About another Gospel incipit without John the Baptist

[Giuseppe]

Is it not perhaps equally plausible to argue the reverse: that the texts with stronger anti-Jewish narratives are later, coinciding with the growth of anti-semitism among many Christian cults from the late second century on?

I wrote the my reasons to think otherwise:

For what I know until now, the my reasons to suspect that Pilate was not in proto-Mark (or the Earliest Gospel) are:

1) in Acts 5:30 Peter accuses the Jews that they killed Jesus and (after?) they hanged him on a tree. And the Roman Festus knows the same thing about Jesus.

2) The basic reason for the Pilate's presence is to point out that Jesus is the king of Jews for the his own admission (Mark 15:2: "you say"). It is also the reason found by Pilate to put formally him to death. Hence who introduced Pilate betrayed some excessive insistence on the identity of Jesus with the Jewish Christ.

3) the Talmud knows only the story of Jews killing and hanging Jesus. Pilate is absent.

4) In Ascension of Isaiah, considered as a historicist text, Herod is the "king" who moves the Jews to kill Jesus. Pilate is absent.


I confess that it is especially the point 2 to be persuasive in my view. Add to this the fact that the Jewish-Christians wanted that at least a Pagan should share the guilty with the Jews about the death of Jesus. Even the two thieves could represent the Jewish humanity and the Gentile humanity. This would explain why Luke gives the grace to the Good Thief (the Gentile humanity) and he damned the other.

Note the very strange way by Peter Shafer to argue that Pilate was known "someway" in the Talmud:

Jesus was close to the government (and therefore the herald went out forty days before the execution to ask for other witnesses); this detail does not belong to the Baraita but is the answer to Ulla’s (later) objection. In all four Gospels, Pilate, the Roman governor, tries to save Jesus and to have Barabbas crucified instead of him. Thus, one can indeed get the impression that Jesus had no less powerful a protector than the governor himself. Pilate explicitly makes a great effort to convince the Jews that he
hasn’t found any case against him and wants to release him, but the Jews won’t give in. It is again the Gospel of John that is particularly specific in this regard. There, when Pilate tries to release Jesus, the Jews cry out: “If
you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor!” So the Jews play the Roman governor off against his master, the emperor—and that was the last thing in the world that Pilate needed: to be accused of disloyalty to the emperor. Jesus does not gain time, as the Talmud has it, but is immediately sentenced and executed.
The very fact that the Talmud’s claim of Jesus’ closeness to the Roman government reflects some knowledge—certainly not of the historical course of events but of the New Testament narrative, particularly of John’s version of it—does not come as a surprise anymore. What is more amazing is that this detail exonerates the Roman government from the blame of Jesus’ condemnation and consequently, adopting the Gospels’
message, puts the thrust of the accusation on the Jews

(Jesus in the Talmud, p. 73)

Note that the same Talmudic reference about Jesus being "close to the government" is interpreted by Eric Laupot (proponent of the Zealot Jesus) as evidence that Jesus worked against the Romans therefore he was implicitly forgiven and even praised by the Talmudist.

I am quoting two different views of the same Talmudic passage as evidence of the embarrassment among the historicist scholars (or scholars who assume the presence of Pilate in the earliest gospel) about the absence of Pilate in the Talmud.

[Ben C. Smith]

You misunderstand the argument, then.

Your argument is:
1) in Mcn John is introduced bluntly with a description of him
2) in Mark John is introduced in the incipit.
3) therefore: Mcn derives from Mark.

My point is that, if you accept the validity of that your argument (as I do), then accordingly you should accept that the Gospel of 12 holy apostles precedes Mark, insofar there John is never mentioned hence there is logically no need at all of a his description.

No, that is not the argument. It bears a resemblance to some elements of the argument, but it misses the main point completely. You have a habit of misunderstanding arguments of this nature, however, and it can be exhausting to try to make them clear enough to you.

[Giuseppe]

Putting aside Mcn, can you explain why the absence of John in the Gospel of 12 apostles would be not evidence of the antiquity of this gospel?

[Ben C. Smith]

Putting aside Mcn, can you explain why the absence of John in the Gospel of 12 apostles would be not evidence of the antiquity of this gospel?

Of course, but will it make a difference? Will you listen and understand? We shall see.

The presence or absence of John has nothing whatsoever to do with how early a gospel tradition is; an author or editor can add or subtract as needed. The argument hinges solely on how John is introduced (properly or suddenly) in a gospel. If you believe that the messenger/angel of the Syriac gospel is still supposed to be John, then that tradition probably postdates the synoptic tradition. If you believe that the messenger/angel is someone or something else, and only later became associated with John, then that tradition probably predates the synoptic tradition. There is no "hook" in the Syriac gospel upon which to hang this kind of argument; but there is such a "hook" in Marcion, because John is introduced as if the readers are already supposed to know him, thus presuming a previous story in which he was featured.

And, for the record, I have also made arguments for Marcionite priority. I suspect that sometimes Marcion preserves the earlier story, and that at other times the synoptics preserve the earlier story. It is not a simple, unidirectional arrow. We do not possess the earliest gospel text, at least not unadulterated; all of them presume previous stories.

[Ben C. Smith]

The gospel of Barnabas lacks any mention of John the baptist, as well, incidentally.

[neilgodfrey]

Is it not perhaps equally plausible to argue the reverse: that the texts with stronger anti-Jewish narratives are later, coinciding with the growth of anti-semitism among many Christian cults from the late second century on?

I wrote the my reasons to think otherwise:

Indeed.

Note the very strange way by Peter Shafer to argue that Pilate was known "someway" in the Talmud:

Jesus was close to the government (and therefore the herald went out forty days before the execution to ask for other witnesses); this detail does not belong to the Baraita but is the answer to Ulla’s (later) objection. In all four Gospels, Pilate, the Roman governor, tries to save Jesus and to have Barabbas crucified instead of him. Thus, one can indeed get the impression that Jesus had no less powerful a protector than the governor himself. Pilate explicitly makes a great effort to convince the Jews that he
hasn’t found any case against him and wants to release him, but the Jews won’t give in. It is again the Gospel of John that is particularly specific in this regard. There, when Pilate tries to release Jesus, the Jews cry out: “If
you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor!” So the Jews play the Roman governor off against his master, the emperor—and that was the last thing in the world that Pilate needed: to be accused of disloyalty to the emperor. Jesus does not gain time, as the Talmud has it, but is immediately sentenced and executed.
The very fact that the Talmud’s claim of Jesus’ closeness to the Roman government reflects some knowledge—certainly not of the historical course of events but of the New Testament narrative, particularly of John’s version of it—does not come as a surprise anymore. What is more amazing is that this detail exonerates the Roman government from the blame of Jesus’ condemnation and consequently, adopting the Gospels’
message, puts the thrust of the accusation on the Jews

Schafer is very good at finding the Jesus and/or engagement with the Jesus of the Church in rabbinic writings. Yet if one of his inferences that any one passage refers to Jesus fails then a lot of other inferences and extrapolations collapse with it. I think I might put a review of Schafer's works on my "to do" list and post them on my blog. But it won't be for some months yet, unfortunately.

[andrewcriddle]

Note the very strange way by Peter Shafer to argue that Pilate was known "someway" in the Talmud:

Jesus was close to the government (and therefore the herald went out forty days before the execution to ask for other witnesses); this detail does not belong to the Baraita but is the answer to Ulla’s (later) objection. In all four Gospels, Pilate, the Roman governor, tries to save Jesus and to have Barabbas crucified instead of him. Thus, one can indeed get the impression that Jesus had no less powerful a protector than the governor himself. Pilate explicitly makes a great effort to convince the Jews that he
hasn’t found any case against him and wants to release him, but the Jews won’t give in. It is again the Gospel of John that is particularly specific in this regard. There, when Pilate tries to release Jesus, the Jews cry out: “If
you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor!” So the Jews play the Roman governor off against his master, the emperor—and that was the last thing in the world that Pilate needed: to be accused of disloyalty to the emperor. Jesus does not gain time, as the Talmud has it, but is immediately sentenced and executed.
The very fact that the Talmud’s claim of Jesus’ closeness to the Roman government reflects some knowledge—certainly not of the historical course of events but of the New Testament narrative, particularly of John’s version of it—does not come as a surprise anymore. What is more amazing is that this detail exonerates the Roman government from the blame of Jesus’ condemnation and consequently, adopting the Gospels’
message, puts the thrust of the accusation on the Jews

Schafer is very good at finding the Jesus and/or engagement with the Jesus of the Church in rabbinic writings. Yet if one of his inferences that any one passage refers to Jesus fails then a lot of other inferences and extrapolations collapse with it. I think I might put a review of Schafer's works on my "to do" list and post them on my blog. But it won't be for some months yet, unfortunately.

Although the baraita itself might in principle be independent of Christian tradition it is less plausible that Ulla and his colleagues were unfamiliar with the basic Christian narrative.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

Although the baraita itself might in principle be independent of Christian tradition it is less plausible that Ulla and his colleagues were unfamiliar with the basic Christian narrative.

Andrew Criddle

I cannot imagine them being unfamiliar with the basic Christian narrative; it is the response to it that is the question. Another topic for in depth discussion would be if/how/why the rabbis appeared to have done all in their creative imagination to avoid any appearance of being tainted by Christian views and style of literature.