What is the meaning of “Σὺ λέγεις” ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

What is the meaning of “Σὺ λέγεις” ?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:17 pm

By removing all the midrash and various embellishments and polemical theological motives, I think and believe that the Earliest Gospel - the earliest invented story that de facto euhemerized the deity Jesus on the earth, and on which all the other authors derived their stories - had this final:

They led Jesus to the high priest,

and the elders and the scribes gathered and,

the morning come, they took counsel and,

having bound him, they brought him to Pilate.

Pilate asked him: “Are you the king of the Jews?”

Jesus asked, “You say so”.

Then Pilate handed Jesus, having him flogged, to be crucified.


It is clear that:
  • the Jews are evil actors.
  • Pilate is an evil actor.
What is not clear, is the meaning of “You say so”:

is Jesus answering positively to the Pilate's question?

Or the sense is:

You say so, I don't. (TU DICES. EGO NON)

This problem has troubled the mythicist Paul-Louis Couchoud, since he argued for the latter option when he supported the marcionite priority, and then this same scholar wrote these words, later, clearly denying the previous conclusion:

Before Pilate, Jesus is formally accused of proclaiming himself Christ, a King (Luke 23: 2), and when Pilate asks him if he is (a king), he does not contradict him. Thus there is no doubt. The one crucified in truth is really Jesus the Christ.

(P.-L. COUCHOUD E R. STAHL, Premiers ecrits du Christianisme — pag. 139-161 — Paris, 1930, my bold)

The problem with these two interpretations is that both assume the existence of previous Gospels. Who supports the marcionite interpretation has to assume that there was a rival gospel where an earthly Jesus was proclaimed as the same Jewish Christ, while who supports the judaizing interpretation has to assume that there was some rival gospel that said that the earthly Jesus was proclaimed as distinct from the Jewish Christ. In both the cases, the solution assumes the involving of rival gospels. This scenario is not expected if the story above has to be the Earliest Gospel.


A more simple solution, one that doesn't appeal to the existence of rival gospels, is proposed indirectly by Jonhatan Schwiebert, Jesus's Question to Pilate in Mark 15:2:

A narrative-critical reading of Jesus's ambiguous reply to Pilate in Mark 15:2 is significantly enhanced if that reply is interpreted as a question. Although this interpretation has occasionally been suggested, a full case for its value has so far not been advanced, despite the linguistic, grammatical, and narrative plausibility of the interpretation. This article makes that case, with special attention to the relationship of this question to the characterization of Jesus in Mark.

(my bold)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... n_Mark_152

In short, the Earliest Gospel has to be re-written so:


They led Jesus to the high priest,

and the elders and the scribes gathered and,

the morning come, they took counsel and,

having bound him, they brought him to Pilate.

Pilate asked him: “Are you the king of the Jews?”

Jesus asked, “Do you say so?”.

Then Pilate handed Jesus, having him flogged, to be crucified.

Hence, the author of the Earliest Gospel left the Pilate's question suspended, sending it back to the reader. It is the reader who has to decide the true identity of Jesus.


The problem of this interpretation is that it contradicts the clear premise of above (that Pilate is an evil actor), since a Pilate who has to ask himself about the true identity of Jesus, a dubious Pilate, is by definition a good Pilate, contra factum that what was sufficient for Pilate to puth Jesus to death was simply the echo of a positive answer to his question about the his presumed claim to throne of Judea.

Now, a solution to this problem may be given by the fact that the Earliest Gospel was also a collection of sayings. Imagine about this possibility. You have before a list of propositions of the kind: «Jesus has said»...


Jesus has said: «».

Jesus has said: «».

Jesus has said: «».

Jesus has said: «».

...

Jesus has said: «».

Jesus has said: «».

Jesus has said: «».

They led Jesus to the high priest,

and the elders and the scribes gathered and,

the morning come, they took counsel and,

having bound him, they brought him to Pilate.

Pilate asked him: “Are you the king of the Jews?”

Jesus asked, You say so”.

Then Pilate handed Jesus, having him flogged, to be crucified.

...and then, bluntly, you finally have someone who says something and that someone is not Jesus.

Jesus himself is pointing the difference: who is saying something now is not Jesus.

Hence the words of Pilate have not the same divine authority of Jesus. This means that Pilate has a false view of Jesus.

Hence, the conclusion: Jesus is NOT the king of the Jews.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply