Acts of Pilate between two sources of Acts and our Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9536
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Acts of Pilate between two sources of Acts and our Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Two Pure and Simple FACTS:
  • In the trial of Peter in Acts, no mention of Pilate.
  • In the trial of Paul in Acts, no mention of Pilate.
Therefore Acts of Pilate follow these two souces of Acts and precede our version of Mark.

Pilate had to be sanctified/christianized completely (via a distinct text: the Acts of Pilate) even before his appearance in Mark.

Hence, while proto-Mark had euhemerized Jesus in the indefinite past, Acts of Pilate euhemerized Jesus in a precise, recent date: sub Pontio Pilato.

Even before our canonical Mark.

Hence the correct chronology of the texts is:

Proto-Mark (without Pilate)
Peter/Acts (without Pilate)
Paul/Acts (without Pilate)
Marcion (without Pilate)
Acts of Pilate
Mark
Matthew
proto-John
Luke
John
Last edited by Giuseppe on Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9536
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Acts of Pilate between two souces of Acts and our Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Note the curious coincidence:
What I have called Peter/Acts and Paul/Acts are respectively two apologies by Peter and by Paul before their Jewish accusers.

Acts of Pilate could very well be a trial where Pilate was the person who had to be judged, before the Emperor, about his being a Christian.

While Festus could say
Instead, it was something about their religion and a dead man named Jesus, who Paul insists is alive.

(Acts 25:19)

...now the accuser of Pilate could well say:

Instead, it was something about their religion and a dead man named Jesus, who Pilate crucified and now insists is alive.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9536
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Acts of Pilate between two souces of Acts and our Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that Celsus denies that the risen Jesus appeared before the judge Pilate.

By the time of Celsus, the Pagan polemists had already altered the original Acts of Pilate, by transforming Pilate in an enemy of Jesus the evildoer.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9536
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Acts of Pilate between two sources of Acts and our Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

A reason why the Acts of Apostles don't talk about the trial of Paul in Rome is because of its Marcionite implications: the idea that, for the first time in the history of the world, the news about a new god Jesus appear publicly — i.e. by a public trial before the Emperor — in the world.

The Acts of Pilate had already the news about Jesus introduced in Rome before the Emperor by Pilate: a marcionite idea.

Hence, this is further clue supporting my view, that Pilate was introduced the first time by Acts of Pilate, and known only by the last editor of Acts of Apostles, not by Peter/Acts (=the pre-Gospel source of Acts about the trial of Peter) and not by Paul/Acts (= the pre-Gospel source of Acts about the trial of Paul).
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9536
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Acts of Pilate between two sources of Acts and our Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

This point above raises a contradiction with my previous views: if Pilate's question in the Gospels ("Are you the king of the Jews?") served to confirm the Jewishness of Jesus, then why was Acts of Pilate a marcionite work?

Both the claims are true:
  • In our Gospels, it is a fact that Pilate serves to condemn Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, against Marcion.
  • It is a fact that, in Acts of Pilate, Jesus is a new (= marcionite) god introduced before the Emperor by Pilate.
Marcion, by writing the Acts of Pilate, reached two goals:
  • Jesus is a new god before the Emperor etc;
  • Marcionism is not a threat to Rome.
Against Marcion, Justin addresses the Emperor: please punish only the marcionites, not us catholics.

Following Justin, the catholicized gospels claim that:
  • Jesus is not a new god, he is condemned as the Jewish Messiah
  • Catholicism is not a threat to Rome.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9536
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Acts of Pilate between two sources of Acts and our Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

In definitive, Marcion as the first man on earth who connected Jesus and Pilate, together.

Hence, again the question: why Pilate?

a technical reason:
  • the Peter/Acts and the Paul/Acts had already fixed respectively the trials of Peter and Paul under Gamaliel and Festus (Chris Albert Wells's explanation): before Gamaliel and Festus, there was Pilate in the historical record. ET PILATUS FUIT.
I don't know other better explanations.
Post Reply