Jean Magne versus KL Schmidt about the silence of Jesus before Pilate

[schillingklaus]

Indeed, already in Cahier 71 from 1971 of the Cercle Ernest Renan we find L'EPISODE DES DISCIPLES D'EMMAUS ET LE RECIT DU PARADIS TERRESTRE. This is more than two decades before JESUS DEVANT PILATE.

American scholars in general seem to be obstinately unaware of French research, mostly conducted within the CER; which means that the Americans have to re-invent the wheel poorly every time, barely getting past the square wheel.

[schillingklaus]

JESUS DEVANT PILATE contains many details only sketched in LA CRUCIFIXION, proving once more the piecemal character of Mk and the existence of lost synoptic sources, one closer to Mt, the other closer to Lk. The appearaance before Pilate is most original in Mt, albeit with stupid interpolations like Pilate's wife, the hand-washing, and the self-curse of the Jews. This is seen from the lack of reasons for Barabbas's imprisonment when introducedJ in Mt.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The original story has Pilate to whip and crucify Jesus right away, with no trial and no reason given.

When he wrote about this original story, Jean Magne was still a historicist.

Indeed.

Now, according to Mythicist Jean Magne, the oldest Gospel story had only the following episode as 'Passion story':

So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

The point that Magne probably wanted to do, I have discovered after, even if Magne didn't reveal it explicitly, is that a such nucleus was based on an anti-demiurgist myth:

None of that

English summary

MagneMethod.jpg (137.78 KiB) Viewed 421 times

This method shows that Magne believed in an original historical account and attempted to reconstruct it. He reduced the accounts in the four gospels to a small common core and removed all literary shapings. And then he believed he had his true and original record, the historical nucleus. The historian Magne's wonderful dream.

But it seems to me that it is quite easy to show further literary shapings by Mark within Magne's "historical" nucleus.

- the binding
- the handing over
- the mere naming as "Pilate"
- the phrase "Are you" in the question
- the title "King of the Jews" in the question
- Jesus answer
- the "handing over to be crucified"

So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

When you remove Mark's literary shapings, nothing is left at all.

[Giuseppe]

On the opposite end of the spectre, we find this article by Guillet, unfortunately not available nowhere online, despite of the its (obvious) importance:

Pierre -E. Guillet. “Entree en scene de Pilate,” CahCercErnRen 24 (98, ’77) 1-24.Nothing in the Talmud or the genuine Pauline letters attributes a role to Pilate in the death of Jesus. Pilate entered the scene of the passion story in the edition of Mk that was strongly influenced by Jewish-Christian animosity toward the emperor Hadrian’s measures in putting down the Bar Kokhba rebellion.

https://archive.org/stream/newtestament ... e_djvu.txt

[schillingklaus]

Kreuzerin is dreaming up more drivel. The method does not show anything like that as no historical nucleus is required, only a however abstruse article of faith. It is only Chilton's illusion that an original article of faith could have historical value.

[Giuseppe]

Probably Kunigunde should comment about what Chilton said:

A good description of the situation is posed by Bruce Chilton here:

In a paper which he gave to the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1990, Jean Magne developed the most succinct analysis of the passage, but it is based on his finely developed exegetical monographs.! Magne begins with a refutation of the two-source solution of the "Synoptic Problem" in its simplest form. He realizes that the variants among the Synoptic Gospels are too complex to admit of the facile solution of direct borrowing; he asserts his challenge by citing the work of Philippe Rolland. 2 Only attention to the likely antecedents of the Gospels can offer a literary answer to the question of what produced the texts as they can be read today.

Magne sees the overall scene of the session of the Sanhedrin as an expansion of the "primitive text," which he takes to be reflected in two passages which frame the scene of the trial and Peter' s denial (Mark 14:53; 15: 1, in the translation of Magne's rendering):

They led Jesus to the high priest, and the elders and the scribes gathered and, the morning come, they took counsel and, having bound him, they brought him to Pilate.

In referring to the passages as "primitive," Magne intends to say that was as much as was known about how Jesus came to be condemned to death by Pilate. Everything else is embellishment. The literary formation of the text is elegantly set out by Magne. Within the primitive reference to the taking of counsel at the opening and the closing of the present sequence, two interior chiasms are formed, one involving Peter and his denial, the other involving the "trial." The artificiality of the devices is evident to Magne. The evidence brought against Jesus is dangerously close to the truth (see John 2:19; Matt 27:40; Mark 15:29; Acts 6:14), so that the reference to false witness in Mark 14:57-59 is maladroit to say the least.
Moreover, the christological question posed by the High Priest (Mark 14:61) is unrelated to what precedes, and the beating of Jesus and the mocking demand for hirn to prophesy (14:65) seem unmotivated. Finally, the notice of people "taking counsel" (Mark 15: 1) is not the language of any sort of legal proceeding, and actually suggests the accused was not present.

Within Magne' s overall understanding of the development of Christianity, as a popular Gnosis, the creation of the vignette of the trial, with its implicit anti-Judaism, makes good sense. Indeed, Magne is inclined to see a great deal within the Gospels as a pure fabrication on the basis of scriptural texts. So the striking feature of his analysis of Mark 14:53-72 is not that he sees so much elaboration, but that he invokes the hypothesis of the historical memory of Jesus being handed
over to Pilate for execution by High Priest, elders, and scribes. Indeed, Magne has revised his analysis since the work cited above, to posit that even the crucifixion, although primitive from the point of view of the memory of events, was also fabricated. [7]

Note 7 reads, entirely:

I have benefitted from private conversation with him. In that Magne cannot actually cite a text which he alleges inspired a narrative of the crucifixion, his position in this regard is now purely theoretical. His citation of 1 Cor 2:8 shows how the crucifixion was appropriated, but not how reference to it was first generated.

(my bold)

Hence, as also meant by other sources by Magne himself, the original Passion Story was something of similar to this:

So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Is Chilton saying that Magne was still a historicist when he argued about Pilate etc?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Probably Kunigunde should comment about what Chilton said:

Seriously, this might be the saddest reconstruction I've ever seen.

The corresponding text of Mark contains 21 verses, namely from Mark 14:53 to Mark 15:1. Magne correctly observes that 19 verses are just Mark's literary shapings. Only in two verses did he find evidence of his “original primitive text”.

Magne sees the overall scene of the session of the Sanhedrin as an expansion of the "primitive text," which he takes to be reflected in two passages which frame the scene of the trial and Peter' s denial (Mark 14:53; 15: 1, in the translation of Magne's rendering):

But he also shortened these two verses:

- In Mark 14:53 the assertion that "all" came together as a typical Markan hyperbole and the historically implausible "high priests" in the plural.
- In Mark 15:1 the typically Markan "immediately", the repeated enumeration of the “high priests, scribes and elders”, the hyperbole "all the Synhedrion" and the typical Markan “handing over, delivering”.

They led Jesus to the high priest, and the elders and the scribes gathered
and, the morning come, they took counsel and, having bound him, they brought him to Pilate.

Mark 14:53 And they led away Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests, and the elders, and the scribes come together.
Mark 15:1 And immediately early in the morning, having formed a counsel,the chief priests, with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, having bound Jesus, led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate.

So according to Magne 95 percent is Markan shaping, but the tiny bit of the rest is the original report? Magne was about to realize that it's not 95 percent, it's 100 percent. But then he failed miserably and believed in his little original "primitive text".

That's kind of like someone saying the TF is 95 percent interpolated, but a "primitive" little rest is original:

“At that time Jesus lived, a very wise man.”

Just sad.