Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 6251
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:54 am

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".


So again and again "Jesus Barabbas" is really only the Judaizing parody of the marcionite Jesus Son of Father, per the great research of Couchoud (and as such, Barabbas was totally absent in the Earliest Gospel).


The sense of the story is that Pilate crucified Jesus believing him a mere anti-Roman rebel and author of a murder (the same murder that became in the our Gospels the murder done by Barabbas and in virtue of which Barabbas was put in prison), precisely because in Mcn Jesus is crucified under the accusation of sedition.

I don't have more doubts, now, about proto-Luke aka Mcn being the original First Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by klewis » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:05 am

In the Loeb Classical Library for the phrase found in Philo, it is translated as envy.
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/philo ... 89.277.xml

Giuseppe
Posts: 6251
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:13 am

Thanks to point out the obvious. You are off topic.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by klewis » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:30 am

Yes, my last post was off topic.

I looked at this source of critical text:
http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf

And did not see a manuscript that had that rendering. Unfortunately, Mark manuscripts don't show up until the 300 CE so if there was a change there would not be a way to find out. The change in spelling is subtle and the context certainly supports it. So it is possible, more like very likely, but it would be nice if there were more to go on.

If I had to side with which rendering, I would chose yours and place a verbose footnote.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6251
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:10 am

In absence of textual evidence for the reading of "for a murder" in the place of "for envy", we should see which is the best explanation for Barabbas being accused of "THE murder" as opposed to "A murder".


Evidently a Barabbas, i.e. a "Jesus Son of Father", was already known for the accusation of a murder by who wrote "THE murder" as the reason of the his presence in prison.


The probable explanation is that Barabbas was the mere sarcastic parody, by the authors of the our Gospels, of the Jesus of the original Gospel (probably a shorter version of our Luke), where the accusation is made explicit against Jesus of sedition and of murder. This because in the original Gospel, the Jesus had to show himself as a mere messianist and murderer (in order to be crucified). The defect of this Jesus, in the eyes of the our "Mark", "Luke", "John", etc, was to proclaim the gospel of a Father distinct from the creator god. Therefore he was reduced to the status of Jesus Bar-Abbas ("Son of Father"), whereas the crucified Jesus becomes now only the Jesus called (the Jewish) Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6251
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:06 am


Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released, as if he were the innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to death, as if he were the murderer

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by klewis » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:18 am

That is a great connection that I did not think of, and in my mind that is substantial sway in the form of solid evidence.

Thank you, I learned something new today.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6251
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:44 am

It seems that the Gnostics returned the favor, since they realized someway that their Christ was Bar-Abbas:

For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. For their Ennoias did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/2seth.html
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10868
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:09 pm

Et Barrabas quidem nocentissimus vita ut bonus (good) donatur, Christus vero iustissimus (just) ut homicida morti expostulatur
if these two men represent two powers it is worth noting that they reinforce the original Marcionite understanding of two powers - one 'just' and the other 'good.' Note: the Marcionite godhead is 'good' and 'just' not 'good' and 'evil.'
Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these he interposes the separation of146 a great and absolute difference----as great as lies between what is just and what is good;147 as great as lies between the law and the gospel; as great, (in short, ) as is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. (Inter hos magnam et omnem2 differentiam scindit, quantam inter iustum et bonum, quantam inter legem et evangelium, quantam inter Iudaismum et Christianismum) (6.3)
Note the consistent use of the Latin terminology throughout:
And now, too, as the destroyer also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing better than to be acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the sake of being feared: only that Marcion says219 that his god is not feared; maintaining that a good god (bonum) Is not an object of fear, but only a judicial god (iudicem), in whom reside the grounds of fear----anger, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemnation. ... Therefore they confessed that (Christ) was the Son of a God who was to be feared, because they would have an occasion of not submitting if there were none for fearing. Besides, He showed that He was to be feared, because He drave them out, not by persuasion like a good god (bonus), but by command and reproof (like a just god). Or else did he222 reprove them, because they were making him an object of fear, when all the while he did not want to be feared? And in what manner did he wish them to go forth, when they could not do so except with fear? So that he fell into the dilemma of having to conduct himself contrary to his nature, whereas he might in his simple goodness (bonus) have at once treated them with leniency. He fell, too, into another false position ----of prevarication, when he permitted himself to be feared by the demons as the Son of the Creator, that he might drive them out, not indeed by his own power, but by the authority of the Creator(4.8.7 - 9)
again:
Others, again, admit that the word implies a curse; but they will have it that Christ pronounced the woe, not as if it were His own genuine feeling, but because the woe is from the Creator, and He wanted to set forth to them the severity of the Creator in order that He might the more commend His own long-suffering in His beatitudes Just as if it were not competent to the Creator, in the pre-eminence of both His attributes as the good God and Judge (et bonum deum et iudicem), that, as He had made clemency the preamble of His benediction so He should place severity in the sequel of His curses; thus fully developing His discipline in both directions, both in following out the blessing and in providing against the curse.514 [5] He had already said of old, "Behold, I have set before you blessing and cursing." (4.15.3)
again:
If to Marcion's god there be ascribed the blessing of the poor, he must also have imputed to him the malediction of the rich; and thus will he become the Creator's equal,523 both good and judicial (tam bonus quam et iudex); nor will there be left any room for that distinction whereby two gods are made; and when this distinction is removed, there will remain the verity which pronounces the Creator to be the one only God. (4.15.7)
again:
He will further say to them, "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."1240 But where? [5] Outside, no doubt, when they shall have been excluded with the door shut on them by Him. There will therefore be punishment inflicted by Him who excludes for punishment, when they shall behold the righteous entering the kingdom of God (iustos introeuntes in regnum dei), but themselves detained without. By whom detained outside? If by the Creator, who shall be within receiving the righteous into the kingdom? The good God.(Si a creatore, quis erit ergo intus recipiens iustos in regnum? Deus bonus?) What, therefore, is the Creator about,1241 that He should detain outside for punishment those whom His adversary shut out, when He ought rather to have kindly received them, if they must come into His hands,1242 for the greater irritation of His rival? [6] But when about to exclude the wicked, he must, of course, either be aware that the Creator would detain them for punishment, or not be aware. Consequently either the wicked will be detained by the Creator against the will of the excluder, in which case he will be inferior to the Creator, submitting to Him unwillingly; or else, if the process is carried out with his will, then he himself has judicially determined its execution; and then he who is the very originator of the Creator's infamy, will not prove to be one whit better than the Creator. Now, if these ideas be incompatible with reason----of one being supposed to punish, and the other to liberate----then to one only power will appertain both the judgment and the kingdom and while they both belong to one, He who executeth judgment can be none else than the Christ of the Creator. (4.30.5)
You see how the more you dig the more you come up with CHALLENGES your self-serving beliefs. IF Barabbas and Jesus were conceived in terms of two power THEN it follows that Marcion was not a dualist, his system WAS NOT based on two powers - one good, one evil - but rather the traditional Jewish understanding going back to Philo of two powers, one just one good.

With every new discovery inevitably comes the changing of your original position. Of course Giuseppe won't change. Because he is not interested in the truth.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10868
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark 15:10: Pilate knew that Jesus was accused "for a murder"

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:45 pm

And to this end, if Barabbas represents anyone or anything it has something to do with murder. Isn't it interesting that the Marcionites are reported to identify the Creator as above all else - a murderer. https://books.google.com/books?id=3yP-K ... er&f=false To this end, while I think there is something of mystic significance to the Barabbas narrative, it doesn't lead to your desired conclusions. Marcionism was not about two gods - one good and one evil - but the traditional Jewish understanding of two powers one just and the other evil. Clearly Yahweh is the 'just' god. But he is also a murderer. Somehow Yahweh and Elohim switch places.

Philo of Alexandria tells the story of Jacob at Peniel where Jacob gives up believing in Yahweh and calls upon Elohim instead. Clement takes over the understanding so it became Christian. The underlying sense then is that Christianity is about giving up 'the ruler of the world' Yahweh, the just god in favor of the good god. Clearly though the just god was supposed to have been crucified but instead the good god took his place.

If you want to use Against Marcion as a source - it does not support the mystical understanding of the gospel as involving two powers - one good and one evil. Yes there are many layers to the text and some of the later layers seem to indicate this juxtaposition. But the core text tells us a story consistent with other anti-Marcionite treatises - the Marcionites were Jews very closely related to Philo.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply