Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Mk is excessively late, whence it is by absolutely no means responsible for linking Jesus to Pilate. Some lost source gospel must have done this earlier.
Sure. But I am more and more sure that Pilate was derived from a Samaritan source, i.e. from a rival Samaritan sect who was historically connected with the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.
Stuart has been very brilliant in recognizing that what he calls the 'heterodox' position (Simonians, Marcionites, etc) has used, "used" in the meaning of: 'exploited", the tradition of Jesus Son of Joseph as an astute expedient to deny that Jesus was davidic and by extension that Jesus was a Jew.
This was the old strategy called 'divide et impera': taking advantage of the fact that there was already in Judea a rivarly between the davidic Messiah and the Josephite Messiah, the anti-demiurgists used the Josephite Jesus in opposition to the davidic Jesus, even if they denied that Jesus was human at all (and therefore not even a "Son of Joseph").
That was basically the reason why an anti-demiurgist Simon Magus was labelled: Samaritan.
Therefore, I start to wonder if my complessive view is correct even without the support of an Ignatius who, afterall, docet the Catholic Jack Bull, is entirely a late invention.
So my preferred scenario is the following:
- A period when Jesus was undated (because he was placed entirely in outer space, or because he was placed very distant in an indefinite past).
- In whiletime, in Samaria there was an independent cult of a Messiah Son of Joseph. Pontius Pilate lost his office in Palestine because of the savage way in which he quelled a riot in Samaria, which arose as the result of one claiming to be the expected ‘Messiah Son of Joseph’. As result, the name of Pilate entered in the Samaritan tradition about the Samaritan Messiah.
- The sectarians of the davidic Jesus entered in conflict with the sectarians of the Samaritan Messiah. However, it was not a true conflict, only a speculative 'friendly polemic.
- The anti-demiurgists entered on the scene (they could be there from the beginning, but this is another matter). They wanted to deny that Jesus was a Jew adorer of YHWH, therefore they exploited the already existing marginal polemic between the davidic Jesus and the Josephite Jesus, taking position with the latter against the former.
- Once the Samaritan Messiah was colored with anti-demiurgist tints, as effect of the anti-demiurgist propaganda using the Samaritan tradition in anti-Jewish polemic, the reaction by the sectarians of the davidic Jesus was immediate: the reductio ad davidem started with the first gospels.
- According to Jean Magne, the Oldest Gospel made it clear that Pilate asked to Jesus if he was 'king of the Jews' and Jesus answered: "You have said so": there are no doubts. Jesus was davidic.
- Even if we assume the Gospel of Mark as first gospel, a good case has been made that Mark insists again and again that Jesus is davidic:
- Posts: 1690
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
Which "divine coincidence", isn't true? That the anti-demiurgist Dositheus has been even identified by some modern scholars with the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:25 am