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

[Giuseppe]

It is a real mystery, for me. The research for a reolution of a such dilemma is a priori very fun, but I see that many on this forum, even if mythicists, are just not interested about it.

And why is it fun? Because the connection Jesus/Pilate (introduced by the Earliest Gospel) is one of those mysteries who require an explanation, once one rejects, as "explanation", the brute fact of a Pilate who crucified a historical Jesus.

There is some hidden meaning in this artificial connection that goes well beyond the our possible imagination...

[Giuseppe]

I don't claim to have the answer (even if I am collecting them as much as it is possible).

Only my point is that, while for historicists it would be fascinating the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, for me at contrary it would be interesting to know what Pilate did to receive a such role in the first gospel.

[mlinssen]

Just one very simple question Giuseppe: which are the sources to your Pontius Pilatus?

[Giuseppe]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone

I don't think that you think that I hope that you don't doubt about the historicity of Pilate. So what is your point?

[mlinssen]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone

I don't think that you think that I hope that you don't doubt about the historicity of Pilate. So what is your point?

My point is indeed that all of our "historical" info to this entire circus called NT derives from Christians, either indirectly or directly. I doubt Josephus, I doubt Philo, I most certainly doubt the falsifying fathers

But first and foremost I doubt all of the NT. Acts is a negligent hoax, Paul is pretty good Roman rhetoric, the gospels are deliberate alterations of prior sources: nothing in it can be trusted.
So we have to read between the lines, and ONLY between the lines. When we e.g. take a full name and don't distrust the fact that we get fed a full name instead of only a last name or no name at all, we automatically disqualify for the job

And the Pilate stone again tells us nothing about historicity. Even if all of it is genuine, then all it does is attest to a xIUS PILATUS being perhaps a prefectus of Judea

[MrMacSon]

I'd only have dated under Pilate if my date wasn't related to him

[MrMacSon]

... the connection Jesus-Pilate (introduced by the Earliest Gospel) is one of those mysteries [which] require[s] an explanation, once one rejects, as "explanation", the brute fact of a Pilate who crucified a historical Jesus.

There is some hidden meaning in this artificial connection that goes well beyond...possible imagination...
.

I guess it depends on what you mean by the Earliest Gospel.

In the very first verse of their reconstructions of the Marcionite Evangelion, BeDuhn and Klinghardt mention Pilate. Dieter Roth doesn't, afaik, based on his 2009 PhD.

3 1In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea, 4 31Jesus came down to Capharnaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them in the synagogue ...

Both G.Mark and the Marcionite Evangelion have the crucifixion.

BeDuhn notes in his The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon

In terms of human opposition [in the Marcionite Evangelion], nowhere is this said to be “the Jews” (as in the Gospel of John). Instead, Jesus enters into conflict with authority figures with whom he shares Jewish identity. Above all, Jesus engages with the Pharisee movement, which the Evangelion features in an oppositional role more consistently than in Luke. He interacts with them on a number of occasions where issues of Torah law and other rules of purity come up, and ultimately condemns them as hypocrites, who put on a show of piety but inwardly are driven by base motives. Other legal authorities (“lawyers”) come in for equal condemnation, although they implicitly had access to “the key of knowledge,” because “you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who are entering” (11.52). Nevertheless, it is the captains of the temple guard who arrest and beat Jesus (22.4; 22.63–64), and he is remanded to the Roman authorities by a decision made in the Jerusalem council-chamber without any specific individual (such as the high priest) or group (such as the Sanhedrin) being explicitly named as responsible (22.66). In condemning him, Pilate “handed over Jesus to their will” (23.25), which refers to those who had accused him from among the Jerusalem authorities.
.

• The Marcionite Evangelion is a bit more vague than Mark as to whether 'Judah' brought a crowd to help apprehend Jesus [the Human Being], but it has Jesus seized by men who led him [straight] to Pilate. As BeDuhn notes, no chief priests, no Sanhedrin, as in Mark 14 ...
  
  Mark 14:43 has Judas appear with a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders. "They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law came together." In Mk 15:1 they hand him over to Pilate.
  
  From DeDuhn:
  
  
  
  23 1And arising, they led Him to Pilate. 2Then they started to accuse Him, saying, “We found this person subverting the nation, and destroying the Law and Prophets, and forbidding the paying of taxes, and turning away women and children, and calling Himself a consecrated king.”
  
  3So Pilate questioned Him, saying, “Are you the Christos?” And in reply to him he said, “You are the one saying (it).”
  
  6Now . . . Pilate . . . 7. . . sent Him on to Herod. . . . 8So when Herod saw Jesus he was very happy . . . 9. . . but he answered nothing to him.
  
  
  
  

In the very next paragraph BeDuhn says

Jesus instructs healed lepers to “show yourself to the priest, and offer a gift for your purification just as Moses commanded, so that it may be a testimony to you” (5.14; cf. 17.14). Even though most witnesses to Luke read “a testimony to them,” the Evangelion follows its Markan source in giving “a testimony to you,” which is indeed the correct characterization of the purpose of the sacrifice for a healed leper: the priest’s acceptance of the offering is a testimony that the offerer is truly cured.

Then

When Jesus and his followers violate Torah law, such as Sabbath restrictions, it is not presented as a denial of the validity of such restrictions, but as a qualification of them supported by precedent from elsewhere in Jewish scripture (6.3), or by a supervening principle (6.9) in typical rabbinic fashion. On one occasion, the pertinent question appears to be whether it is proper to deny “a daughter of Abraham” healing on the Sabbath (13.16). Jesus also observes Passover (22.8; 22.15). Nevertheless, Jesus declares in a rather contrastive way that “the Law and the Prophets lasted until John; since then the realm of God is proclaimed” (16.16), and he is accused before Pilate of “destroying the Law and Prophets” (23.2, missing from most, but not all, witnesses to Luke). These latter two passages align better with Marcionite opinion.*

* On a few occasions BeDuhn refers to a few things in the Marcionite Evangelion that are at odds with or are, say, a "disjunction with Marcionite theology". Something I've seen before but I find odd considering we don't have any direct sources for Marcionite theology other than a reconstructed Evangelion and what seems to be an abstract, reconstructed Antitheses.

So,

1. is Pilate a time-stamp ?
2. is he a foil : to share 'blame' as a representative of the Roman authorities ??
3. both ?

[John T]

Why?

Because Pilate contradicts the mythicist narrative.

If you deny, remove, and/or ignore all the evidence for the existence of Jesus they you can falsely conclude: Jesus did not exist.

It's rather simple, really.

[lclapshaw]

I'd only have dated under Pilate if my date wasn't related to him

[Giuseppe]

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.