A strong clue in Mcn that Pilate was imposed late in the story

[Giuseppe]

In Mcn, Herod is called a "king". The problem is that Antipas was a mere tetrarch, but not at all a "king". This error is unexpected under the hypothesis that the author knew already about Pilate in connection with Jesus.

Hence the author of Mcn was obliged to mention Pilate only because of the "15° year of Tiberius", in turn a derivation from 15° of Tybi.

And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon. And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings.

And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, the fifteenth day of the month Tybi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm

[Giuseppe]

The "king" originally could be Vespasian or Titus, then converted by Gentilizers in "Herod", and via 15 Tybi, in the tetrarch Herod contemporary of Pilate.

[Giuseppe]

The "king" is interpreted by Vermeiren as a Roman emperor in Ascension of Isaiah 9:14:

And the ruler of that world, by the hand of his son, stretches out his hands against him, and they hang him on the wood, and he kills him not knowing who he is.

The Vermeiren's interpretation:

And Vespasian, the emperor of the Roman empire, by the hand of his son Titus, stretches out his hands against Jesus, and they hang him on the wood, not knowing who he is.

http://www.waroriginsofchristianity.com ... 9-verse-14

[Giuseppe]

Once placed Jesus under Pilate, a new problem was virtually born for the inventors: how could their readers distinguish easily Jesus from the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate, given the relative fame of that prophet in connection with the latter?

They transformed the false Samaritan prophet (Dositheus?) in a mere precursor of Jesus: John the Baptist.

Obviously, the false Samaritan prophet was judaized, before. With the help of the memory of the other "John the Baptist": Hyrcanus II.

[Giuseppe]

The epitet of "king" who figures connected to "Herod" in the Gospels is really a fossil of an even older tradition:

In recent Ascension of Isaiah (AoI) threads on this forum I suggested that the ‘king and his son’ of AoI 9:14 is an encrypted mention of Vespasian and Titus, and that the king/emperor of 11:19 likewise refers to the Flavians. In both cases the Flavians are staged as responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion.

How not think about the "rulers of this age" of 1 Corinthians 2:6-8?

The cosmokrator was the Roman emperor. Paul was too pro-Roman to accuse Vespasian or Titus for the death of Jesus b. Sapphat. He probably meant demons.

But if 1 Corinthians 2:6-11 is a Gnostic interpolation, then the "rulers" are as well anonymous as the (extremely generic) "ruler" of Ascension of Isaiah.

They were probably the Gentilizers to identify the anonymous "king" or "ruler" with a known king "of the Jews", i.e. Herod.

[Giuseppe]

I wonder if it is even necessary the hypothesis of 15 Tybi, to this point.

The stages could be the following:

• 70 CE: Crucifixion + survival of Jesus b. Sapphat.

• 70-100 CE: birth of the early Christian legend of a Jesus crucified by a "king" or "ruler of this world". With or without a historical Paul.

• 100-120 CE: The killer, a "king" or "ruler of this world", is spiritualized (for diplomatic reasons) in a demon. Evidence: Ascension of Isaiah, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8.

• 120-130 CE. The Gentilizers judaized (=polemically) the "king" or "ruler of this world" by calling him: Herod.

• 130-135 CE. The Judaizers introduced Pilate in the role previously held by Herod, of killer of Jesus. Evidence: the anomaly of a "king" Herod contemporary of Pilate (when Antipas was a mere tetrarch).

[Giuseppe]

Ascension of Isaiah 11:9 talks about a generic "king", who could be a demon or a king of the Jews:

And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).

Hence Pilate was absent in this early layer.

The entire affair of a generic "king" couldn't be a fruit of mere historical error. The mention of a generic "king" is a fossil of an earlier tradition. "Herod" was added to specify (polemically) the Jewish identity of this demonic "king". Later, Pilate was added as contemporary of a "king Herod" to do the pair in an anti-Gentilizing function.

Mcn had both, "king Herod" and "Pilate".

What has to be inquired: how much probable is that the most famous Roman governor known to be a contemporary of a "king Herod" was Pilate?

[Giuseppe]

My point is that it is more probable that Pilate was introduced as a contemporary of a "king Herod" than the tetrarch Antipas was introduced as a contemporary of Pilate.

In the latter case, how can the error "king"/"tetrarch" be easily explained?

[Giuseppe]

Now Klinghardt remembers an interesting thing about the trial before Herod: it is assumed implicitly that Herod's usual good humour ceased bluntly when Jesus didn't answer.

Now this is interesting, since it may give a clue of the original nucleus of the story, when still Pilate was not introduced. Again, the enigmatic pattern is found also in Mcn 23:9-11:

• QUESTION:
  
  And he questioned him in many words;
  
  

• ANSWER:
  
  but he answered him nothing.
  
  

• GLORIFICATION (=CRUCIFIXION)
  
  
  11 And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.
  
  

ADDENDA:
This is further evidence that the original anonymous "king" was considered a demon. Note the coincidence with an analogous pattern found here.

[Giuseppe]

The mandean tradition has Pilate as "king of the world".

I think that it reflects the original killer ("king of the world") and the fictitious added killer ("Pilate").

The correct evolution is therefore:
King of the world → King Herod → Pilate → tetrarch Herod □

ADDENDA:
The "rulers of this age" of 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 may be the Roman emperors (Vespasian and Titus?).