Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:59 pm

The question "why Pilate?" means: why did the first evangelist introduce the historical Pilate in the gospel, under the assumption that the gospel was entirely invented (and Jesus never existed)?

The answer may be found in Luke, where Pilate allowed that Herod could himself kill the Jesus. Which better occasion to show the goodness of Pilate against the cruelty of Herod?

But a surprise happens: Herod doesn't kill Jesus.

So if Herod could be despised by the evangelist freely without censorship by the authorities (differently from Pilate, who couldn't absolutely be hated or despised, not even implicitly, by the evangelist) then why to allow that just Pilate, and not Herod, was accused, at least formally, of killing the Son of God?

Precisely to answer this question, someone does the case that Pilate was introduced to remember as even a so “good” gentile Governor had need of an expiation by killing the Son of God: and with him, all the Gentile world. Whereas the tradition of a Herod having Jesus not killed is to remark the not-expiation (and therefore the final condemnation) of the Jews as not-killers (but only haters) of Jesus. So in Luke the fact that Herod doesn’t kill Jesus (even if having the possibility by Pilate himself) is sign of the his final not-expiation, while the fact that Pilate was the final killer goes to purify just the gentile Pilate (=the Gentile world is purified by the blood of Jesus and not the Jews).

So this may explain the self-cursing of the Jews in Matthew 27:25: Matthew insists that the Jews were purified since themselves, and not Pilate, killed really Jesus. Paradoxically, in Matthew the gentile Pilate is less purified than the "cursed" Jews.

But then there would be a further question: if Pilate was introduced to allegorize the entire Gentile world in need of the (greatest) expiation of the killer himself of Jesus, then why Pilate and not another Roman governor?

This may be an indirect evidence of an earlier version of the Gospel story where the Jews and Herod killed Jesus, to be condemned and not purified. But when the expiatory theology was introduced in the late Gospels, the killer especially was the first actor to be purified. So the Jews and Herod should leave the role of killer for a Roman governor. And the choise falls on the only Roman who was contemporary of Herod.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by arnoldo » Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:49 pm

I found this footnote on Josephus' account of Pilate interesting.
(7) These Jews, as they are here called, whose blood Pilate shed on this occasion, may very well be those very Galilean Jews whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, Luke 13:1, 2. These tumults being usually excited at some of the Jews great festivals, when they slew abundance of sacrifices; and the Galileans being commonly much more busy in such tumults than those of Judea and Jerusalem: as we learn from the history of Archelaus, Antiq. XVII.9.3. and Chap. 10. § 2, 9.;. Tho’ indeed Josephus’s present copies say not one word of those 18, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and slew them: which the fourth verse of the same 13th chapter of St. Luke informs us of. But since our gospel teaches us, Luke 23:6, 7. that when Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether Jesus were a Galilean? And as soon as he knew that he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod. And ℣ 12. The same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they had been at enmity between themselves. Take the very probable key of this matter in the words of the learned Noldius, de Herod. N°. 249. “The cause of the enmity between Herod and Pilate, says he, seems to have been this; that Pilate had intermeddled with the tetrarch’s jurisdiction; and had slain some of his Galilean subjects: Luke 13:1. And as he was willing to correct that error, he sent Christ to Herod at this time.http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/a ... _Ant_18.7a

The footnote is referring to the following writing by Jospehus.
2. [A.D. 28.] But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem; and did it with the sacred money: and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (7) were not pleased with what had been done about this water: and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamour against him; and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man; as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit; who carried daggers under their garments; and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away. But they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been before­hand agreed on. Who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them; and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not. Nor did they spare them in the least. And since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, they were a great number of them slain by this means: and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

However, I'm not sure that Herod would've been upset over Pilate's action as the footnote seems to indicate.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:25 pm

Arnoldo, the sense of the your comment escapes me in relation to the argument of the thread. I specify clearly that I am doing research under the mythicist assumption, so I find a bit disturbing by you :eh: when, by quoting Josephus, you would like to introduce implicitly the idea that the previous conflict between Pilate and Herod (preceding, according to Luke, the peace arrived between them after the famous ping pong of Jesus) had a historical nucleus and that therefore the Gospels are partially 'Remembered History''.

So I will ignore friendly your comment.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:43 pm

Returning to the argument of the thread, it is not only Luke that shows clues of the rival tradition about a Herod who killed Jesus, but also Mark:
King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
15 Others said, “He is Elijah.”
And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
16 But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”
Here ''Mark'' (editor) introduced immediately after the following text about John the Baptist:
17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

One may think that the original version talked about the interest of Herod to see Jesus, and not to listen to John. The pattern of actions would be the following:

1) Jesus does ''signs and wonders''

2) Jesus derives the attention of Herod

3) Herod wants to see him and he kills him.

But the my point is that even only “the interest to see him” may betray the preceding version of the story where the interest was to kill him.

Note that also the fear of Herod -
“John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”

...may betray the a priori hostility of Herod (and of the enigmatic 'Herodians'') against Jesus, and not against John. In other terms, John was introduced in the story as victim of Herod to eclipse the rival story about a Herod killer of Jesus.

Mark succeed to eclipse that rival story (by introducing John as victim of the king) also because of the fact that that rival story assumed that Herod killed Jesus without knowing him.

If Herod didn't know that he had killed Jesus, then Herod would have killed another person: John.

And so that story having the earliest Messianic Secret, was eclipsed forever.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:00 pm

In short what I had written above:


Pilate was introduced because:

1) who introduced him as ultimate killer of Jesus wanted point out that the Gentile world, and not the Jewish world, is purified by the blood of Jesus.

2) Pilate was the more famous Roman contemporary of Herod in Judea, given the fact that, ceteris paribus, that is the only difference between Pilate and the other Roman Governors of Judea.


The implication is that there was a previous story where Herod was the killer, and where the blood of Jesus didn't purify him. This means that the expiatory value of the blood of Jesus on the same his killer was introduced by Mark the first time. Originally, the expiatory value of the death of Jesus was missing in the story, at least about the killer.

Another corollary is the suspicion that the story about John killed by Herod (after a short interval of the exploits of John) originally referred to Jesus and was only later moved on John.

The evidence of a pre-Gospel story where Herod is the killer is also found in the AoI, (but only if considered as a work without interpolations). The 'king' who kills Jesus in Jerusalem is there probably Herod. No mention of Pilate.

Other evidences of Herod's utility to date Jesus (without Pilate):

there came down from above, for causes that we shall afterwards declare, in the time of Herod a certain man called Christ


This Serpent, he says, is he who appeared in the last days, in form of a man, in the times of Herod, being born after the likeness of Joseph, who was sold by the hand of his brethren, to whom alone belonged the coat of many colours.

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm

So the next question is: why was Jesus euhemerized under Herod a first time?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by arnoldo » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:42 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:00 pm
. . . Other evidences of Herod's utility to date Jesus (without Pilate):

there came down from above, for causes that we shall afterwards declare, in the time of Herod a certain man called Christ


This Serpent, he says, is he who appeared in the last days, in form of a man, in the times of Herod, being born after the likeness of Joseph, who was sold by the hand of his brethren, to whom alone belonged the coat of many colours.

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm . . .
Hippolytus is writing against this teaching of the Peratae.
There is also unquestionably a certain other (head of the hydra, namely, the heresy) of the Peratae, whose blasphemy against Christ has for many years escaped notice. And the present is a fitting opportunity for bringing to light the secret mysteries of such (heretics). . . This Serpent, he says, is he who appeared in the last days, in form of a man, in the times of Herod, being born after the likeness of Joseph, who was sold by the hand of his brethren, to whom alone belonged the coat of many colours. . .

In fact, Hippolytus affirms the following.
And He, who formerly was honoured by him as God, is contemned by Caiaphas. And He is set at nought by Herod, who is Himself to judge the whole earth. And He is scourged by Pilate, who took upon Himself our infirmities.


Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:55 am

Arnoldo, you are continually misinterpreting me. Are you a troll? It is obvious that Hyppolitus believed the traditional story with Pilate. What I find surprising is that the Peratae (known to have not an expiatory theology, since Jesus was a revealer for them and not a redeemer) fixed Jesus in the "real" history by Herod, and not by Pilate, confirming my point that Pilate was introduced by believers in the expiation theology about Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:14 pm

Really, the basic difference between a Jesus Revealer and a Jesus Redeemer:

1) The Revealer has to reveal his identity and the his secret before the his death, while the Redeemer has to conceal his identity in order to be killed.

2)
the Revealer is recognized by the his killer at least partially as an intruder, while the Redeemer is never recognized by the his killer.

If Herod was the killer of the Revealer Jesus (just as Pilate became later the killer of the Redeemer Jesus) then we have already traces about:

1) the fact that Herod had learned that Jesus was famous for the his works (=Revelation before the death)
2) the fact that Herod "was eager to know him" (=the alien nature of Jesus was realized by Herod).

Against these traces of a previous "Revelationist" Theology, the "expiationist" Luke pointed out that the curiosity of Herod was not cause of death but only the mere vanity of a king.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:35 pm

Another trace of the active hostility a priori of Herod against not only Jesus but against the his same Gospel (from this POV he is totally different from the absolute not-responability of the good Pilate) - and therefore an explicit contrast "killer versus the revealer" - is the presence of women disciples of Jesus in the same household of Herod.

Even the "expiationist" Luke has to represent Herod as a mortal enemy of the Gospel:
21 On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” 23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

24 But the word of God continued to spread and flourish

The source of Luke here is probably gnostic, even if he judaized the killer of Herod (who punished him is YHWH).
While in the original story Herod could represent the same demiurge and the his desire to be adored as the only god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

perseusomega9
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Why Pilate? Because the killer had to be originally Herod

Post by perseusomega9 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:43 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:25 pm
Arnoldo, the sense of the your comment escapes me in relation to the argument of the thread. I specify clearly that I am doing research under the mythicist assumption, so I find a bit disturbing by you :eh: when, by quoting Josephus, you would like to introduce implicitly the idea that the previous conflict between Pilate and Herod (preceding, according to Luke, the peace arrived between them after the famous ping pong of Jesus) had a historical nucleus and that therefore the Gospels are partially 'Remembered History''.

So I will ignore friendly your comment.
:facepalm: :banghead: :scratch: :roll:

Post Reply