Following the Laura Knight-Jadczyk's suggestion that John the Baptist could be a cipher for Paul, I wonder if this could be the Mark's reason to fix the Jesus of paper "under Pilate", since the historical Paul was - as the argument goes - a contemporary of Pilate.
My point is that Mark is so pauline that it would be unexpected that his invented Jesus was placed "under Pilate" in virtue of reasons that are not pauline at all.
Hence I see if a case can be made for the suggestion Paul==John the Baptist. Obviously, this means to give up to the authenticity of the entire Baptist Passage.
The name "Paul" is too much allegorical for the "little ones", the Gentilizers in opposition to the haters of children, i.e. the Judaizers, hence the hypothesis above implies that in the real history the historical Paul was known under another name: John?
In the real history, Paul was persecuting the Pillars, just as in the story John the Baptist was considering any fellow Jew as a potential sinner to be baptized (=recognized in his/her spiritual inferiority).
Paul was converted by a vision, and in Mark it is said that John didn't see nothing, but he heard only a voice from heaven saying that not him, but the person before him, was the son of god. Curiously, in Acts also Paul heard the voice of Jesus, even then he did not see Jesus.
If "John the Baptist" was Paul, then for Marcion there could be no problem in inventing himself the episode of "John the Baptist"/Paul being the first in absolute terms to see the Jesus possessed by the spiritual Christ. First even in comparison with the 12.
Really, it was Raschke to argue for John being really "Ion", for the Greek hence Gentile "Ionia", the same area cursed by the author of Revelation because it was a receptacle of paulinists.
John the Baptist allegory of Paul as the reason to fix Jesus under Pilate
Re: John the Baptist allegory of Paul as the reason to fix Jesus under Pilate
In his discussion with pharisees on the origin of the baptism of "John", the Mark's Jesus was going to defend the divine origin of the baptism of "John" aka Paul, against the pharisees obvious cipher for the Judaizers.
Hence I wonder what Paul says about the baptism in his epistles.
Hence I wonder what Paul says about the baptism in his epistles.
Re: John the Baptist allegory of Paul as the reason to fix Jesus under Pilate
Paul claims that his mission is not as baptizer:
Does this mean that Paul was obliged to deny what the people were going to believe more and more about Paul's mission: that "Christ sent Paul to baptize".
I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Does this mean that Paul was obliged to deny what the people were going to believe more and more about Paul's mission: that "Christ sent Paul to baptize".
Re: John the Baptist allegory of Paul as the reason to fix Jesus under Pilate
Really, I am grateful to Paul Nadim Tarazi for have pointed out Gal 4:14, where Paul calls himself "ἄγγελον Θεοῦ", angel of god, the first time he was introduced to the Galatians.
And the irony is that John the Baptist is introduced as a mere human "messenger" (in Greek: angelos), when really he is Paul - an "angel" in disguise.
The entire point of Tarazi is that the original readers of the Gospel of Mark had to be made perfectly able to see Paul himself in nuce inside/behind John the Baptist.
Just as the Messianic Secret is that Jesus is the Christ, so the Johannine Secret is that John the Baptist is Paul.
The implication is that the episode of the death of John the Baptist was an interpolation. I should read again David Oliver Smith to see if he considers it an interpolation.
My point is that the conflict John versus Jesus was a late polemic, when the Johannine Secret (John the Baptist == Paul) was lost and John the Baptist was brandished against Paul and the paulinist Marcion.
Hence, in short:
Hence Pilate was introduced because he was the Roman governor in the time of the death of John the Baptist.
And the irony is that John the Baptist is introduced as a mere human "messenger" (in Greek: angelos), when really he is Paul - an "angel" in disguise.
The entire point of Tarazi is that the original readers of the Gospel of Mark had to be made perfectly able to see Paul himself in nuce inside/behind John the Baptist.
Just as the Messianic Secret is that Jesus is the Christ, so the Johannine Secret is that John the Baptist is Paul.
The implication is that the episode of the death of John the Baptist was an interpolation. I should read again David Oliver Smith to see if he considers it an interpolation.
My point is that the conflict John versus Jesus was a late polemic, when the Johannine Secret (John the Baptist == Paul) was lost and John the Baptist was brandished against Paul and the paulinist Marcion.
Hence, in short:
- Mark wanted a Paul in disguise.
- Mark found John the Baptist, killed by Herod under Pilate, in the annals (Josephus?) of the time.
- Mark made his John the Baptist a Paul in disguise.
Hence Pilate was introduced because he was the Roman governor in the time of the death of John the Baptist.
Re: John the Baptist allegory of Paul as the reason to fix Jesus under Pilate
The implication is very fatal to the historicity of Jesus: Pilate was introduced not because he crucified a historical Jesus, but only because the pauline "Mark" (author) had cast a contemporary of Paul, a historical John the Baptist, as Paul in disguise, in his story.
To think otherwise, that Pilate crucified really a historical Jesus independently from Mark's choice of John the Baptist as Paul in disguise, would imply the following "coincidence too much impossible to be a true coincidence": a John the Baptist, introduced in the story as clear allegory of Paul, who is in the same time both a contemporary of Paul and a contemporary of Pilate.
To think otherwise, that Pilate crucified really a historical Jesus independently from Mark's choice of John the Baptist as Paul in disguise, would imply the following "coincidence too much impossible to be a true coincidence": a John the Baptist, introduced in the story as clear allegory of Paul, who is in the same time both a contemporary of Paul and a contemporary of Pilate.
Re: John the Baptist allegory of Paul as the reason to fix Jesus under Pilate
Why did "Mark" need a Paul in disguise (=John the Baptist) as precursor?
Because he couldn't have explicitly, in the clear light of the sun, Paul as precursor.
It is essential to understand that Mark's point was to have Paul everywhere in his story (hence also behind John the Baptist), without never mentioning him explicitly.
Only so he couldn't receive reprisals in reaction by who knew the real history.
Really, the paulinized figure of John the Baptist is both strong evidence:
Because he couldn't have explicitly, in the clear light of the sun, Paul as precursor.
It is essential to understand that Mark's point was to have Paul everywhere in his story (hence also behind John the Baptist), without never mentioning him explicitly.
Only so he couldn't receive reprisals in reaction by who knew the real history.
Really, the paulinized figure of John the Baptist is both strong evidence:
- that the temporal marker "under Pilate" was a consequence of the mention of John the Baptist;
- that the historical Paul was a contemporary of John the Baptist therefore of Pilate, too.