On the surprise of Herod and Pilate about a post-mortem Jesus
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:43 pm
In the past I had already suspected that the true answer of Peter delucidated what the people thought about Jesus (not only what Peter believed):
Mark 8.27-28: 27
Hence the part in red was interpolated to make strictly exclusive and specific the relation between Peter and Jesus along the lines of the Jewish Messiah who is recognized as such at least by the his true disciple, despite of the ignorance of the stupid hoi polloi. The quality of the recognition is better than the quantity.
But removing the interpolation in red, the identity of Jesus as the Jewish Christ is questioned insofar it is believed by Peter and by all the people.
The same pattern seems to be in action here:
Mark 6.14-16:
The part in red, by showing a Herod already sure about who is Jesus (=simply John redivivus) doesn't explain the specific interest of Herod about who was Jesus, not about who was John the Baptist, in Luke.
The surprise of Herod ceases when he sees personally Jesus and this passage in Luke has all the air of being the expedient by Jesus to escape the surveillance by the "archon" Herod:
Luke 23:11 :
Hence I would like to imagine that the original source behind Mark 6.14-16 was:
Mark 6.14-16:
This surprise by Herod for the rapid resurrection of Jesus is surprisingly similar with the surprise by Pilate for the rapid death of Jesus:
(Mark 15:44-45)
Note the similarity: in both the cases an "archon" is surprised for something made by Jesus during/after the his death, in both the cases an "archon" wants to see clear personally what is happened, in both the cases an "archon" minimizes the presumed miracle and gives a "body" for Jesus (a "robe"/a "corpse").
I think that in both the cases Jesus is escaping the surveillance of the "archon" in question by being identified by the "archon" with what he seems (and only seems) to be: in the eyes of Herod, he is the "elegant robe" put on him, in the case of Pilate, he is the mere "corpse" of a crucified.
So the point is that: Herod kills Jesus: Jesus rises rapidly; Herod is surprised by hearing about the news of the Risen Jesus.
This is eclipsed by a new story where: Pilate kills Jesus; Jesus dies rapidly; Pilate is surprised by hearing about the rapid death of Jesus.
The eclipse of the previous story (where only Herod kills Jesus) is more successfull if John the Baptist takes the place of the Jesus killed by Herod. To give place to the "new" Jesus killed by Pilate.
Quid prodest?
In another post I have suspected that only the "Jewish-Christian animosity toward the emperor Hadrian’s measures in putting down the Bar Kokhba rebellion" was really responsable for the introduction of Pilate in the narrative. Basically: against the gentiles. The original narrative extended on all the Jews the crime of killing Jesus, despite of the fact that all the Jews recognized Jesus as the Jewish Christ.
Our "Mark" (author) was so highly embarrassed by that universal knowledge that Jesus was the Jewish Christ, knowledge just of the entire people who killed him, that the his remedy and apology to mitigate the crime of an entire people who killed deliberately the his own Messiah was to make the Messiah totally unknown for that people. What Wrede called Messianic Secret is this apology and remedy.
Mark 8.27-28: 27
Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.”
Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.”
Hence the part in red was interpolated to make strictly exclusive and specific the relation between Peter and Jesus along the lines of the Jewish Messiah who is recognized as such at least by the his true disciple, despite of the ignorance of the stupid hoi polloi. The quality of the recognition is better than the quantity.
But removing the interpolation in red, the identity of Jesus as the Jewish Christ is questioned insofar it is believed by Peter and by all the people.
The same pattern seems to be in action here:
Mark 6.14-16:
And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.” 15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has risen!”
The part in red, by showing a Herod already sure about who is Jesus (=simply John redivivus) doesn't explain the specific interest of Herod about who was Jesus, not about who was John the Baptist, in Luke.
The surprise of Herod ceases when he sees personally Jesus and this passage in Luke has all the air of being the expedient by Jesus to escape the surveillance by the "archon" Herod:
Luke 23:11 :
Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate...
Hence I would like to imagine that the original source behind Mark 6.14-16 was:
Mark 6.14-16:
And King Herod heard of it, for His name had become well known; and people were saying, Jesus called Christ has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.”
This surprise by Herod for the rapid resurrection of Jesus is surprisingly similar with the surprise by Pilate for the rapid death of Jesus:
Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.
(Mark 15:44-45)
Note the similarity: in both the cases an "archon" is surprised for something made by Jesus during/after the his death, in both the cases an "archon" wants to see clear personally what is happened, in both the cases an "archon" minimizes the presumed miracle and gives a "body" for Jesus (a "robe"/a "corpse").
I think that in both the cases Jesus is escaping the surveillance of the "archon" in question by being identified by the "archon" with what he seems (and only seems) to be: in the eyes of Herod, he is the "elegant robe" put on him, in the case of Pilate, he is the mere "corpse" of a crucified.
So the point is that: Herod kills Jesus: Jesus rises rapidly; Herod is surprised by hearing about the news of the Risen Jesus.
This is eclipsed by a new story where: Pilate kills Jesus; Jesus dies rapidly; Pilate is surprised by hearing about the rapid death of Jesus.
The eclipse of the previous story (where only Herod kills Jesus) is more successfull if John the Baptist takes the place of the Jesus killed by Herod. To give place to the "new" Jesus killed by Pilate.
Quid prodest?
In another post I have suspected that only the "Jewish-Christian animosity toward the emperor Hadrian’s measures in putting down the Bar Kokhba rebellion" was really responsable for the introduction of Pilate in the narrative. Basically: against the gentiles. The original narrative extended on all the Jews the crime of killing Jesus, despite of the fact that all the Jews recognized Jesus as the Jewish Christ.
Our "Mark" (author) was so highly embarrassed by that universal knowledge that Jesus was the Jewish Christ, knowledge just of the entire people who killed him, that the his remedy and apology to mitigate the crime of an entire people who killed deliberately the his own Messiah was to make the Messiah totally unknown for that people. What Wrede called Messianic Secret is this apology and remedy.