Marcion and the Jesus and Pilate story

[maryhelena]

I’ve updated my chart on how I’m viewing the gospel order. Decided to give it it’s own thread….

I’ve moved the gospel of Mark, from being the last gospel to being a gospel possibly issued in connection with the gospel of Luke. One gospel, Mark, is basically a gospel summary. The gospel of Luke is a final bringing together of the Jesus and Pilate storyline, a sort of chronological recap of what went before. Together, as a pair, they bring together the historical aspect and the theological or philosophical aspect of the Jesus and Pilate story. Mark’s gospel is free from the technicalities of chronology - however, his Jesus is not entirely floating free as he is still bound to the time of Pilate.

Basically, my approach is that the gospels were written by a ‘school’ or community of scribes. That suggests that the overall Jesus and Pilate storyline is not only a developing storyline with some sort of control over it’s boundaries - it would also suggest that elements from the individual stories could be reused. Narratives being early or late, words changed, added or deleted, would not override the core storyline of Jesus and Pilate. A moving storyline as time and history moves along, as understanding developed. Hence, which gospel said what and when, while interesting, does not distract from the chronology of the storyline - a chronology developed from an interpretation of Daniel ch.9. Viewed not so much as a specific timeline relating to a specific event but as a basic framework, a template, that allows for various applications of it’s number formula.

As for the gospel attributed to Marcion, I think it should be renamed. It is not his gospel. It’s place in the chronological framework of the gospel storyline is much earlier than the time of Marcion. I would suggest that the gospel of Mark would be a far more appealing gospel to Marcion.

Gospel: Theology/Philosophy focus	Gospel: history/dating structure focus	Comment:
Gospel of John: Jesus not yet 50 years old. Use of Daniel ch.9 and it's 70 weeks of years. 7 x 7 = 49 years. Utilizing this numbers formula as a time frame in which to set out the gospel story. Time of Pilate. Suggesting a birth narrative early in the rule of Herod. → →→	Gospel of Matthew version One. Slavonic Josephus: Birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod, 25 b.c. 490 years back to 515 b.c. and temple rededicating. Acts of Pilate, crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e.	The earliest dating of the Jesus and Pilate birth narrative and crucifixion story. Acts of Pilate links Pilate to Tiberius. (Philo Embassy of Gaius).
Gospel in Marcion's possession. 15th year of Tiberius. 7 years from 7th year of Tiberius, 21/22 c.e. 70 years back to 40 b.c. and Herod.. This gospel should be renamed. It is not Marcion's gospel. →→→	Gospel of Matthew version Two. Archelaus added; Jesus a young child on return from Egypt. Suggesting a birth narrative late in the time of Herod. Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e. Gospel Jesus becomes a younger man in the 15th year of Tiberius. ↓↓↓	The 15th year of Tiberius required a late birth narrative in the time of Herod. (i.e. a 25 b.c. birth narrative to end of rule of Tiberius, a Jesus figure would go beyond 50 years old.) Remove Archelaus and Matthew version Two can be read in support of Slavonic Josephus, Acts of PIlate - and the Gospel of John's not yet 50 years.
Gospel of Mark. Possibly a gospel summary alongside gLuke's final countdown from 40 b.c. (Lysanias of Abilene) to end of rule of Tiberius in 37 c.e. 77 years of Jewish history. No useful historical markers, aside from Pilate. Perhaps designed for public reading or play. A synopsis or abstract designed to be all things to all people. All well and good - but the gospel story is bigger, and more troublesome, when read from the beginning.	Gospel of Luke. 15th year of Tiberius back to Lysanias of Abilene in 40 b.c. Removal of Archelaus and arrival of Quirinius census. Birth narrative 6 c.e. 70 years back to 63 b.c. Jesus figure about 30 years old in 15th year of Tiberius. Requiring a second birth narrative in 1 b.c. ..Two birth narratives allowing for a crucifixion date in 30 c.e. or 36/37 c.e.	Tiberius 14 - 37 c.e. Gospel Jesus and Pilate story ends 77 years after 40 b.c. 37 c.e. is 100 years from the Roman occupation of Judea in 63 b.c.

The Macrion Anti-thesis and Pauline philosophy.

As for the Marcion Anti-thesis: Once NT Paul referenced a celestial crucifixion in 1 Cor.2.6-8., Marcion was free to lambast, if you will, the OT god of negative dualism. Hard as that would have been for the early church fathers - after all, once they had opted for a historical Jesus, they needed that OT god to back up their historical Jesus story…

‘’We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. ‘’

NT Paul placed Marcion’s evil god, the god of negative dualism, within a spiritual/intellectual or philosophical context, a context where value would be obtained. Was Marcion supporting Paul by lambasting the OT god as evil – in a sense of accelerating the acceptance of the Pauline change of context for the OT god of ‘evil’ ?

Oh well, the church fathers won that battle of yesteryear………but the good news is that today we have NT scholars ready to do battle for Marcion and the gospel in his possession.

[maryhelena]

One reason I don't think that the gospel of Mark is earlier than Marcion is that this gospel is part of the NT canon. Consequently, the gospel of Mark needs to be viewed in connection with the other Jesus and Pilate stories. Other Jesus and Pilate stories that deal with a detailed chronology for that story. Detailed chronologies that allow for storyline development. Thomas Brodie has suggested that the gospel writers were educated people possible involved in a 'school' of writers. Thus, it would make no sense, it would be illogical, for different writers to develop their own version of chronologies for the Jesus and Pilate story. A 'school' of writers, in contrast, allows for a coordinated approach to the chronology for the Jesus and Pilate story. ie. the different chronologies had meaning, a connection, were part of a plan, a formula.

The gospel of Mark presents no evidence of chronological storyline development. Suggesting it's story is a product of what went before. It's not enough to do a word count re how an individual gospel story developed. A later story can be 'interpolated' back into an earlier story; words can be removed or added, they can't be relied upon for establishing how the Jesus and Pilate story developed. Words can mean different things to different people, words can change meaning over time. In contrast, numbers can spell out what words often fail to articulate. That is why, the approach in the OP, has suggested an alternative approach to the development of the Jesus and Pilate story. It has allowed the numbers, as it were, to speak.

The gospel of Mark has not been able to throw light on the development of the Jesus and Pilate story. Allowing the numbers, the specific chronology, of the other Jesus and Pilate stories a place at the table, would allow some necessary light to shine on the synoptic problem.

What the OP does suggest is that the gospel in Marcion's procession was a development away from the Jesus story in Slavonic Josephus and the Acts of Pilate. Consequently, it's dating would be post Antiquities - ie after Josephus has placed Pilate in Judaea later than 18 c.e. (ie. early date for Pilate in Judaea supports the Slavonic Josephus and the Acts of Pilate Jesus story... possibly an early version of Matthew, an Ur-Matthew)

The gospel in Marcion's procession is not the first gospel, it is not the first Jesus and Pilate story - but I would suggest it is the gospel from which developed the synoptic gospels we have today. That is what the chronology of the Jesus and Pilate story indicates. One can move the words around this way and that and make some sense of them - but that can't be done with chronology. The numbers work in a straight line.......they move forward.....they deal with time...they deal with history....

Anyway, that's my current thinking....

[maryhelena]

I've updated my chart. A few additional comments to reflect how the gospel of John is front and center in the Jesus and Pilate story. John's 'not yet 50 years' = 7x7 = a 49 year formula in which is set out the Jesus and Pilate story development.These 49 year periods can be applied both to an early in Pilate story timeline as well as a late in Pilate story timeline. The gospel in the hands of Marcion was likely the first to re=apply gJohn's 49 year formula to late in Pilate's rule. Thus able to focus on the 15th year of Tiberius. In so doing this early 15th year of Tiberius gospel is indebted to the gospel of John.

Gospel: Theology/Philosophy focus	Gospel: history/dating structure focus	Comment:
Gospel of John: Jesus not yet 50 years old. Use of Daniel ch.9 and it's 70 weeks of years. 7 x 7 = 49 years. Utilizing this numbers formula as a time frame in which to set out the gospel story. Time of Pilate. Suggesting a birth narrative early in the rule of Herod. → →→ ---↓↓↓	Gospel of Matthew version One. Slavonic Josephus: Birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod, 25 b.c. 490 years back to 515 b.c. and temple rededicating.	The earliest dating of the Jesus and Pilate birth narrative and crucifixion story. (Philo Embassy of Gaius).
Gospel in Marcion's possession. 15th year of Tiberius. All this gospel needed for shifting away from the Slavonic Josephus dating of the Jesus and Pilate story was to re-apply the formula from gJohn's not yet 50 years.. 7x7 = 49 years. (itself a use of Philo's ''the perfect Logos, which moves according to the number seven''.) The cut of date being Pilate's removal in 36/37 c.e. 7 years prior would be around 29/30 c.e. = the 15th year of Tiberius. →→→	Gospel of Matthew version Two. Archelaus added; Jesus a young child on return from Egypt. Suggesting a birth narrative late in the time of Herod. Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e. Gospel Jesus becomes a younger man in the 15th year of Tiberius.	The 15th year of Tiberius required a late birth narrative in the time of Herod. (i.e. a 25 b.c. birth narrative to end of rule of Tiberius, a Jesus figure would go beyond 50 years old.) Remove Archelaus and Matthew version Two can be read in support of Slavonic Josephus, Acts of PIlate - and the Gospel of John's not yet 50 years. 36/37 c.e. end of Pilate. Using, gJohn's 49 years back to around 13/12 b.c. for a Jesus birth narrative. The Jesus figure would be around 8/7 years, a child, on the return from Egypt when Archealus rulling in Judaea.
Gospel of Mark. Possibly a gospel summary alongside gLuke's final countdown from 40 b.c. (Lysanias of Abilene) to end of rule of Tiberius in 37 c.e. 77 years of Jewish history. No useful historical markers, aside from Pilate. Perhaps designed for public reading or play. A synopsis or abstract designed to be all things to all people. All well and good - but the gospel story is bigger, and more troublesome, when read from the beginning. An easy on the eye snapshot, a condensing of the Jesus and Pilate story.	Gospel of Luke. 15th year of Tiberius back to Lysanias of Abilene in 40 b.c. Removal of Archelaus and arrival of Quirinius census. Birth narrative 6 c.e. 70 years back to 63 b.c. Jesus figure about 30 years old in 15th year of Tiberius. Requiring a second birth narrative in 1 b.c. ..Two birth narratives allowing for a crucifixion date in 30 c.e. or 36/37 c.e.	Tiberius 14 - 37 c.e. Gospel Jesus and |Pilate story ends 77 years after 40 b.c. 37 c.e. is 100 years from the Roman occupation of Judea in 63 b.c. The technicalities of the development of the Jesus and Pilate story; the gospel chronology and it's links to Hasmonean history.

===========
The above chart has been updated at this link.

Marcion’s Evangelion: The 15th year of Tiberius or the 15th year of Herod - or are both dates relevant ?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11191

[maryhelena]

Comments on the above chart:

Adv.Marc.iv.7 ; Panarion 42

Gospel in possession of Marcion.

3: 1. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,
Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days;
And they were astonished at his doctrine,

John ch.1.
1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God................And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us

Philo: This is the book of the creation of heaven and earth, when it came into being” (LXX Gen 2:4).31 This refers to the perfect Logos, which moves according to the number seven and is the beginning of the creation both of the mind ordering itself according to the Ideas and of mental sense perception, if it is possible to say so, which also orders itself according to the Ideas. (All. 1.19–20) Niehoff, Maren R. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (pp.219-20). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

As noted in the above chart, the gospel of John has mention of it's Jesus figure being 'not yet 50 years old'. The number 49 is 7x7 - an application of Daniel ch.9 70 weeks. Tiberius ruled 23 years, from 14 - 37 c.e. Consequently, these 49 years can begin to apply from either early or late in the time of Herod (Slavonic Josephus and Acts of Pilate. 37 c.e. being the cutoff date.

Putting aside Slavonic Josephus and Acts of Pilate, all the writer of Marcion's gospel needed to do was to use the number 7. (7 years) back from the end of the time of Pilate and Tiberius to the 15th year of Tiberius. (Philo had linked Pilate to Tiberius 36/37 c.e.).

The Logos/Word, said Philo, moves according to the number 7 ''and is the beginning of the creation both of the mind ordering itself according to the Ideas and of mental sense perception, if it is possible to say so, which also orders itself according to the Ideas.''

Marcion's gospel, like Philo's comments, is not focusing on history but on ideas, on reason, on intellectual development. With such a focus nativity stories are sidelined - after all it is the mature mind that is capable of reason. 'Heaven' is the unseen dimension of our reason, of our ability to think, to function as intelligent beings.

If this is the perspective of the gospel attributed to Marcion, then charges by early church fathers that Marcion mutilated the gospel of Luke are just nonsense. Marcion's gospel and the gospel of Luke are focused on two aspects of the NT story - spiritual/philosophical elements plus historical elements. The 15th year of Tiberius, which both share, does not lead to one being a mutilated version of the other. Marcion's gospel moved along the Jesus and Pilate story - the Logos moved according to the number 7 - understanding developed. That move allowed Luke's gospel to add-in, as it were, the technical details.

Luke's technical details:

Luke 3.1

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene...

Luke is not content with the 15th year of Tiberius. Lysanias of Abilene has been used to take the Jesus and Pilate story back 70 years to 40 b.c. The time of Herod and Antigonus. (again using Daniel ch. 9 and variations of it's 70 weeks of years)

Lysanias was the ruler of a tetrarchy, centered on the town of Abila. This has been referred to by various names including Abilene, Chalcis and Iturea, from about 40-36 BC. Josephus is our main source for his life.

The father of Lysanias was Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, who ruled the tetrarchy before him. Ptolemy was married to Alexandra, one of the sisters of Antigonus,[1] and he helped his brother-in-law during the latter's successful attempt to claim the throne of Judea in 40 BC with the military support of the Parthians. Ptolemy had previously supported Antigonus's unsuccessful attempt to take the throne of Judea in 42 BC.

Josephus says in The Jewish War that Lysanias offered the Parthian satrap Barzapharnes a thousand talents and 500 women to bring Antigonus back and raise him to the throne, after deposing Hyrcanus[2] though in his later work, the Jewish Antiquities, he says the offer was made by Antigonus.[3] In 33 BCE Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony for his Parthian sympathies, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who had eyes on his territories.[4]

Coins from his reign indicate that he was "tetrarch and high priest". The same description can be found on the coins of his father, Ptolemy son of Mennaeus and on those of his son Zenodorus who held the territory in 23–20 BCE.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysanias

Luke goes further back than 40 b.c. This gospel goes right back to 63 b.c. - with it's nativity story placed in 6 c.e. (around 70 years from 63 b.c.) What gave the Lukan writer the interest to go this far back in Hasmonean history. One reason could well be that the Pauline writer had already used 63 b.c. for his own conversion story re Damascus and Aretas.

2 Cor. 11. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

Damascus and Aretas .....yep ..this forum has been around the houses with this problem. Perhaps, at the end of the day the question that needs to be asked is 'why'. Why was Damascus chosen by the NT Paul story as the place for a conversion experience, vision ? What was it about Damascus that was relevant for a Christian conversion ? Was it really just chance that Damascus was chosen ?

Aretas III was the only Aretas to control Damascus - losing control to the Romans around 63 b.c. What interest would a NT writer have with Aretas and Nabataean history around 63 b.c. ? Well, one interest could well be that prior to 63 b.c. Aretas III besieged Jerusalem with 50 thousand men. An attempt to unseat the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Aristobulus II. Aristobulus made a deal with a Roman and Aretas III took flight - experiencing heavy loses on the way back to Petra.

Thus the question - why was Hasmonean history of interest to the NT writers of the Paul story ? One reason would be that 63 b.c. was the start of the Roman occupation of Judea. Another reason would be that 63 b.c. was the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, the end of the Hasmonean era. In the context of this history the conversion of the NT Paul would relate to a new beginning, a road to the gentiles was open. History presented the opportunity for change. The Hasmonean dynasty ended, an era ended. A new kingdom, a kingdom without end, an intellectual and philosophical kingdom was deemed to be the way forward.

NT Paul in Damascus around the time Aretas III controlled Damascus ? That's the NT story not early christian history. A NT story able to place Paul, whether viewed as ahistorical or a historical figure, back to where the history of early Christianly had its origins: The fall of the Hasmonean era and Roman control of Judaea. NT Paul is viewed as the founder of what became christianity - backdating him to the time of Aretas III and Damascus - places him at the very beginning. It places him within a context of Hasmonean history. Hence aware of that history and aware of it's relevance to the NT story.

Aretas III

In 67 BCE, Hyrcanus II ascended to the throne of Judea. Scarcely three months later, his younger brother Aristobulus II incited a rebellion, successfully leading the uprising to overthrow Hyrcanus and take the offices of both King and High Priest. Hyrcanus was confined to Jerusalem, where he would continue to receive revenues of the latter office.[8] However, fearing for his life, he fled to Petra and allied himself with Aretas, who agreed to support Hyrcanus after receiving the promise of having the Arabian towns taken by the Hasmoneans returned to Nabataea by Hyrcanus' chief advisor, Antipater the Idumaean.

Aretas advanced towards Jerusalem at the head of 50,000 men, besieging the city for several months. Eventually, Aristobulus bribed Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, deputy of the Roman general Pompey. Scaurus ordered Aretas to withdraw his army, which then suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Aristobulus on the journey back to Nabatea.

Chronology, dating, within the NT story, is, I would suggest, of fundamental importance for researching early christian origins. Ignore the dating and one becomes blind to what is in front of ones face.....
============
added later

NT Paul's escape over the wall of Damascus is possibly modeled upon the escape of the spies sent by Joshua to Jericho - hence would indicate that Paul saw himself as following in the footsteps of Joshua - the leader to conquer the Promised Land: in other words, the NT Paul is the leader to clear the road ahead to that spiritual or philosophical kingdom. Damascus, like Jericho, a city of gentiles. The road ahead was opened in 63 b.c. but reaching or building that spiritual/philosophical kingdom without end would take time. A slow inauspicious start requiring many hands, many minds, many foot soldi soldiers along the way....63 b.c. to the end of Pilate in 37 c.e. = 100 years of development. No flash in the pan but a constant movement to develop ideas that would sustain that spiritual and philosophical kingdom without end.............

History, as always, is vital to understand where we have come from. However, ideas about that history, the why and the wherefor, the tragedy and the victories along the way, also plays its part to our self-understanding. In other words - history plus - gospel story and the Pauline interpretation of Hasmonean history; as a history leading to a 'salvation' story of an everlasting spiritual and philosophical kingdom.viewtopic.php?p=157356#p157356
========================

Lysanias of Abilene and Aretas III - two historical figures, used by writers of the NT, to indicate that these two historical figures were involved with Hasmonean history - history that was of interest to the NT writers. Luke, especially, has demonstrated a willingness to record that history, a history which lies at the very foundation, the root, from which the NT sprung. This is what a chronological approach to the 'technical' details within the NT story delivers. In contrast, Mark's gospel is the Reader's Digest version - great perhaps to have in ones' back pocket - but ultimately lacking the sense of achievement, the satisfaction, that knowing the whole story brings with it.

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

[maryhelena]

Perhaps needless to say.....
A chronological approach to the NT internal data does not support a historical gospel Jesus - - - - - of whatever imagined variety historicists can dream up. History is primary. Finding meaning or relevance in that history is what the NT story is about.

[maryhelena]

In the above chart I've simply used the internal dating suggested by the Jesus and Pilate story. A chronology that places the gospel of John as the early gospel, the early Jesus and Pilate story. The synoptic 'problem', in and off itself, is not my main interest (which remains with Josephus..). However, as a side interest it has demonstrated, in my view, that the internal suggested dating of the Jesus and Pilate story can provide an insight into the development of this story, hence to the synoptic 'problem'.

Interestingly, it seems NT scholarship on the gospel of John is not static at all - that scholars are still developing ideas regarding this gospel's place in the development of the gospels within the NT canon.

Current Approaches to the Priority of John

Mark A Matson

1. The matter of John’s literary independence has achieved relatively strong support within the
scholarly community. Despite continued resistance by some (e.g. Neirynck), one can say that a
relatively strong consensus still maintains that John is not dependent on the Synoptic gospels. If there is
one area of uncertainty it probably is the relationship between Mark and John. Here, for instance, Paul
Anderson’s suggestions that some kind of sharing has taken place, if only to explain the common genre
of the gospel, must be taken seriously and explored further.

2. The argument for John’s possible influence on other gospels, thus asserting a literary priority
for John in at least some special cases, is relatively recent in biblical scholarship and there has not been
sufficient time for this idea to percolate through the scholarly community. If sustained in any degree this
will provide a compelling argument for an early date of John.

https://www.academia.edu/345008/Current ... ty_of_John

Yes, this article makes many references to a historical gospel Jesus (of whatever variant). I would suggest that it is notions of a gospel historical Jesus that has, and is, hindering research into the synoptic 'problem' - and hence hindering research into the origins of early christianity.

[maryhelena]

In the above chart I've suggested that gJohn's mention of it's Jesus figure being 'not yet 50' can be understood as a variation of Daniel ch.9 and it's 70 weeks of years. i.e. that 'not yet 50' could be read as indicating the number 49 - 7x7. Interestingly, Philo has this to say about seven sevens......

THE SEVENTH FESTIVAL

XXX. (176) The solemn assembly on the occasion of the festival of the sheaf having such great privileges, is the prelude to another festival of still greater importance; for from this day the fiftieth day is reckoned, making up the sacred number of seven sevens,
-----
And this universal sacrifice of the whole people is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month, which consists of two periods of seven, in order that nothing which is accounted worthy of honour may be separated from the number seven. But this number is the beginning of brilliancy and dignity to everything.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook28.html

gJohn's use of seven "signs" and seven "I am" sayings indicates a close relationship with the writing of Philo. Did Philo write the gospel of John ? According to Wikipedia he died around 50 c.e. If he did then an early, pre 70 c.e., date for the gospel of John is possible. (Philo seems the first to link Pilate to the time of Tiberius). Anyway, an interesting possibility.

[maryhelena]

Looking over an old post to FRDB I found that the wikipedia link I had used has changed/updated (or whatever) the content of the link.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

Analysis of the Gospels

John's Gospel implies that at the time of the trial the Jewish leaders had not yet eaten the Passover meal[Jn. 18:28] and explicitly states just prior to his sentencing "Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour."[Jn. 19:14] This places the crucifixion on Nisan 14, since the law mandated the lamb had to be sacrificed between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm and eaten before midnight on Nisan 14.[44][45][46] This understanding fits well with Old Testament typology, in which Jesus entered Jerusalem to identify himself as the Paschal lamb on Nisan 10[Jn. Ex.] was crucified and died at 3:00 in the afternoon of Nisan 14, at the same time the High Priest would have sacrificed the Paschal lamb,[1 Cor. 5:7] [cf. Isa. 53:7-9] and rose before dawn the morning of Nisan 16, as a type of offering of the First Fruits.[1 Cor. 15:23] [cf. Lev. 23:9-14]

The chronology presented by John has been viewed as problematic in reconciling with the Synoptic passages and the tradition in that the Last Supper was a Passover meal,[47] placing the crucifixion instead on Nisan 15. However, the apparent contradiction may be resolved by postulating differences in how post-exilic Jews reckoned time.[48] For Jesus and his disciples, the Passover could have begun at dawn Thursday, while for traditional Jews (following Leviticus 23:5), it would not have begun until dusk that same day.[49][50] Another potential solution is that Jesus chose to celebrate the Passover meal a day early with his disciples.[Mt. 26:18] [Lk. 22:15] [51][52]

However this article is still available:

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/john1357917

The John, Jesus, and History Project-New Glimpses of Jesus and a Bi-Optic Hypothesis

The last supper in John is located the day before the Passover, but in the Synoptics it is a Passover meal, which would mean that Jesus' crucifixion was held on the Passover—a highly unlikely eventuality, even contradicted by the Synoptic reports. A common explanation for the Johannine rendering is that John has placed the last supper on the day of preparation for theological reasons as that was the day the Passover lambs were killed, but that detail is not in John; it is only in Mark (Mk. 14:12). Rather, Mark probably ordered the event as a Passover meal in order to make the Institution of the Eucharist a cultic rite parallel to the Jewish meal of remembrance. Luke even steps up the cultic significance, replacing the contents of the New Covenant (Jesus' blood, Mk. 14:24) with the container (the cup, Lk. 22:20), as Marxsen has pointed out. John's presentation of the last supper, however, is far more innocent from a cultic perspective and is thus more likely to be historical.

=========

Given that one feature held in common among the first three critical quests for Jesus involves the exclusion of the Fourth Gospel from the venture, perhaps it is time for a fourth quest for Jesus with John's Gospel squarely in the mix. This would inevitably create new challenges, but the present problems resulting from John's programmatic omission from Jesus research are no longer critically tenable. The question is how to proceed.

My comments in the FRDB thread:

GJohn more likely to be historical? Well, only in the sense that the storyline has more plausibility in regard to a Jewish context. Jesus, as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, is being connected to the slaughtered lamb that, symbolically, saved the Israelites from slavery and death in Egypt. Thus, a Passover Lamb. And, consequently, would need to be sacrificed, crucified, on Nisan 14. This more historically plausible storyline taking precedence over the later cultic storyline of symbolic blood and flesh inauguration of a New Covenant on Nisan 15 - especially so as the New Covenant Last Supper storyline, of Mark, Matthew and Luke, so clearly has compromised the Jewish context with its Nisan 15 crucifixion - and thus has stretched the credibility of this storyline having any historical relevance.

As to dating the gospels - GJohn, with the Nisan 14 crucifixion storyline is easily dated prior to 70 ce - when such a storyline would not raise a ruckus as to its historical plausibility. On the other hand, imagine, prior to 70 ce, the outcry of a storyline of a crucifixion on Nisan 15 that went against Jewish sensibilities regarding the Passover week. After 70 ce, with the temple no more and the old traditions having to be re-interpreted re that temple - then playing around with the details of the Passover observance would more easily get a pass...

-----

So, basically, there is a problem re the account in the synoptic storyline and the GJohn storyline. Thus, one can either try one of the various suggestions re harmonizing the two accounts - or one can view the different accounts as a developing storyline re the crucifixion. In which case the GJohn storyline has the advantage of being historically more plausible. Which would then suggest that the synoptic account is dealing with cultic concerns rather than historical plausibility.

Perhaps a research deemed necessary by The John, Jesus, and History Project should start with Philo and his use of the number 7 - a number formula that winds it's way throughout the gospel stories of Jesus and Pilate.

[maryhelena]

While the gospel of John makes no mention of Tiberius in connection with Pilate, this gospel does indicate an awareness to the writing of Philo: The mention of the Logos/Word and the use of the 'not yet 50 years' for it's Jesus figure indicates gJohn's interest in the writing of Philo. Interestingly, it seems, as far as I'm aware, that Philo was the first to mention the connection between Pilate and Tiberius. Hence, for the record, Philo is quoted below.

Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city;==============And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; (305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.

ON THE EMBASSY TO GAIUS

https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/tex ... ook40.html

In linking Pilate with Tiberius - an interesting question arises. What did Philo know about the dates for Pilate in Judaea ? Philo died around 50 c.e. (Wikipedia) As for the gospel of John and it's links to Philo's Logos and use of Philo's sacred number 7 - well then, that suggests that the writer of the gospel of John was aware of the connection between Pilate and Tiberius. Therefore, the writer of John would be aware that his 'not yet 50 years' for his Jesus figure would allow both an early and late dating for his Jesus and Pilate story. Since this writer makes no attempt to specify either early or late in the time of Tiberius - both options for Jesus and Pilate stories are being accommodated - as reflected in the above chart.

The gospel of Marcion simply took the late in the time of Tiberius option. Suggesting that other versions of the Jesus and Pilate story had already utilized an early in the time of Tiberius time slot. Marcion's gospel moved the story forward - it did not originate the story. It is, however, earlier than the synoptic gospels in our current NT canon.

[maryhelena]

(c) Another purpose in Mark writing a comparatively short Gospel may have been apologetic. In antiquity, ancient philosophies were criticized if the philosophy was inconsistent. On the Two Gospel Hypothesis, when only Matthew’s Gospel existed, the new Christian philosophy was in little danger of being criticized for inconsistency, but once Luke’s Gospel appeared, there was ample evidence that these two Gospels were at odds with each other in a number of ways. For example, compare the differing genealogies of Jesus (Matt. 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–38), or contrast the birth and infancy stories in these two Gospels. Was Jesus’s birth attended by magi (Matt. 2:1–2) in a house related by (2:11), or by shepherds at a manger (Luke 2:16)? Did Joseph receive messages from God related to the nativity of Jesus (Matt. 1:20–23), or was Mary the recipient of these (Luke 1:28–38)?

By eliminating such differences between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from Mark’s version of “the gospel,” Mark helped to defend the new faith against attacks of inconsistency.


David Barrett Peabody

The Synoptic Problem (p. 139). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

It seems to me that this argument has much merit. Why would Matthew and Luke write such contradictory, with each other, stories about Jesus and Pilate? Why does Luke write a very different nativity story to that of Matthew ? One story set in the time of Herod and a second story set in the time of Quirinius i.e. when no Herodian ruled in Judaea ?

Yes, much ink has been spilled attempting to harmonize Luke's nativity dating with Matthew's nativity dating. If it's been such an issue even until today - how much more so back in the early days of the Christian movement. Matthew verse Luke. Assuming Mark wrote first - followed by two contradictory gospels - stifles early christian history. It stifles a coherent development program of the gospel writers. As I wrote above:

Thomas Brodie has suggested that the gospel writers were educated people possible involved in a 'school' of writers. Thus, it would make no sense, it would be illogical, for different writers to develop their own version of chronologies for the Jesus and Pilate story. A 'school' of writers, in contrast, allows for a coordinated approach to the chronology for the Jesus and Pilate story. ie. the different chronologies had meaning, a connection, were part of a plan, a formula.

There is no chronological development with assuming Mark wrote first. That assumption presents a haphazard chaotic contradictory approach to the Jesus and Pilate story.

Yes, placing Matthew and Luke prior to Mark presents problems for the Jesus historicists. The internal chronology of the Jesus and Pilate story, the gospel story, does not support a historical gospel Jesus figure (of whatever variant can be dreamed up) It presents an interpretation of Jewish/Hasmonean history - 'salvation history' from within the historical tragedy of Roman occupation of Judaea and the end of the Hasmonean kingdom. An historical context which propelled a movement in search of a kingdom, a spiritual kingdom, without end - the road to the Gentiles was opened.