Why did the proto-Catholics insist on Pilate?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why did the proto-Catholics insist on Pilate?

Post by Giuseppe »

Richard Carrier notes rightly the Catholic insistence on Pilate. It is a fact, that the Catholics were interested to prove the historicity of only the Jesus connected with Pilate, not merely of a Jesus alone, was he even a Jesus crucified by Felix, or by Varus, or by Gratus, or by Titus himself. What was in Pilate that derived so much catholic attention about him, and only about him?


Here Justin is clearly most impressed by the fact that Christians can “expel demons.” He argues that this proves Jesus is real. Otherwise, why would demons respond to invoking his name—and indeed not just his name, but Justin’s specific historicist creed—if it wasn’t true? For example, Justin says invoking not just any Jesus works, but only the one “crucified by Pilate” (§30 and §85). His point is clearly, “How can that be, if Jesus wasn’t actually crucified by Pilate?” That that specific thing needed to be true in Justin’s sect is made clear by the letters of Ignatius, who is very anxious about Christians denying it. Of course we know this is a lunatic argument. “Jesus must have been crucified by Pilate because we can expel demons when we mention it” is bonkers. But it is what Justin is arguing. And more importantly, it is his only argument. Justin presents no other defense against Trypho’s charge that the Gospels are made up.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23326
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2889
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Why did the proto-Catholics insist on Pilate?

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:05 am Richard Carrier notes rightly the Catholic insistence on Pilate. It is a fact, that the Catholics were interested to prove the historicity of only the Jesus connected with Pilate, not merely of a Jesus alone, was he even a Jesus crucified by Felix, or by Varus, or by Gratus, or by Titus himself. What was in Pilate that derived so much catholic attention about him, and only about him?


Here Justin is clearly most impressed by the fact that Christians can “expel demons.” He argues that this proves Jesus is real. Otherwise, why would demons respond to invoking his name—and indeed not just his name, but Justin’s specific historicist creed—if it wasn’t true? For example, Justin says invoking not just any Jesus works, but only the one “crucified by Pilate” (§30 and §85). His point is clearly, “How can that be, if Jesus wasn’t actually crucified by Pilate?” That that specific thing needed to be true in Justin’s sect is made clear by the letters of Ignatius, who is very anxious about Christians denying it. Of course we know this is a lunatic argument. “Jesus must have been crucified by Pilate because we can expel demons when we mention it” is bonkers. But it is what Justin is arguing. And more importantly, it is his only argument. Justin presents no other defense against Trypho’s charge that the Gospels are made up.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23326

Why did the proto-Catholics insist on Pilate? Because that's the gospel story......
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why did the proto-Catholics insist on Pilate?

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:23 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:05 am Richard Carrier notes rightly the Catholic insistence on Pilate. It is a fact, that the Catholics were interested to prove the historicity of only the Jesus connected with Pilate, not merely of a Jesus alone, was he even a Jesus crucified by Felix, or by Varus, or by Gratus, or by Titus himself. What was in Pilate that derived so much catholic attention about him, and only about him?


Here Justin is clearly most impressed by the fact that Christians can “expel demons.” He argues that this proves Jesus is real. Otherwise, why would demons respond to invoking his name—and indeed not just his name, but Justin’s specific historicist creed—if it wasn’t true? For example, Justin says invoking not just any Jesus works, but only the one “crucified by Pilate” (§30 and §85). His point is clearly, “How can that be, if Jesus wasn’t actually crucified by Pilate?” That that specific thing needed to be true in Justin’s sect is made clear by the letters of Ignatius, who is very anxious about Christians denying it. Of course we know this is a lunatic argument. “Jesus must have been crucified by Pilate because we can expel demons when we mention it” is bonkers. But it is what Justin is arguing. And more importantly, it is his only argument. Justin presents no other defense against Trypho’s charge that the Gospels are made up.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23326

Why did the proto-Catholics insist on Pilate? Because that's the gospel story......
which assumes that the Catholics were in direct polemic against Christians who ignored Pilate (just as they ignored the Gospel story). But we don't have evidence of a direct contact, by Catholics, with sects placing Jesus not under Pilate (i.e. with sects who knew a different story)

So the my point is that the Catholics insisted on Pilate:
  • 1) because Pilate was connected with a different person
  • 2) because the mention of Pilate is sufficient to add, as implicit corollary, that Jesus really suffered under Pilate.
The two points are not mutually exclusive: if other Christians assumed that Simon Magus appeared in Judea "as the Son", then, by saying "Jesus suffered under Pilate", the Catholics are contrasting the Simonian propaganda and in the same time they are reiterating an anti-docetist position.

Hence, the emphasis on Pilate works as anti-docetic motive and anti-Simonian motive.

Hence, the next question is: was Pilate mentioned ab origine in the same Gospel narrative in order to make the same anti-docetist and anti-Simonian point?
Post Reply