kill Jesus' = 'the demons allegorize Romans who kill Jesus'. But it is a wrong equation.

Putin who is behind Donald Trump is not the same thing of Putin who allegorizes Trump.

The demons who work behind Pilate is not the same thing of demons who allegorize Pilate.


One could even argue that Paul and the AoI are using coded language to hide the real anti-Roman meanings. 'Deliver to Satan for destruction!' = turn over to the Roman authorities. 'Satan put a thorn in my side' = Roman authorities hindered me. Just turn all cosmic-sounding passages into earthly ones. The power of allegory compels you!
This is wrong. The allegory don't work with Paul. Earl Doherty criticized Thomas Verenna since the latter wrote an academic article where he was abounding in expressions like yours, of the kind ''Paul allegorizes X by saying Y'. No, no, Paul means precisely and FACTUALLY what he says. He is not an allegorist. The only time Paul is an allegorist is in Gal 4:4 ('born by woman, born under the Law'), always assuming that the passage is not anti-marcionite.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Is the Good Thief a coverage for the marcionite Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »



39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.

(Luke 23:39-43)

Someone argued that the Good Thief episode was introduced not for pro-Roman and anti-Zealot adulation (really, I am going to think that Brandon & company have done a lot of damage to the research with their blind literalism) but for embarrassment about the marcionite Christ, who "rose" (really, he ascended to heaven) on the cross itself.

Against the marcionite Christ who disappeared on the cross itself, the Judaizers ("Mark") introduced:

1) the two robbers who proved, by their simple presence, that Jesus shared in substantial terms the "flesh of sin", only, without the "sin".

If Jesus disappeared on the cross, then the two robbers would be disturbing witnesses of the his not-disappearance. But "Luke"'s Good Thief proves precisely the contrary: Jesus disappeared with the Good Thief just during that day.

2) Joseph of Arimathea who proved that Jesus didn't ascend to heaven rapidly just on the cross, but he descended in the tomb of a Jew.


In this way the marcionite appeal to Rom 8:23 is neutralized:

God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering

(Romans 8:3)

Here Tertullian comes very close to a mythicist views in Marcion:
If the Father sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, Romans 8:3 it must not therefore be said that the flesh which He seemed to have was but a phantom. For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it out to be the law of sin dwelling in his members, and warring against the law of the mind. On this account, therefore, (does he mean to say that) the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might redeem this sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which bare a resemblance to sinful flesh, although it was itself free from sin. Now this will be the very perfection of divine power to effect the salvation (of man) in a nature like his own. For it would be no great matter if the Spirit of God remedied the flesh; but when a flesh, which is the very copy of the sinning substance — itself flesh also — only without sin, (effects the remedy, then doubtless it is a great thing). The likeness, therefore, will have reference to the quality of the sinfulness, and not to any falsity of the substance. Because he would not have added the attribute sinful, if he meant the likeness to be so predicated of the substance as to deny the verity thereof; in that case he would only have used the word flesh, and omitted the sinful. But inasmuch as he has put the two together, and said sinful flesh, (or flesh of sin,) he has both affirmed the substance, that is, the flesh and referred the likeness to the fault of the substance, that is, to its sin. But even suppose that the likeness was predicated of the substance, the truth of the said substance will not be thereby denied. Why then call the true substance like? Because it is indeed true, only not of a seed of like condition with our own; but true still, as being of a nature not really unlike ours. And again, in contrary things there is no likeness. Thus the likeness of flesh would not be called spirit, because flesh is not susceptible of any likeness to spirit; but it would be called phantom, if it seemed to be that which it really was not. It is, however, called likeness, since it is what it seems to be. Now it is (what it seems to be), because it is on a par with the other thing (with which it is compared). But a phantom, which is merely such and nothing else, is not a likeness.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is the Good Thief a coverage for the marcionite Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

"Luke" was not a stupid. He wanted to eclipse, exactly like "Mark", the rapid disappearance of the marcionite Christ on the cross itself (as described in the Earliest Gospel).

But while "Mark" and "Matthew" limited themselves to introduce the two robbers insulting Jesus as two independent witnesses of the not-disappearance of Jesus,

...even more so, while "Mark" used the words of Jesus himself "to prove" that he remained there physically on the cross ("my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"),...

...I think that "Luke" wanted to reiterate the point that who "disappeared" really (to ascend to heaven in that precise moment) was not Jesus, but the Good Thief (not casually, "Good" as the Alien God of Marcion: not the god of the Jews).

The clues are very many and can make a valid case to prove my point: in Mcn Jesus disappeared entirely from the cross. □
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is the Good Thief a coverage for the marcionite Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

My conclusion:

Mark 15:34
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)

is pure anti-marcionism. To prove that at least the body of a Jesus (a body that for Marcion the Jesus didn't have never) was left there and therefore existed.

Hence the Mark's separationism is a first reaction against Marcion's pure docetism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply