The anomaly of a Pilate who introduces bluntly the politics in a religious trial in Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The anomaly of a Pilate who introduces bluntly the politics in a religious trial in Mark

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:59 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:51 pm I'll have to give Ken some points for the fact that in Klinghardt's *Ev Pilate responds only to the first part of the last accusation, the religious aspect, while ignoring the political one - even though that is a very subtle way of inquiring after the latter.
not even a point, sorry. From when should a king pay the taxes?
3. and says that he was himself the Christ, a king."

Could you get the first and the last part from that sentence for me please? Thanks
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The anomaly of a Pilate who introduces bluntly the politics in a religious trial in Mark

Post by Ken Olson »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:50 pm Frankly, Ken, I don't think that "are you the Christ?" is a religious accusation in *Ev.

...and says that he was himself the Christ, a king. But Pilate asked him, saying, "Are you the Christ?" And he answered, saying, "You say it".

Pilate was asking Jesus in what mattered really his office of governor: was there a king or not?

Without the specification that "Christ" means "king" then you would have a point.
I was evaluating Klinghardt's interpretation of Pilate's question and Jesus' answer, which I quoted in the post to which you are responding and will quote again here:

'Pilate's question about Jesus' messiahship addresses only the final point, which Jesus simply affirms. Pilate's declaration of his innocence is readily conceivable when presuming that *Ev had emphasized Pilate's recognition of the charge as an inherently Jewish problem for which he was not responsible.' [Oldest Gospel, 2.1174; emphasis mine]

You are arguing that Klinghardt's interpretation was wrong and replacing his argument with your own. I am primarily concerned in this thread (as in the thread from which this thread branched off) with understanding Klinghardt's argument correctly and evaluating that.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The anomaly of a Pilate who introduces bluntly the politics in a religious trial in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

My point is that there is already a rationale for why

'Pilate's question about Jesus' messiahship addresses only the final point, which Jesus simply affirms

...without disturbing the presumed Pilate's indifference about religious questions:

If one is a King, then why should he pay the taxes? An affirmative answer for the Pilate's question gives ipso facto the answer also to the other accusations on the tribute.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The anomaly of a Pilate who introduces bluntly the politics in a religious trial in Mark

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:27 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:50 pm Frankly, Ken, I don't think that "are you the Christ?" is a religious accusation in *Ev.

...and says that he was himself the Christ, a king. But Pilate asked him, saying, "Are you the Christ?" And he answered, saying, "You say it".

Pilate was asking Jesus in what mattered really his office of governor: was there a king or not?

Without the specification that "Christ" means "king" then you would have a point.
I was evaluating Klinghardt's interpretation of Pilate's question and Jesus' answer, which I quoted in the post to which you are responding and will quote again here:

'Pilate's question about Jesus' messiahship addresses only the final point, which Jesus simply affirms. Pilate's declaration of his innocence is readily conceivable when presuming that *Ev had emphasized Pilate's recognition of the charge as an inherently Jewish problem for which he was not responsible.' [Oldest Gospel, 2.1174; emphasis mine]

You are arguing that Klinghardt's interpretation was wrong and replacing his argument with your own. I am primarily concerned in this thread (as in the thread from which this thread branched off) with understanding Klinghardt's argument correctly and evaluating that.
Why do you leave out very essential parts when quoting, Ken? Especially when they answer your own questions?

'Pilate's question about Jesus' messiahship addresses only the final point, which Jesus simply affirms. Pilate's declaration of his innocence is readily conceivable when presuming that *Ev had emphasized Pilate's recognition of the charge as an inherently Jewish problem for which he was not responsible. That interpretation is at least supported by the subsequent extradition of Jesus to Herod'

User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The anomaly of a Pilate who introduces bluntly the politics in a religious trial in Mark

Post by Ken Olson »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:47 pm My point is that there is already a rationale for why

'Pilate's question about Jesus' messiahship addresses only the final point, which Jesus simply affirms

...without disturbing the presumed Pilate's indifference about religious questions:

If one is a King, then why should he pay the taxes? An affirmative answer for the Pilate's question gives ipso facto the answer also to the other accusations on the tribute.
You've rejected Klinghardt's interpretation and ignored the problem he was trying to address, which is: why would Pilate declare 'I find no crime in this man' (*Ev/Luke 23.4) when he had confessed to a crime. Again, I already quoted Klinghardt on this:

Pilate's assertion of Jesus' innocence is virtually impossible: Jesus would have accused himself of seditio, a crimen laesae maiestatis, which would have resulted in capital punishment' (2.1172).

Again, I am evaluating Klinghardt's argument. You are ignoring what Klinghardt said and the fact that that's what I was responding to.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The anomaly of a Pilate who introduces bluntly the politics in a religious trial in Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:20 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:47 pm My point is that there is already a rationale for why

'Pilate's question about Jesus' messiahship addresses only the final point, which Jesus simply affirms

...without disturbing the presumed Pilate's indifference about religious questions:

If one is a King, then why should he pay the taxes? An affirmative answer for the Pilate's question gives ipso facto the answer also to the other accusations on the tribute.
You've rejected Klinghardt's interpretation and ignored the problem he was trying to address, which is: why would Pilate declare 'I find no crime in this man' (*Ev/Luke 23.4) when he had confessed to a crime. Again, I already quoted Klinghardt on this:

Pilate's assertion of Jesus' innocence is virtually impossible: Jesus would have accused himself of seditio, a crimen laesae maiestatis, which would have resulted in capital punishment' (2.1172).

Again, I am evaluating Klinghardt's argument. You are ignoring what Klinghardt said and the fact that that's what I was responding to.
The Jesus's answer is a different question, in my opinion. I was addressing your objection that Pilate doesn't ask about the tribute when an accusation regarded the tribute.

As to the Jesus's answer ("tu dices")
Klinghardt (p. 1175) rejects the Wolter's interpretation of it as saying/implying: tu dices, ego non.


Differently from Klinghardt, I have no problems with a such interpretation because it is soundly marcionite: Jesus denies that he is the Jewish Christ.
Post Reply