Why Pilate? Because of Psalm 95:10

[Giuseppe]

In the Fourth Gospel Jesus appears before two high priests but not before all the sinedrites. For this and for other reasons the first gospel had probably Jesus killed only by Pilate, without no sinedrite behind Pilate.

Reading again the Psalm 95:10:

I have endured this people for 40 years

I had thought wrongly that «this people» was the Jews, but now I think that the Romans are meant, by the author of the first gospel when he fixed Jesus in :

70 — 40 = 30 CE.

The sense is that God has endured the Romans for 40 years from the death of Jesus until to their coming destruction.

why did just God (=YHWH) have to endure the Romans?

Answer: Because the Romans had crucified the Son of God.

Hence the author of the first gospel was still an apocalypticist: he believed that God would interven against the Romans very soon, after the destruction of the his temple.

The story of the first gospel was therefore:

the Romans killed the Messiah, therefore God will punish the Romans.

The delay of the Parusia persuaded the later authors of gospels to transfer the responsability of the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews.

Hence, the story became:

the Jews killed their Messiah, therefore God kills the Jews.

In whiletime, the first story was gnosticized even before the apparition of the second story, in the following way:

the Demiurge (by using the Romans) killed Jesus, but the God of Jesus will win the Demiurge

(this version of the story was still preserved in proto-John).

Hence the late legend of the conversion of Pilate: he realized that the Demiurge had used him to kill Jesus.

this reconstruction of the euhmerization of Jesus makes more sense to me.

[Joseph D. L.]

Pontius Pilate is an approximation of Paul/Marcion of Pontus. Even his name means mariner, just as Tertullian and Rhodo describe Marcion. Of course Marcion wasn't an actual shipwright or fleet owner. He was the mariner of the church; a second Noah.

Pilate and Paul serve the same function. They are the last to whom Christ reveals himself and is accepted by (Paul, that he is the Christ; Pilate, that he is innocent). The Passion always levies the death of Jesus on the Jews. The Romans (Pontius/Paul) do not condemn him. This is not an antisemitic point. The Old Testament time and time again calls the Jews a stiffnecked tribe and YHWH punishes them for the deaths of his prophets. Jesus is no different.

[Giuseppe]

my hypothesis explains why in gJohn Jesus doesn't appear before all the sinedrites.

Your hypothesis doesn't explain it.

My hypothesis fits the criterion of embarrassment: the transfer of the responsability from Romans to Jews.

Your hypothesis doesn't fit it.

Pilate ethymology has a better argument than your.

[Giuseppe]

I had written:

Mark 15:10:

ἐγίνωσκεν γὰρ ὅτι διὰ φθόνον παραδεδώκεισαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς.

"out of envy". So also Matthew 27:18.

But the original Gospel reads: dia phonon


"for a murder". It is easy to imagine why the scribe replaced "dia phonon" with "dia phthonon".



The sense of the story is that Pilate crucified Jesus believing him a mere anti-Roman rebel and author of a murder

[Giuseppe]

They are the last to whom Christ reveals himself and is accepted by (Paul, that he is the Christ;

here I disagree totally. The Pilate's question serves only to confirm that the his victim is really the Jewish Christ and not the marcionite Son of Father ("Barabbas"). Hence it is a 100% judaizing interpolation. Who disagrees with myself on this point is irrational, in my view. It is one of the rare times I should sound dogmatic.

[Joseph D. L.]

Giuseppe, you are the irrational one, as always. The Jesus/Barabbas episode only serves to highlight the idea of transmigration. Barabbas is the one who is freed (the Christ) while Jesus is condemned to die. It's the same idea at work with Simon of Cyrene.

Pilate's responses is doubled up by the crowd's answer, "his blood be on us and our children!" How is this Judaizing? What does that even mean? The Romans are never portrayed in such a way in the Gospels. Not even in Acts. Indeed, it is a Roman centurion who states: "this man was the son of God".

?!?!

You make zero sense Giuseppe, and you have always sounded dogmatic and delusional. And I don't care if you disagree with me. I don't hold value in anything you say.

[Joseph D. L.]

And yet, in Pauline/Marcionite Christianity, Jesus has to die regardless of the trial and question of guilt. Being found innocent is not an option. Pilate's declaration as opposed to the Jews' need to condemn him, is not to deny Christ, but is accepting him. Jesus!

[Giuseppe]

Barabbas is the one who is freed (the Christ) while Jesus is condemned to die. It's the same idea at work with Simon of Cyrene.

You are totally wrong if you believe that just the Hero of the story is the killer and robber found in prison. Embarrassment would be too much. I remember you that Marcion thought that Jesus was really crucified even if he had not a real body. Hence the Judaizer interpolated Barabbas to deny that the crucified victim was the marcionite Son of Father. I insist: who disagrees on this point is totally fool and irrational.

[Joseph D. L.]

Giuseppe, you are a fool.

It doesn't matter if Barabbas is a robber/criminal. What matters is the symbolism of his release and Jesus's condemnation--just as Simon of Cyrene was believed to have taken Christ's spot on the cross with Jesus standing afar and laughing. We can argue over the moral implications of this, but that means nothing to the overall point of what is happening.

That Marcion taught a Christ who was crucified is irrelevant, because his theology is concerned with resurrection and ascension. Barabbas and Simon of Cyrene are of the Basilides/Nazarene and is concerned with transmigration. The two concepts are antithetical to each other. (And no, GosMcn is not Marcion's text. Marcion's text is closer to a Johannine text, which featured no Barabbas or Simon of Cyrene. Only the rising of Lazarus is present. Lazarus is resurrected; Jesus ascends into Heaven.)

The point remains, Giuseppe, the Barabbas/Jesus dualism serves to illustrate the transmigration of the Christ-spirit.

I don't even think you have a handle on your own thoughts. You argue for mythicism, yet a lot of what you propose requires historicity.

I'll be honest, you sound like a crazy person.

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe, you are a fool.

It doesn't matter if Barabbas is a robber/criminal.

it is too much embarrassing, for a deity, to be remembered as a robber and a killer, even only for insiders. If you don't understand this, then you are the fool. You are confusing Basilides with Marcion. The episode of the Cyrenaic was invented against Basilides (denier of the crucifixion). The episode of Barabbas was invented against Marcion (denier of the jewishness of the crucified victim) .
It is a possibility, that the voices about a Christ "imprisoned" in the body of the man Jesus were confused (for defamation) with the voices about a Son of Father ("Barabbas") imprisoned in a Roman prison. You would call it anti-gnostic DEFAMATION.