My ideal answer to Heinrich Hammer: only the anti-demiurgism was what made dangerous the Samaritan slain by Pilate

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 11356
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

My ideal answer to Heinrich Hammer: only the anti-demiurgism was what made dangerous the Samaritan slain by Pilate

Post by Giuseppe »

Heinrich Hammer was the historicist who identified tout court the historical Jesus with the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.

Why, if the name of Pilate was derived from a Samaritan source, can't I conclude for the identity of the historical Jesus with the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate, following Hammer?

Where I agree entirely with Hammer:

In the idea that the first gospel, beyond if Mark or a previous gospel, was very clear in making Jesus the "king of the Judeans" (ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων), i.e. the davidic Jesus, so the mention of Pilate as his killer served precisely to deny that Pilate crucified the rival Samaritan Messiah.

Where I disagree at all with Hammer:

I think that the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate couldn't be the historical Jesus, because the first gospels insisted that Jesus was davidic not because, as Hammer argued, it wanted to eclipse the disturbing memory of a historical Jesus who was the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate.

The first gospel insisted that Jesus was davidic (and not Samaritan) because his original authors were facing a particular rival propaganda: the anti-demiurgists were coloring the memory of the Samaritan Messiah slain by Pilate with anti-demiurgist tints.

Note the pattern:
  • John the Baptist, considered an anti-demiurgist by the Mandeans, was given a tomb in Samaria, and his wilderness was identified in Samaria: a coincidence?
  • Dositheus, considered an anti-demiurgist, was a Samaritan: a coincidence?
  • Simon Magus, considered an anti-demiurgist, was a Samaritan: a coincidence?
Beyond of what one could think about the real identity (or historicity) of John the Baptist, Dositheus or the Magus, we can conclude already now that it was not a coincidence, that the anti-demiurgists used the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate as icon and vehicle of their own anti-YHWH ideas.

What troubled the nights of the authors of the first gospels was not the disturbing memory of a false Samaritan messiah slain by Pilate, but its recent use by anti-demiurgists in anti-davidic function.

In other words, the rival Messiah called Bar-Abbas, "Son of Father" (with the only wrong of not being the Christ of YHWH), found his incarnation in the various Dositheus, Simon Magus, i.e. in the figure of the newly-anti-demiurgized Samaritan Messiah. And since Pilate was the Roman governor who crucified the Samaritan false prophet posing as the Samaritan Messiah, what occurred was a new story that denied that Pilate crucified the rival Samaritan Messiah.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 11356
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: My ideal answer to Heinrich Hammer: only the anti-demiurgism was what made dangerous the Samaritan slain by Pilate

Post by Giuseppe »

In particular, why Bar-Abbas was Samaritan:

The proto-John had:
  • an anti-demiurgist Jesus continually identified with the Son and with the Father (docet Stahl-Couchoud);
  • a Jesus with Samaritan clues.
So in proto-John we have already in action the use of Samaritanism in anti-demiurgist and anti-davidic function.

Proto-John was not the first gospel, but this tradition about a Jesus Son of Father with Samaritan connections was so disturbing that that Jesus was reduced polemically to a "Bar-Abbas".
Post Reply