“One gets the distinct impression that something is missing.” (Laura Knight-Jadczyk)

[Giuseppe]

Maryhelena, I don't like to start a thread to give you the further occasion to describe negatively the Laura KJ 's view.

At any case, I am interested now about John Guerra's case for Pilate being the only Roman Governor who killed only the leaders of a revolt, not the rest of the rebels.

• This is evident with the way Pilate dealt with the Samaritan Impostor: only he and his more strict collaborators were killed, the others were only dispelled.

• Even if Pilate had, by his own sadistic inclination, the easy nail gun, a case can be made that he was obliged to limit the violence only against the leaders, because otherwise Tiberius would have punished him (being without more the support of Seianus).

This makes me remember the Lena Einhorn's view that Pilate was chosen because his time was a period of relative quiet, hence what better occasion to prove that the Jesus movement was itself a pacifist one? Since Pilate allowed the survival of the followers of the leaders, then the Christians, by placing Jesus under Pilate, could see themselves as being survived without a collective persecution at the origin of the sect. That is also what Tacitus reported: the sect was repressed only with the death of Jesus. The followers survived.

In short, Pilate was chosen for diplomatic reasons.

[Giuseppe]

Continuing my thoughts on the John Guerra's view: occasion was also given to midrashical speculation about Pilate killing only the leader of a movement, not the followers of the leader. If Jesus is allegory of Israel, then by killing "only" Jesus, Pilate is going de facto to crucify the entire Israel. The midrashical irony is that the death of only one guy resumes the extinction of an entire nation.

Mark 10:45 wants to emphasize precisely this feature: only Jesus is crucified.

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

The two thieves crucified with Jesus work only as fictitious witnesses of the his death. The mention of Pilate confirms that only Jesus is crucified: the followers of the Messiah are spared by Pilate, therefore they are "saved" by Jesus.

A historical detail (the Pilate's inclination to spare the followers from the death) is used to vehicle a theological point: Jesus alone dies as a ransom for many (=his same followers).

[Giuseppe]

In the place of John Guerra, I would have titled his thesis "The right place at the right time: A historical rationale for the datation of the uprising of the Jesus of paper".

[Giuseppe]

Credit has to be given to Lena Einhorn for having resumed in short quasi the entire point of John Guerra's thesis, but from a more critical prospective:

There is one period during this Roman occupation, one single sustained period, when the "robbers" seem to be completely absent, or at least quiet: during the years when Jesus was active!

(Lena Einhorn, A shift in time, p. 45)


At any case, credit has to be given to John Guerra for his great contribution to the discussion: the decisive remark that Pilate killed only the leaders, while sparing the others. That single historical detail was what derived the attention about Pilate by the author of the Earliest Gospel.

[maryhelena]

Credit has to be given to Lena Einhorn for having resumed in short quasi the entire point of John Guerra's thesis, but from a more critical prospective:

There is one period during this Roman occupation, one single sustained period, when the "robbers" seem to be completely absent, or at least quiet: during the years when Jesus was active!

(Lena Einhorn, A shift in time, p. 45)


At any case, credit has to be given to John Guerra for his great contribution to the discussion: the decisive remark that Pilate killed only the leaders, while sparing the others. That single historical detail was what derived the attention about Pilate by the author of the Earliest Gospel.

I downloaded the article you referenced by John Guerra. I had a quick look through it and I didn't find that Guerra mentioned any leaders by name that were executed, killed, by Pilate in Judaea and their followers go free. (apart that is from the quote from Josephus regarding Jesus). Could you supply a quote from Guerra naming the leaders in Judaea that Pilate killed. ?

Of all the governors…

What, then, are we to make of this enigmatic figure? Of all the provincial governors serving the frontiers of the Roman Empire, why does Pontius Pilate still capture our imaginations? From the New Testament to ancient historians and modern-day film, Pilate has been portrayed as everything from a lisping puppet to a ruthless dictator. We don’t know, truly, who he was. And maybe this mystery is what catches our eye and sparks our interest. Pontius Pilate is whomever we need him to be.

https://library.brown.edu/iip/stories/p ... 0Jerusalem.

Maybe John Guerra has simply devised a version of Pilate to suit his own historical Jesus. ie in the gospel story, the followers of Jesus were not killed - therefore, that was Pilate's way of doing things in Judaea. If that is John Guerra's position then he needs to provide historical evidence, name names, of the other leaders Pilate killed in Judaea and let their followers go free. Maybe I missed these names - do you have the quote handy ?

============

Link to the article by John Guerra referenced by Giuseppe.

https://figshare.mq.edu.au/articles/the ... 19434071/1

The right place at the right time: A historical rationale for the afterlife of the uprising of Jesus of Nazareth

[Giuseppe]

Could you supply a quote from Guerra naming the leaders in Judaea that Pilate killed. ?

For John Guerra, the fact that Pilate spared the followers is only part of the argument:

Towards the end of Pilates’ procuratorship there was an incident with a Samaritan prophet, he too was killed along with “the principle leaders” (Ant. 18.4.1-2); the rest were “put to flight.” Perhaps the fact that Jesus’ followers fled and hid preserved them from being killed, but Pilate did not pursue them as Varus hunted the followers of the uprisings in 4 B.C.E. Regardless of the reason, Jesus’ followers were allowed to live and this fact is not unique to his uprising. Therefore, we cannot conclude that is was the distinctive issue that occasioned the continuation of Jesus uprising. But it is significant in the final hypothesis.

(p. 74-75, my bold)

What was decisive, according to John Guerra, was the tacitian "sub Tiberio, quies":

The reason Jesus’ uprising had an afterlife was timing. Jesus’ uprising took place at the opportune time, at a time that was advantageous for an uprising to continue. I propose that Jesus’ uprising was able to continue after his death because the environment was stable and relatively trouble free and there was peace and cooperation between the ruling parties. The uprisings that arose during the period examined in this thesis occurred at significant points in the history of the first half of the first century, junctures of transition and uncertainty. Jesus’ uprising took place at a time of relative peace.

(p. 75, my bold)

It is relatively easy to advance the same argument from a Mythicist POV: if you want to distance your original Jesus (Antigonus, if your name is 'Maryhelena'; the "Egyptian", if your name is 'Lena', "Jesus ben Sapphas", if your name is "Frans") from any connection with revolt, then you would do well to place him under Pilate. I think that the great merit of Lena Einhorn is precisely this argument: "Jesus" was placed under Pilate for diplomatic reasons.

But then where is the contribution of John Guerra? What is worse, until now it seems that John Guerra has never abandoned his historicist paradigm.

I think that this may be called his contribution:

Philo gives a similar episode when the Jewish leaders followed through on a threat to notify Tiberius of what they perceived as misconduct by Pilate (Embassy 299-305). Pilate must have felt vulnerable with Tiberius hunting down Sejanus’ supporters and had to find a way to placate the Jewish leaders and not attract the attention of Tiberius [218]

Note [218] specifies:

Under Pilate there were several disturbances but only three involved bloodshed. [...] In fact, Barnett suggests that the three incidents could “be different aspects of the one disturbance.” [...] Pilate’s response to these incidents was relatively measured.

(my bold)

The conclusion of John Guerra:

The precarious predicament of Pilate made him tentative to act in a manner that would exacerbate his situation in relation with Tiberius.

(p. 78)

In conclusion:

• 1) I consider very strong the argument that Pilate feared the reaction of Tiberius therefore Pilate had to refrain from inflicting on the followers of the rebels.

• 2) in virtue of (1), the fact that Pilate spared the followers of the Samaritan false prophet is not an isolated case or an exception, since it is precisely what we would have expected from someone who feared the reaction of his superior Tiberius.

Therefore, I think that, in the light of the evidence, the conclusion of John Guerra is correct: the relative calm of the Pilate's governorship, united to the proved Pilate's reluctance to exterminate the followers of a rebel leader, make it very probable the survival of the followers of the rebel leader.

I would add that the post-70 existence of the Dositheans, i.e. the followers of the Samaritan Dositheus, identified by prof Etienne Nodet with the unnamed Samaritan false prophet, makes precisely the case of John Guerra, and it is unfortunate (!!!) that Guerra has not made this further argument supporting his thesis. The Dositheans are an example of followers survived to their leader (the Samaritan impostor killed by Pilate).

The logic of the writer of the Earliest Gospel would have been: if Pilate is an excellent guarantee of the survival of a movement that arose under him, as proved by the existence itself of the Dositheans after the 70 CE, then why not Pilate?

[maryhelena]

Could you supply a quote from Guerra naming the leaders in Judaea that Pilate killed. ?

For John Guerra, the fact that Pilate spared the followers is only part of the argument:

Towards the end of Pilates’ procuratorship there was an incident with a Samaritan prophet, he too was killed along with “the principle leaders” (Ant. 18.4.1-2); the rest were “put to flight.” Perhaps the fact that Jesus’ followers fled and hid preserved them from being killed, but Pilate did not pursue them as Varus hunted the followers of the uprisings in 4 B.C.E. Regardless of the reason, Jesus’ followers were allowed to live and this fact is not unique to his uprising. Therefore, we cannot conclude that is was the distinctive issue that occasioned the continuation of Jesus uprising. But it is significant in the final hypothesis.

(p. 74-75, my bold)

What was decisive, according to John Guerra, was the tacitian "sub Tiberio, quies":

The reason Jesus’ uprising had an afterlife was timing. Jesus’ uprising took place at the opportune time, at a time that was advantageous for an uprising to continue. I propose that Jesus’ uprising was able to continue after his death because the environment was stable and relatively trouble free and there was peace and cooperation between the ruling parties. The uprisings that arose during the period examined in this thesis occurred at significant points in the history of the first half of the first century, junctures of transition and uncertainty. Jesus’ uprising took place at a time of relative peace.

(p. 75, my bold)

It is relatively easy to advance the same argument from a Mythicist POV: if you want to distance your original Jesus (Antigonus, if your name is 'Maryhelena'; the "Egyptian", if your name is 'Lena', "Jesus ben Sapphas", if your name is "Frans") from any connection with revolt, then you would do well to place him under Pilate. I think that the great merit of Lena Einhorn is precisely this argument: "Jesus" was placed under Pilate for diplomatic reasons.

But then where is the contribution of John Guerra? What is worse, until now it seems that John Guerra has never abandoned his historicist paradigm.

I think that this may be called his contribution:

Philo gives a similar episode when the Jewish leaders followed through on a threat to notify Tiberius of what they perceived as misconduct by Pilate (Embassy 299-305). Pilate must have felt vulnerable with Tiberius hunting down Sejanus’ supporters and had to find a way to placate the Jewish leaders and not attract the attention of Tiberius [218]

Note [218] specifies:

Under Pilate there were several disturbances but only three involved bloodshed. [...] In fact, Barnett suggests that the three incidents could “be different aspects of the one disturbance.” [...] Pilate’s response to these incidents was relatively measured.

(my bold)

The conclusion of John Guerra:

The precarious predicament of Pilate made him tentative to act in a manner that would exacerbate his situation in relation with Tiberius.

(p. 78)

In conclusion:

• 1) I consider very strong the argument that Pilate feared the reaction of Tiberius therefore Pilate had to refrain from inflicting on the followers of the rebels.

• 2) in virtue of (1), the fact that Pilate spared the followers of the Samaritan false prophet is not an isolated case or an exception, since it is precisely what we would have expected from someone who feared the reaction of his superior Tiberius.

Therefore, I think that, in the light of the evidence, the conclusion of John Guerra is correct: the relative calm of the Pilate's governorship, united to the proved Pilate's reluctance to exterminate the followers of a rebel leader, make it very probable the survival of the followers of the rebel leader.

I would add that the post-70 existence of the Dositheans, i.e. the followers of the Samaritan Dositheus, identified by prof Etienne Nodet with the unnamed Samaritan false prophet, makes precisely the case of John Guerra, and it is unfortunate (!!!) that Guerra has not made this further argument supporting his thesis. The Dositheans are an example of followers survived to their leader (the Samaritan impostor killed by Pilate).

The logic of the writer of the Earliest Gospel would have been: if Pilate is an excellent guarantee of the survival of a movement that arose under him, as proved by the existence itself of the Dositheans after the 70 CE, then why not Pilate?

I don't see, from the above material, any historical evidence that Pilate killed other leaders in Judaea and let their followers go free...All I see is assumption and speculation. Hence, I take it that you were unable to find, in the John Guerra article, names of leaders killed, and their followers go free, during Pilate's time in Judaea.

[Giuseppe]

I don't see, from the above material, any historical evidence that Pilate killed other leaders in Judaea and let their followers go free...All I see is assumption and speculation. Hence, I take it that you were unable to find, in the John Guerra article, names of leaders killed, and their followers go free, during Pilate's time in Judaea.

I have the following evidence:

• the Dositheans survived to the death of Dositheus, identified by Etienne Nodet with the unnamed Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.

• Note 217 of page 77 lists other 3 cases (well: 2, once removed the obvious fiction called Barabbas):
  
  Under Pilate there were several disturbances but only three involved bloodshed; the use of the “sacred treasury” for the construction of an aqueduct (Ant. 18.3.2; J.W. 2.9.4), the massacre of the Galileans (Luke 13) and the insurrection of Barabbas (Mark 15). [...] In fact, Barnett suggests that the three incidents could “be different aspects of the one disturbance.” [...] Pilate’s response to these incidents was relatively measured.
  
  

But what is more, I can't follow at all Maryhelena into calling "assumption and speculation" the very strong argument that Pilate feared the Tiberius's reaction therefore he would have been careful not to rage against the followers of a rebel leader.

In addition, John Guerra lists scrupulously in the rest of the his thesis how all the different Messianists who rebelled against the Romans before and after Pilate were killed with their followers too. Emblematic in such sense the fate of the 'Egyptian': Josephus specifies even that he succeed as fugitive, while all his followers were killed. This difference matters in the final comparison.

[maryhelena]

I don't see, from the above material, any historical evidence that Pilate killed other leaders in Judaea and let their followers go free...All I see is assumption and speculation. Hence, I take it that you were unable to find, in the John Guerra article, names of leaders killed, and their followers go free, during Pilate's time in Judaea.

I have the following evidence:

• the Dositheans survived to the death of Dositheus, identified by Etienne Nodet with the unnamed Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.

Judaea is the context re the Jesus crucifixion story. One either takes Pilate's involvement in this, as something unusual ie he lets the followers go free. Or one takes the view that Pilate killed other leaders and also let their followers go. Evidence required for Pilate killing leaders in Judaea and letting followers go free...

• Note 217 of page 77 lists other 3 cases (well: 2, once removed the obvious fiction called Barabbas):
  
  Under Pilate there were several disturbances but only three involved bloodshed; the use of the “sacred treasury” for the construction of an aqueduct (Ant. 18.3.2; J.W. 2.9.4), the massacre of the Galileans (Luke 13) and the insurrection of Barabbas (Mark 15). [...] In fact, Barnett suggests that the three incidents could “be different aspects of the one disturbance.” [...] Pilate’s response to these incidents was relatively measured.
  
  

But what is more, I can't follow at all Maryhelena into calling "assumption and speculation" the very strong argument that Pilate feared the Tiberius's reaction therefore he would have been careful not to rage against the followers of a rebel leader.

Giuseppe, attempting to read the mind of Pilate is pure speculation....

[Giuseppe]

Evidence required for Pilate killing leaders in Judaea and letting followers go free...

Do you disagree that the "Pilate’s response to these incidents was relatively measured" ?

Giuseppe, attempting to read the mind of Pilate is pure speculation....

Even under the scenario more supportive of your objection, i.e. assuming that Pilate was irrationally sadistic and cruel as portrayed by Philo, well, even so, the John Guerra's argument still stands:

Paul Maier and Paul Barnett posit that Sejanus was responsible for Pilate being procurator of Judaea and that Pilate had been under his tutelage. During the first half of his procuratorship, Pilate undertook some provocative actions which can be construed as having been associated with Sejanus’ anti-Semitic agenda. When Sejanus died in 31 C.E., Pilate was vulnerable, as Tiberius was purging Rome of Sejanus’ supporters.

(p. 68, my bold)