If Marcion mentioned Pilate, then why didn't the anti-marcionite Acts mention Pilate?
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:25 pm
The Chris Albert Wells's article
https://www.academia.edu/78135145/JESUS ... _Narrative
...continues to cause wonder.
We have the following facts:
Pilate was introduced therefore after that Acts was written.
Acts had already connected Peter with Gamaliel, so the step was short: Jesus was made a contemporary of the Peter of Acts, giving so the name of Pilate to his Roman killer.
The strict connection Pilate/Barabbas and the Pilate's question "are you the Christ?" shows in the same time an apology in action against:
This gives an earliest Gospel lost narrative where only "the Jews" crucify Jesus.
This explains why the Talmud didn't mention Pilate. Compare this absence of Pilate with the all-modern pro-Jewish use of Pilate to exculpate the Jews from the accusation of deicide.
The earliest narrative having only a Jewish trial was therefore a gentilizing story, since the story of the denial of Peter is found even in the Judaizing gospels of the Hebrews etc.
The possibility is concrete, that the Jews were condemned en masse in the first gospel.
https://www.academia.edu/78135145/JESUS ... _Narrative
...continues to cause wonder.
We have the following facts:
- 1) Acts is anti-marcionite propaganda;
- 2) In Acts, Festus shows no knowledge of Pilate, during the trial of Paul, despite of the fact that at least Festus would have known what Pilate did.
Pilate was introduced therefore after that Acts was written.
Acts had already connected Peter with Gamaliel, so the step was short: Jesus was made a contemporary of the Peter of Acts, giving so the name of Pilate to his Roman killer.
The strict connection Pilate/Barabbas and the Pilate's question "are you the Christ?" shows in the same time an apology in action against:
- an identification of the Christians with the Messianic rebels à la Bar-Kochba;
- an identification of the Christians with the Marcionites who adored the anti-messianic "Son of Father" (Bar-Abbas).
This gives an earliest Gospel lost narrative where only "the Jews" crucify Jesus.
This explains why the Talmud didn't mention Pilate. Compare this absence of Pilate with the all-modern pro-Jewish use of Pilate to exculpate the Jews from the accusation of deicide.
The earliest narrative having only a Jewish trial was therefore a gentilizing story, since the story of the denial of Peter is found even in the Judaizing gospels of the Hebrews etc.
The possibility is concrete, that the Jews were condemned en masse in the first gospel.