Why are the mythicists not interested about the reasons of the dating under Pilate?

[John T]

Why?

I think that the mention of Pilate is derived from the memory of Dositheus, i.e. probably the Samaritan false prophet killed by Pilate.

For two/three reasons:

• The story of Dositheus dying in a cave is a polemical parody of the legend of Dositheus being risen after the crucifixion and the burial in a cave. Occam's razor requires that there could be, under the same Roman Governor (=Pilate), only one burial followed by a (presumed) resurrection, not two burials followed by two (presumed) resurrections.

• If Josephus had mentioned really a Galilean also crucified by Pilate, then there would be no reason, by a Christian sect, of identifying Dositheus with the "Prophet like Moses" in the place of that (presumed) Galilean victim of Pilate, even more so since other Christians believed that Jesus was "a Prophet like Moses".

• The Catholic insistence that Jesus died under Pilate is an obvious polemic against other Christians who claimed that Dositheus died under Pilate.

At any case, even if Josephus mentioned really a Galilean crucified by Pilate, that Galilean can't be defined "THE historical Jesus", not more than Jesus ben Sapphias could be defined such, not more than Jesus ben Ananias could be defined such, not more than the "Egyptian" could be defined such, not more than Athronges, or Judas the Galilean, or Theudas, or Menahem, could be defined such, and the list may continue.

Basically, prof Christophe Batsch and Aron Ra are saying the same thing.

Don't stop there. Further proof of your sophistry is that no live witnesses are here today to contradict you. Ditto's for CNN interviews, photos, radio programing, and newspapers. So, yeah, there is no way to prove anything to your satisfaction.

Why, there isn't any proof that Josephus even lived, that is, if you have to go that far to deny common sense that a man named Jesus was crucified at the time of Pilate.

[Giuseppe]

common sense that a man named Jesus was crucified at the time of Pilate.

does a "common sense" exist about Jesus, in a not-more-religious world?

[Sinouhe]

You’re right Giuseppe.

In general, mythicists are not interested about the reasons of the dating under Pilate.


To answer you, Mark (or the author of the first gospel if you prefer) put Jesus under Pilate for multiple reasons.
But the principal would be the oracle in Daniel 9:24-27.

This oracle fed the Jewish messianic expectations of the second temple period and Mark could not miss it.

[Giuseppe]

You’re right Giuseppe.

In general, mythicists are not interested about the reasons of the dating under Pilate.


To answer you, Mark (or the author of the first gospel if you prefer) put Jesus under Pilate for multiple reasons.
But the principal would be the oracle in Daniel 9:24-27.

This oracle fed the Jewish messianic expectations of the second temple period and Mark could not miss it.

Hi Sinouhe, have you started to read Bruno Bauer (just translated by Neil on Vridar)?

He gives this very powerful explanation.

[Sinouhe]

You’re right Giuseppe.

In general, mythicists are not interested about the reasons of the dating under Pilate.


To answer you, Mark (or the author of the first gospel if you prefer) put Jesus under Pilate for multiple reasons.
But the principal would be the oracle in Daniel 9:24-27.

This oracle fed the Jewish messianic expectations of the second temple period and Mark could not miss it.

Hi Sinouhe, have you started to read Bruno Bauer (just translated by Neil on Vridar)?

He gives this very powerful explanation.

Yes i think he's right. John the baptist would be another reason for Mark to put Jesus under Pilate. John is a central figure in his Gospel.
In Mark, John is the Elijah that the jews were expecting before the coming of the Messiah.
Malachi 4:5 was an important oracle during the second temple period.

[Giuseppe]

John the baptist would be another reason for Mark to put Jesus under Pilate.

I admit that the Bauer's explanation of John the Baptist is a strong evidence supporting Markan priority. Accordingly I give up to think that the Earliest Gospel didn't start with the baptism of Jesus by the Baptist.

[Sinouhe]

John the baptist would be another reason for Mark to put Jesus under Pilate.

I admit that the Bauer's explanation of John the Baptist is a strong evidence supporting Markan priority. Accordingly I give up to think that the Earliest Gospel didn't start with the baptism of Jesus by the Baptist.

[mlinssen]

You’re right Giuseppe.

In general, mythicists are not interested about the reasons of the dating under Pilate.


To answer you, Mark (or the author of the first gospel if you prefer) put Jesus under Pilate for multiple reasons.
But the principal would be the oracle in Daniel 9:24-27.

This oracle fed the Jewish messianic expectations of the second temple period and Mark could not miss it.

Hi Sinouhe, have you started to read Bruno Bauer (just translated by Neil on Vridar)?

He gives this very powerful explanation.

Funny how I came to the same outcome when I knew nothing about any of it all:

Why did Mark have Jesus baptised? The Messiah comes to the temple of the forerunner, is what Malachi said:

Malachi 3: 1 "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, behold, he comes!" says Yahweh of Armies.

John the Baptist doesn't have a temple, and the gospel-writers couldn't have supplied him with one because that would obviously have had to remain in its place and it would have become well known with all the people having to visit him there - what other purpose would the temple of John the Baptist serve? It would have had to be a large temple, perhaps the size of a church or even cathedral, or people would have stood in line for it for many kilometres - at least that is what one would suspect, based on the text of the gospels.
All the events in the life of Jesus, all the miracles, everything: they all are perfectly transient.
Temporary, short-lived, ephemeral, impermanent - and so on. Driving out demons, healing people, raising one or two (three, actually) from the dead who will die eventually anyway;
magically conjuring food out of thin air that hours later has been digested and disappeared:
nothing that Jesus does persists for longer than a few hours. The veil of the Temple that is allegedly torn is the only exception, yet an event that can't be witnessed or confirmed because it covers the most sacred of the entire Temple and only the High Priest is allowed to visit it - once a year. Naturally, there is no record of the event outside the gospels.
Nothing that Jesus does can be proven - and that is great, because that means it can't be disproven either: it can't be disproven that the Temple veil did not tear, nor can it be disproven that Jesus raised people from the dead, nor can it be disproven that he cured hundreds of sick people. So John the Baptist isn't assigned a temple by the gospel-writers, because it should have been located at a place easily accessible to multitudes of people, in plain sight of many: it could be disproven that there ever was a temple at that location.
Hence, Jesus has to visit John wherever he is, and the gospel-writers carefully omit the location: "in the river Jordan" says Mark, a river that is 250 kilometres long. Luke states "all the region around the Jordan", even less precise (even though "the river Jordan" is more than imprecise enough), and Matthew states that Jesus came to the Jordan to John. What is he to do there? Whatever the Lord is to do in the temple of the messenger - it doesn't say, only that it is 'suddenly', and that it is.
Jesus and John could have had a conversation, but about what? It would deepen John's character, but most importantly it would settle the matter between which of the two really was Elijah - of all the things incredible it would have been more than most incredible that neither of the two would bring up the topic. That is why there is no conversation at all between the two, and why John sends his messengers to Jesus so the gospel-writers can use that as a pretext to come up with the logion about John the Baptist.
So Mark, desperately searching for an angle, a way to shape and fulfil just another terribly inconvenient prophecy, probably has a mental breakdown - and in a momentary lapse of reason, Mark has Jesus baptised.
At that point, Church history is written, the event is fixed, Mark's legacy extended, and Jesus is to be baptised by the others as well - period. As easily as Mark could have forgotten to mention that Mary was a virgin, it really is impossibly implausible to omit an incredibly significant event - even when that is a significantly incredible event. The baptism of Jesus couldn't be undone, yet the clever and cunning Matthew turns their weak point to a strong point and takes on all challenges at the same time: he does let Jesus and John have a conversation with each other, and he does infer scripture. Matthew certainly doesn't quote Malachi 3:1 nor use any other words to infer scripture, but only has Jesus say the very vague 'Allow it now, for this is the fitting way for us to fulfil all righteousness'.

[Giuseppe]

Funny how I came to the same outcome when I knew nothing about any of it all:

Why did Mark have Jesus baptised? The Messiah comes to the temple of the forerunner, is what Malachi said:

Not precisely the same thing. Bauer's point is that the primal impulse to disturb John the Baptist is the need "that the beginning of salvation also be proven".

Als die Gemeinde im Glauben an den Opfertod und die Auferstehung des Erlösers ihren dogmatischen Halt befestigt und die religiöse Theorie die Kraft und Muße dazu erhalten hatte, die Entwickelung des Heilswerks historisch zu gestalten, verlangte es die Abrundung der geschichtlichen Anschauung, daß man auch den Anfang des Heils erwies, d. h. den Zeitpunkt fixirte, wo der Herr den Täufer ablöste und an seine Aufgabe ging.
Aber wo lag dieser Anfangspunkt? Wann ist der Herr zur Gewißheit seiner Bestimmung gelangt? Niemand wußte es.

Vielmehr wußte es Jedermann — wenigstens mußte es jeder Kenner der heiligen Geschichte wissen. Nach dem Gesetz, welches sich im A. T. hinreichend bewährt hatte, konnte jener Anfangspunkt nur der Augenblick seyn, wo Jesus, wie die Propheten, von der göttlichen Stimme gerufen wurde und der Geist Gottes auf ihn herabkam. Natürlich konnte diese Stimme keine andere seyn, als jene, die lbn schon in den Weissagungen des A. T. (Ps. 2, 7. Jes. 42, 1) als d-n Sobn Gottes und als den Gegenstand des göttlichen Wohlgefallens proclamirt hatte.

Aber der bestimmte Zeitpunkt! Welche Frage! Er soll den Vorläufer ablösen — um ihn abzulösen, muß er ihn auf seinem Platze finden — beide müssen also im entscheidenden Augenblick auf dem Schauplätze Zusammentreffen — welcher Anlaß konnte ihn aber zum Täufer führen? Mußte es nicht dessen Taufe seyn? Ja wohl! Er mußte sich der Taufe des Johannes unterziehen und in diesem Augenblicke zugleich über die ganze bisherige Vergangenheit erhoben, mit der unge-theilten Kraft des Himmels ausgestattet und an den Anfang seines Werks gestellt werden.

(my bold)
https://vridar.org/bruno-bauer-criticis ... -of-jesus/

[mlinssen]

Funny how I came to the same outcome when I knew nothing about any of it all:

Why did Mark have Jesus baptised? The Messiah comes to the temple of the forerunner, is what Malachi said:

Not precisely the same thing. Bauer's point is that the primal impulse to disturb John the Baptist is the need "that the beginning of salvation also be proven".

Als die Gemeinde im Glauben an den Opfertod und die Auferstehung des Erlösers ihren dogmatischen Halt befestigt und die religiöse Theorie die Kraft und Muße dazu erhalten hatte, die Entwickelung des Heilswerks historisch zu gestalten, verlangte es die Abrundung der geschichtlichen Anschauung, daß man auch den Anfang des Heils erwies, d. h. den Zeitpunkt fixirte, wo der Herr den Täufer ablöste und an seine Aufgabe ging.
Aber wo lag dieser Anfangspunkt? Wann ist der Herr zur Gewißheit seiner Bestimmung gelangt? Niemand wußte es.

Vielmehr wußte es Jedermann — wenigstens mußte es jeder Kenner der heiligen Geschichte wissen. Nach dem Gesetz, welches sich im A. T. hinreichend bewährt hatte, konnte jener Anfangspunkt nur der Augenblick seyn, wo Jesus, wie die Propheten, von der göttlichen Stimme gerufen wurde und der Geist Gottes auf ihn herabkam. Natürlich konnte diese Stimme keine andere seyn, als jene, die lbn schon in den Weissagungen des A. T. (Ps. 2, 7. Jes. 42, 1) als d-n Sobn Gottes und als den Gegenstand des göttlichen Wohlgefallens proclamirt hatte.

Aber der bestimmte Zeitpunkt! Welche Frage! Er soll den Vorläufer ablösen — um ihn abzulösen, muß er ihn auf seinem Platze finden — beide müssen also im entscheidenden Augenblick auf dem Schauplätze Zusammentreffen — welcher Anlaß konnte ihn aber zum Täufer führen? Mußte es nicht dessen Taufe seyn? Ja wohl! Er mußte sich der Taufe des Johannes unterziehen und in diesem Augenblicke zugleich über die ganze bisherige Vergangenheit erhoben, mit der unge-theilten Kraft des Himmels ausgestattet und an den Anfang seines Werks gestellt werden.

(my bold)
https://vridar.org/bruno-bauer-criticis ... -of-jesus/

Reading this, Bauer thinks that the steeple chase between John B and Jesus was felt to need markation so that it could serve as a milestone in history: John passes the ball to Jesus and then (his ministry ends where?!) that of Jesus begins

The how is clear: by example of the Tanakh, Jesus - like the Prophets - needs to be called by Gawd "and the spirit descend on him".
And perhaps I'm missing something here, but I am unaware whether any prophet ever got the holy spirit descend on him
But when?! And now Bauer explicitly states that Jesus takes over from John B, that this entire business is an either-or thing, and that Jesus must meet John B at some place, preferably the place of John B.
And, very disappointingly, Bauer then just comes up with the baptism as only possible pretext

I don't know which translation service you used, Giuseppe, although highly likely your need "that the beginning of salvation also be proven" is a rephrasing of yourself.
There's nothing to prove here, all of it is about marking a point in time as the carry over from John to Jesus, and all that matters is that part of the how complies with the ways in the Tanakh.
Bauer chokes on his own Zeitpunkt as he says nothing further about time, but he likely meant "point in time" and wasn't after a date