Was there a chronological order in the sequence of "releasers" (PLT) in the Gospel?

[Giuseppe]

• We already know that Judas Iscariot is the 'surrender', 'deliverer', 'releaser', since the verb 'to betray' means also 'to deliver': "on the night he was betrayed" (1 Cor 22:23).

• But we know that also Pilate means 'releaser', 'deliverer', once retroverted PLT in Hebrew, and Pilate is the one who releases now Barabbas, now Jesus, now the corpse of Jesus (to Joseph of Arimathea).

• Finally, we have the 3 prophecies on the Son of Man being 'delivered' to Gentiles.

Hence the question: was there a chronological order in the introduction of all those "releasers"?

For example, a particular order may be the following:

• 1) Jesus is delivered to the anonymous Roman governor.

• 2) Jesus is delivered by Judas Iscariot, "one of the 12": an attack against the 12.

• 3) by reaction, Jesus is delivered by Pilate (in the Slavonic Josephus he is even 'betrayed' by Pilate): an attack against the gentilizers.

• 4) by reaction, Jesus is "delivered" to the high priests: an attack against the Judaizers.

The three prophecies on the Son of Man being "delivered" would be added by the same author who introduced Judas Iscariot.


Essentially, the point I am doing is the following:
was Judas the Releaser a reaction against Pilate the Releaser? Or vice versa?

A clue to consider Judas added after Pilate is that in Paul we have that the risen Jesus appeared to the 12, including Judas. I don't think that the verse is genuine, therefore it is evidence of a layer of the gospel tradition where Judas was still absent: this is unexpected if Judas was introduced already in the first gospel.

Therefore in definitive I think that Pilate was added before the addition of Judas.

[Giuseppe]

From the other hand, Pilate, as the 'Releaser', is strictly connected not only with Barabbas, but also with Joseph of Arimathea (to whom he 'released' the corpse of Jesus).

Now, the episode of Joseph of Arimathea is surely based on the Josephus's episode in Vita where Titus releases to Josephus the bodies of three crucified Zealots.

I am ignoring in this thread the question if that Zealot saved in extremis by Josephus is the historical Jesus (i.e. Jesus ben Sapphat).

Rather, I think that the entire secrecy of the operation of burial of Jesus is designed to explain why there was none empty tomb in Paul, which is strictu senso equivalent to say that the episode of Joseph of Arimathea was added to combat the Docetists, famous deniers of the presence of a body of Jesus.

This means that Pilate was added in a very late period, when the Docetists were already a threat (therefore, in the time of Ignatius).

Ignatius himself is evidence of a legend already built from a lot of time about the fate of Judas Iscariot, while the same Ignatius is obsessed in his fanatical insistence that Jesus suffered 'under Pilate': a clear sign that Judas was introduced before Pilate.

[Giuseppe]

Hence, the proof is enough logical:

• if the early Christian community had been not threatened by Docetists,

• there would be no need at all of a rivalry against the rival 'Jesus Son of Father' (the same Jesus who said: noli me tangere),

• there would be no need at all of an empty tomb for Jesus,

• there would be no need at all of a Joseph of Arimathea copied from Josephus bar Matthea 's Vita,

• there would be no need at all of the interpolation of a Releaser of the corpse of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea in the figure of Pilate (PLT),

• there would be no need at all for Ignatius to insist that Jesus "suffered really under Pilate", against the Docetists,

• there would be no need at all of a dramatic choice between Jesus called Christ and Jesus Bar-Abbas ('Son of Father') both released by Pilate (respectively, to death and to freedom).

Hence Ellegard is right that Ignatius is the first witness of a Pilate connected with Jesus.

NO DOCETISM, NO PILATE.

[Secret Alias]

Back to this again. Someone has to put an end to this.

[Giuseppe]

Indifference would have been a better answer by you.

Where I am obliged to explain again the difference between the semitical root (PLT) of various Hebrew and Aramaic terms for 'release/released' and the Hebrew term for 'released':