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