In Mcn, Pilate is clearly innocent, a true gentleman: he recognizes the innocence of Jesus immediately, just after the latter's confirmation that he is the Christ. And the Roman soldiers don't torture Jesus.
Historically the scene is clearly surreal.
Mark's editorial agenda is in action by having Pilate only surprised, but not persuaded that Jesus is innocent. And Mark removes entirely the role of Herod as judge and he has the Roman soldiers as derivise torturers of Jesus.
While it's clear the Markan agenda ("you see, the Gentiles are sinners therefore they can't advance claims on Jesus's legacy"), I wonder what this may imply about the introduction of Pilate in the story.
His innocence makes the point that the gentiles are the true recipients of the Jesus' message from the very beginning: even when in the trial of Jesus there is a Gentile as his judge, he is a true Saint. Coincidence?
Simon of Cyrene could be made a "gentile" by the names of is two sons, or, alternatively, his sons were added by Mark to make the point that at the origin of who helped Jesus, there was a Jew (Simon), not a Gentile (his sons). Coincidence? Surely no: again and again, the object of conflict is the provenance of the ideal recipient of Jesus' message, if Jew or Gentile.
Again, even if the light is thrown on these marginal details, my dilemma continues to be: why Pilate?
Pilate's innocence in Mcn versus Pilate's surprise in Mark
Re: Pilate's innocence in Mcn versus Pilate's surprise in Mark
The publicized innocence of Pilate is in contrast particularly against the Josephus' account about Pilate being condemned publicly for his "Samariagate".
The guilty by the same Roman law becomes the perfect innocent in relation to Jesus. Is this a further way to say: the worst Gentile is better than the Jews, when it deals with Jesus' preferences.
The guilty by the same Roman law becomes the perfect innocent in relation to Jesus. Is this a further way to say: the worst Gentile is better than the Jews, when it deals with Jesus' preferences.
Re: Pilate's innocence in Mcn versus Pilate's surprise in Mark
I wonder how much this inference is derived from Pilate being really considered in the real past as a typical/classical example of a Roman governor condemned by the same Roman Emperor, or by our modern prejudice about the historical Pilate being a "bad" governor ultimately based on a stupid historicist interpretation of the Gospels?
Re: Pilate's innocence in Mcn versus Pilate's surprise in Mark
I think that the best explanation for the introduction of Pilate in the Gospels has to be similar to the best explanation for the introduction of John the Baptist in the Gospels.
If the John-the-Baptist-tradition was mere hearsay about (John) Hyrcanus II (docet Doudna) then also the name of Pilate had to be introduced first (in connection with Jesus) for mere hearsay about something involving Pilate.
In the case of Hyrcanus II, the confusion in time was originated by the reference to the wrong Herod as his killer.
In the case of Pilate, the confusion in time had to be originated by the reference to the wrong Jesus as his victim.
If the John-the-Baptist-tradition was mere hearsay about (John) Hyrcanus II (docet Doudna) then also the name of Pilate had to be introduced first (in connection with Jesus) for mere hearsay about something involving Pilate.
In the case of Hyrcanus II, the confusion in time was originated by the reference to the wrong Herod as his killer.
In the case of Pilate, the confusion in time had to be originated by the reference to the wrong Jesus as his victim.
Re: Pilate's innocence in Mcn versus Pilate's surprise in Mark
What is curious is that not only Pilate was compromised in 36 CE.
The proconsul Lucius Vitellius the Elder deposed Caiaphas (Antiq. 18.95–97) in that same year.
There was therefore a double sanction.
Not only this.
Also Herod received his punition.
What if the original Josephian episode about John the Baptist was only partially authentic ?
It talked originally about the punition of Herod by YHWH as consequence of the Herod's involvement in the Pilate's action against the Samaritan false prophet.
YHWH punished Herod because he helped Pilate to kill the false Samaritan prophet.
The Christian interpolator replaced the real name of the victim (now lost) with that of John the Baptist.
The proconsul Lucius Vitellius the Elder deposed Caiaphas (Antiq. 18.95–97) in that same year.
...but Vitellius put those garments into our own power, as in the days of our forefathers, and ordered the captain of the guard not to trouble himself to inquire where they were laid, or when they were to be used; and this he did as an act of kindness, to oblige the nation to him. Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch
There was therefore a double sanction.
Not only this.
Also Herod received his punition.
What if the original Josephian episode about John the Baptist was only partially authentic ?
It talked originally about the punition of Herod by YHWH as consequence of the Herod's involvement in the Pilate's action against the Samaritan false prophet.
YHWH punished Herod because he helped Pilate to kill the false Samaritan prophet.
The Christian interpolator replaced the real name of the victim (now lost) with that of John the Baptist.
Re: Pilate's innocence in Mcn versus Pilate's surprise in Mark
Given the notorious Josephus' hostility against the Samaritans, it could be Josephus himself the (partial) interpolator: his source said that the (Samaritan) people was angry against Herod because Herod had conspired against the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate, hence the defeat of Herod's army was considered a divine punition for the death of the Samaritan false prophet planned by both Herod and Pilate. Josephus eclipsed deliberately the nationality of the victim: he becomes not more the Samaritan false prophet, but the Jew John Hyrcanus II. And the 'Jews' replaced the 'Samaritans' in the role of the people who lamented the massacre.
ADDENDA:
Josephus couldn't tolerate at all that YHWH had avenged the Samaritan false prophet and the Samaritans against Herod the ruler of the Jews. Hence the replacement was necessary for the theological/ethnical reasons of Josephus.
ADDENDA:
Josephus couldn't tolerate at all that YHWH had avenged the Samaritan false prophet and the Samaritans against Herod the ruler of the Jews. Hence the replacement was necessary for the theological/ethnical reasons of Josephus.
Re: Pilate's innocence in Mcn versus Pilate's surprise in Mark
The accusation of diabolic possession against Jesus in the Gospel has equally a connection with the accusation of being a Samaritan.
The OT prophet Elijah purified the Samaria by killing the false prophets of Baal (=Beelzebul).
To be a Samaritan == to be possessed by Beelzebul.
A Catholic interpolation in Mcn, i.e. Luke 9:53-56:
...has the Samaritans enemies of Jesus insofar they were enemies of Elijah, too.
The pattern is identical:
The OT prophet Elijah purified the Samaria by killing the false prophets of Baal (=Beelzebul).
To be a Samaritan == to be possessed by Beelzebul.
A Catholic interpolation in Mcn, i.e. Luke 9:53-56:
But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.
But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.
...has the Samaritans enemies of Jesus insofar they were enemies of Elijah, too.
The pattern is identical:
- Also in this case, Elijah/John the Baptist (=Elijah redivivus) is used as remedy/apology to exorcize any possible connection of Jesus with the Samaritans.
- ...Just as Josephus used the memory of a John (Hyrcanus II) killed by Herod to eclipse the disturbing memory of a Herod conspirer against the Samaritan false prophet.