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

[Giuseppe]

I am posting from smartphone therefore the references from Klinghardt's book will come tomorrow.

In Mark the Pilate's question "are you the king of the Jews?" is not justified at all on the ground of a previous knowledge by Pilate about the political accusations addressed against Jesus. Who has informed Pilate that the accusation was political?

The previous trial before the Sineditres is merely of a religious intra-Jewish character: politics is not involved.

In my opinion, this is a strong argument by Klinghardt against the Markan priority, even if not so strong as the Argument based on John the Baptist.

[Giuseppe]

• In *Ev Pilate is before informed about the political accusation against Jesus and only after, accordingly, he raises the question for Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

• In Mark Pilate comes in scene and at all unexpectedly, he is magically already informed that Jesus is said "king of the Jews" and accordingly he wants a confirmation by Jesus himself about his being really the "king of the Jews" .

*Ev appears to be more artificial in this programming of Pilate as a robot in need of an input before the action.

As if it wasn't "common knowledge" the action of Pilate against Jesus, therefore the readers had to be instructed the first time about how the robot "Pilate" worked: before the input (=the political accusation, missing in Mark), after the output (=the inquiry about Jesus's identity).

[Ken Olson]

In Mark the Pilate's question "are you the king of the Jews?" is not justified at all on the ground of a previous knowledge by Pilate about the political accusations addressed against Jesus. Who has informed Pilate that the accusation was political?

The previous trial before the Sineditres is merely of a religious intra-Jewish character: politics is not involved.

In my opinion, this is a strong argument by Klinghardt against the Markan priority, even if not so strong as the Argument based on John the Baptist.

The argument concerning Pilate's question and Jesus response in Mark 15.2 is found in The Oldest Gospel 2.1174.

Three pages earlier, K. lays out a problem he sees in the texts of *Ev/Luke 23.2 and parallels: 'A main difficulty ... lies in combining the recognizably false accusations with an appropriate judgment' (1171). K., of course, sees the *Ev as the original account and the others as modifications of it.

K. reconstructs the final accusation made in *Ev 23.2 to look much like the Lukan text, other than switching the order of the words king and Christ: 'saying he himself is a king, the Messiah.' Pilate then asks Jesus: 'Are you the Messiah?' (different from the three synoptics in which he asks if he is King of the Jews) and Jesus answers 'You say so", as in Luke, which K. takes to be an affirmative response.

K. sees a problem in the three synoptics in which Pilate asks Jesus if he is the King of the Jews, and he replies affirmatively (or at least does not reject the title), and in Luke Pilate says he finds no basis for an accusation against Jesus (Luke 23.4), while in Mark and Matthew Pilate offers to release him (Matt 27.17, Mark 15.9). K. claims that in the Lukan text: '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).

In the account in the *Ev, on the other hand, Pilate hears a series of charges, but: '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 this charge as an inherently Jewish problem for which he was not responsible.' (2.1173-1174).

Klinghardt sees a problem for Mark because we are not told what charges the accusers made against Jesus before Pilate, so we can only assume that it was the charge from the previous trial before the Sanhedrin, in which Jesus confessed to being the Christ (Mark 14.62). Why does Pilate ask if he is 'King of the Jews'?

Here we have to ask if the interpretation proposed by Klinghardt for *Ev is makes that account any more realistic than account in Mark which he sees as problematic. In Mark, it is not stated what charges the accusers made against Jesus, so we really do not know what they were. But on Klinghardt's reading of the *Ev, the accusers charge Jesus with (among other things) forbidding the Jews to pay taxes and saying he himself is a king, the Messiah, and Pilate, the Roman governor, chooses not to question Jesus about the taxes part or the king part, but only about the messiah part, 'an inherently Jewish problem for which he is not responsible'. It would seem that on K.'s reading, the governor skipped asking Jesus about the issues which were his responsibility and asked only about an issue that was not.

It may be that we have to admit that none of the accounts of the trials before Pilate are especially realistic, but it's far from apparent that the account in *Ev makes more sense than the others.

Best,

Ken

[Ulan]

It may be that we have to admit that none of the accounts of the trials before Pilate are especially realistic, but it's far from apparent that the account in *Ev makes more sense than the others.

The whole trial situation is one of the most contrived and unrealistic scenes in the gospels. If you just look at what actually happens, it's a straightforward case. The part that usually gets forgotten is Jesus riding into Jerusalem in a triumphal scene with lots of onlookers who hail him as the king, and that's a very public issue that should have been reported to Pilate in one way or the other. With this situation in mind, Pilate makes sense when he asks whether Jesus is the king of the Jews. Incidentally, that's also the reason for the execution that is mentioned on the plaque next to the cross. All this is, as already stated, very straightforward and makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is all the rest, at least not in this context.

Similarly, the trial by the Sanhedrin makes sense if we consider that Jesus had attacked the economic heart of the temple business in a violent scene. As already Origen noted, this would be a perfect reason to arrest Jesus and to put him on trial. However, like the triumphal entry into Jerusalem in the last case, this gets ignored by the gospels and remains without consequence.

This whole affair looks as if someone changed the message by rewriting a preexisting story, and a it's a very sloppy rewrite.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Ulan and I posted over each other. Apparently, we agree in large part about the foundation for Pilate's question, but disagree about the quality of the writing, especially whether Mark should be faulted for sacrificing realism for effective dramatization.

I am posting from smartphone therefore the references from Klinghardt's book will come tomorrow.

In Mark the Pilate's question "are you the king of the Jews?" is not justified at all on the ground of a previous knowledge by Pilate about the political accusations addressed against Jesus. Who has informed Pilate that the accusation was political?

The previous trial before the Sineditres is merely of a religious intra-Jewish character: politics is not involved.

In my opinion, this is a strong argument by Klinghardt against the Markan priority, even if not so strong as the Argument based on John the Baptist.

We've discussed this scene before, then because Pilate speaks a line before the audience is told who or what Pilate is and now because he asks an apt question before the audience is told that anybody from the Temple has explained to Pilate who this beaten and bound prisoner is, and why have they brought him here.

The two issues are related. It turns out that Mark's Pilate is the chief law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction where Jesus was arrested, beaten, bound, and handed over to Pilate. Mark's Pilate has a cohort at his disposal (400-500 men). In brief compass, it is his job to know about people like Jesus, and he plausibly has sufficient resources to do his job (although the real life figure likely complained about understaffing and budget shortages).

A few days before, Jesus's followers had staged a public demonstration (11:7 ff) involving "many" (polloi) people. Some of those participating said "Blessed is the coming of the kingdom (basileia) of our father David." Immediately thereafter Jesus visits the Temple where he looks around, and where the next day he disturbs the peace.

All of that takes place in the public eye, and it is seditious. Where is the mystery that Pilate would know all this? Why wouldn't Pilate ask Jesus about his role in this blessed coming kingdom? Why wouldn't Jesus being the king be a good guess about that role?

Once again, good writing explains many mysteries (not all of them, but then that, too, is good writing).

[Giuseppe]

Klinghardt sees a problem for Mark because we are not told what charges the accusers made against Jesus before Pilate, so we can only assume that it was the charge from the previous trial before the Sanhedrin, in which Jesus confessed to being the Christ (Mark 14.62). Why does Pilate ask if he is 'King of the Jews'?

more precisely, the result in Mark is well described by Klinghardt at page 295:

By relocating the real trial against Jesus to the nightly trial before the Sanhedrin, Mark awards a strange aura of formlessness to the trial before Pilate, in which the charges against Jesus (thereby giving away the influence of *Ev) merely gets to ask Jesus whether he is the 'the King of the Jews'. Even if these are not the only reasons for Mark having the trial against Jesus take place not before Pilate during the day, but in the flagrantly unlawful manner at night and before the Sanhedrin, the editorial intent is still clearly recognizable.

(my bold)

It would seem that on K.'s reading, the governor skipped asking Jesus about the issues which were his responsibility and asked only about an issue that was not.

answering partially to this, see what note 25 reads:

[...] The narrative coherence suffered considerably by the editorial changes of Mark: how could Pilate arrive at the idea to ask Jesus about his kingdom even if Pilate was familiar with the charges before the Sanhedrin? This question originated from *Ev.

(my bold)

[Giuseppe]

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.

[Giuseppe]

In brief compass, it is his job to know about people like Jesus, and he plausibly has sufficient resources to do his job.

you are very indulging in historicist reconstructions. Bermejo-Rubio arrives to assume the presence of an entire net of spionage helping Pilate to know about Jesus.

Note en passant that if Tacitus had read *Ev, he would have not confused "Christ" for a proper name. That Christ is a title for "king" is made clear in *Ev.

[mlinssen]

In Mark the Pilate's question "are you the king of the Jews?" is not justified at all on the ground of a previous knowledge by Pilate about the political accusations addressed against Jesus. Who has informed Pilate that the accusation was political?

The previous trial before the Sineditres is merely of a religious intra-Jewish character: politics is not involved.

In my opinion, this is a strong argument by Klinghardt against the Markan priority, even if not so strong as the Argument based on John the Baptist.

The argument concerning Pilate's question and Jesus response in Mark 15.2 is found in The Oldest Gospel 2.1174.

Three pages earlier, K. lays out a problem he sees in the texts of *Ev/Luke 23.2 and parallels: 'A main difficulty ... lies in combining the recognizably false accusations with an appropriate judgment' (1171). K., of course, sees the *Ev as the original account and the others as modifications of it.

K. reconstructs the final accusation made in *Ev 23.2 to look much like the Lukan text, other than switching the order of the words king and Christ: 'saying he himself is a king, the Messiah.' Pilate then asks Jesus: 'Are you the Messiah?' (different from the three synoptics in which he asks if he is King of the Jews) and Jesus answers 'You say so", as in Luke, which K. takes to be an affirmative response.

K. sees a problem in the three synoptics in which Pilate asks Jesus if he is the King of the Jews, and he replies affirmatively (or at least does not reject the title), and in Luke Pilate says he finds no basis for an accusation against Jesus (Luke 23.4), while in Mark and Matthew Pilate offers to release him (Matt 27.17, Mark 15.9). K. claims that in the Lukan text: '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).

In the account in the *Ev, on the other hand, Pilate hers a series of charges, but: '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 this charge as an inherently Jewish problem for which he was not responsible.' (2.1173-1174).

Klinghardt sees a problem for Mark because we are not told what charges the accusers made against Jesus before Pilate, so we can only assume that it was the charge from the previous trial before the Sanhedrin, in which Jesus confessed to being the Christ (Mark 14.62). Why does Pilate ask if he is 'King of the Jews'?

Here we have to ask if the interpretation proposed by Klinghardt for *Ev is makes that account any more realistic than account in Mark which he sees as problematic. In Mark, it is not stated what charges the accusers made against Jesus, so we really do not know what they were. But on Klinghardt's reading of the *Ev, the accusers charge Jesus with (among other things) forbidding the Jews to pay taxes and saying he himself is a king, the Messiah, and Pilate, the Roman governor, chooses not to question Jesus about the taxes part or the king part, but only about the messiah part, 'an inherently Jewish problem for which he is not responsible'. It would seem that on K.'s reading, the governor skipped asking Jesus about the issues which were his responsibility and asked only about an issue that was not.

It may be that we have to admit that none of the accounts of the trials before Pilate are especially realistic, but it's far from apparent that the account in *Ev makes more sense than the others.

Best,

Ken

Page 1319

*23,1-5: The Trial of Jesus 1: Transfer to Pilate. Interrogation and First Judgment by Pilate

23,1 And they rose and led him to Pilate. 2 They began to accuse him, saying, "We have found that this man incites the people {and dissolves the law and the prophets}, and orders to pay no taxes {and turns away the wives and children from us because they are not baptized like we are and not cleansed} and says that he was himself the Christ, a king." 3 But Pilate asked him, saying, "Are you the Christ?" And he answered, saying, "You say it." 4 But Pilate said to the chief priests and to the crowd, "I find no guilt with this man." 5 But they were insistent, saying, "He stirs up the people throughout Judea, beginning from Galilee all the way here."

23,6-12: The Trial of Jesus II: Transfer to Herod. Interrogation. Mockery

23,6 But when Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was from Galilee. 7 And when he learned that he was under Herod's domain, he sent him to Herod who was himself in Jerusalem in these days. 8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad. 9 He questioned him. But he did not answer him. 10 But the chief priests and the scribes stood by and accused him most vehemently. 11 And even Herod, together with his soldiers, treated him with contempt and mocked him. He put on him a lustrous robe and sent him back to Pilate. 12 But Pilate and Herod, who had been in discord, became friends on that day.

*23,13-25: The Trial of Jesus III: Repeating the Innocence Declaration. Barabbas. Sentencing

23,13 But Pilate called together the chief priests and the leaders and the people, 14 saying to them, "You have presented to me this man for inciting the people, and see, as I have interrogated him in your presence, I have found no guilt with this man, 15 and neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. And see, there is nothing he has done to deserve death. 16 I will, therefore, (have him) chastised and then released."
18 But they all shouted out together, saying, "Keep this man here, but release Barrabas for us!" 19 He had been thrown into prison for an insurrection that had occurred in the city, and for murder. {17 But he was obliged during the feast to release someone for them.} 20 But again, Pilate addressed them because he wanted to release Jesus." But they shouted, saying, "Crucify, crucify him!"
22 But he spoke for the third time, "What evil has he done? I have found on him nothing at all to deserve death. I will, therefore, chastise and release him."

As always, it is useful to observe the full content and context.
Ken has left out half of the accusations, marked by { and } to denote Lukan removal

The accusations hence are, in full:

1. this man incites the people
1a. {and dissolves the law and the prophets},
2. and orders to pay no taxes
2a. {and turns away the wives and children from us because they are not baptized like we are and not cleansed}
3. and says that he was himself the Christ, a king."

I have marked 1a. and 2a. arbitrarily, they could have well been 1 through 5 - but the accusations as presented by Ken don't demonstrate that the political ones get conflated with religious ones - save for the last one, which stands out. It triggers Pilate to his question upon which he receives no confirmation, and that's that

Mark, on the other hand:

Mark 15
Jesus Delivered to Pilate
1 And early in the morning, having formed a counsel, the chief priests, with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, having bound Jesus, led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate.
2 And Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And answering, He says to him, “You have said.”
3 And the chief priests were accusing Him harshly.
4 And Pilate began to question Him again, saying, “Do You not answer? See how many things they testify against You!”
5 But Jesus answered no further, so as to amaze Pilate

It comes out of nowhere - because Mark redacts the religious question to the chief priests and reserves the political question for Pilate

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.
But Mark evidently has a gaping void in the narrative as the chief priests also ask out of nowhere whether he is XS, king of the Judaics; the only accusation in Mark is the temple one which obviously comes from John - yet Mark explicitly labels all accusations false and I think that it is that which leads Klinghardt to the confusing notice about false and true accusations as if any of that would matter to Pilate, being unable to verify any of them

[Giuseppe]

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?