Joseph ⟼ Pilate (the proof)

[neilgodfrey]

I note that Maguer argues very well for Joseph of Arimathea being the same Patriarch Joseph from which Jesus/Joshua is descendant.

I recently set out Maguer's explanation of the Joseph-Pilate episode, in addition to Joseph's burial of Jesus in the tomb cut from rock, as being derived from the Genesis narrative, https://vridar.org/2021/10/04/reading-t ... s-midrash/

[Giuseppe]

I note that Maguer argues very well for Joseph of Arimathea being the same Patriarch Joseph from which Jesus/Joshua is descendant.

I recently set out Maguer's explanation of the Joseph-Pilate episode, in addition to Joseph's burial of Jesus in the tomb cut from rock, as being derived from the Genesis narrative, https://vridar.org/2021/10/04/reading-t ... s-midrash/

note that Maguer's explanation of the Joseph-Pilate episode fits perfectly and even reinforces my explanation of the presence of Pilate in the story.

As you write, resuming Maguer:

We read that Joseph, as ruler, went to Pharaoh and his counselors to ask for permission to bury Israel his father. So it was fitting that the new Joseph approach Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. (Genesis 50, 4, 6)

That Pharaon "posseded" Israel (=a collective symbol) is assumed as premise, just as it is assumed as premise that Pilate "posseded" the body (=a collective symbol) of Jesus.

• Why just Pharaon? Because an entire tradition (considered someway historical by the author and merely inherited by him as a "fact") described the Jews as hostages of the Pharaon in Egypt;

• Why just Pilate? Because in the real History he was the only Roman governor who, before the First Jewish Revolt, had persecuted as group the Samaritans, who called themselves "sons of Joseph".

This is for me a great result: it proves beyond any doubt that Jesus works exclusively as a collective symbol at least in his Roman crucifixion. The only way to falsify my thesis is to prove that the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate was precisely called "Jesus Son of Joseph": for, in such case, a more simple explanation than my one is that Pilate was introduced because he killed a particular "Son of Joseph" and not an entire group of "Sons of Joseph". This would be equivalent to call the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate as the true Historical Jesus.

But in the actual state of knowledge, as you have pointed out before, the Samaritan false prophet was only a mere prophet, we have zero evidence of a his presumed claim to be the Samaritan Taheb. Unless he was Theudas (placed by Origen in the 30 CE, despite of Josephus placing him under Fadus). At most, I come to the point where mythicism and historicism converge in the final gray zone called Jesus Agnosticism, but this Agnostic result, be it clear, only in virtue of the historicist possibilities raised by the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate, at this point of my investigation, the more enigmatic figure of the History.

[neilgodfrey]

This is for me a great result: it proves beyond any doubt . . . .

No no no no no, it proves nothing!

It opens possibilities. It supports some possibilities. Or it may merely be consistent with other views. But that's not proving them. Remember that the fundamental approach to scientific inquiry is to avoid confirmation bias like covid-19 and look for ways to falsify your hypothesis.

Someone recently left a comment on my blog pointing out that grasping at every point in favour of our beliefs -- confirming our beliefs with everything we can find -- is, well, a sign of "belief". That's how belief works. Let's leave that sort of reasoning to the apologists here!

[Giuseppe]

look for ways to falsify your hypothesis.

in my post above I have talked about how one can "falsify" my hypothesis.

Frankly, it may be a my limit, my bias, as you say etc , but as to alternative theories to explain the presence of Pilate in the story, I don't see not even the shadow of a different hypothesis able to compete with the my current one, once it is assumed as premise the Maguer's explanation about "Joseph of Arimathea" being a midrash of the patriarch Joseph, of which the Samaritans claimed descent.

[neilgodfrey]

look for ways to falsify your hypothesis.

in my post above I have talked about how one can "falsify" my hypothesis.

Frankly, it may be a my limit, my bias, as you say etc , but as to alternative theories to explain the presence of Pilate in the story, I don't see not even the shadow of a different hypothesis able to compete with the my current one, once it is assumed as premise the Maguer's explanation about "Joseph of Arimathea" being a midrash of the patriarch Joseph, of which the Samaritans claimed descent.

What you present as "the only way to falsify" your hypothesis (rather a belief, conviction?) is itself narrowing the options in such a way as to limit critical assessment of all aspects of your argument. What other explanations for the data -- all of it -- are possible? Can you genuinely justify what comes across as the very strong conviction that your inferences from the data are correct? Is it possible some of your inferences are, let's say, probable but not really certain?

I don't discount your main idea. But it's easier to think through when strong claims like "proof" and insistence that every point is certain are set aside. I'd like to think through some of what you have proposed further, in particular seeing if there are indications in the gospels that Pilate is selected for the reasons you propose (not "prove" . Those indications will not be obvious at first reading or we would already know about them. But sometimes when we find out how to look at a text in a new way we can see things we didn't see before.

[Giuseppe]

in particular seeing if there are indications in the gospels that Pilate is selected for the reasons you propose (not "prove" . Those indications will not be obvious at first reading or we would already know about them.

here is a indication of the kind you are asking for.

How do we know that in Mark Jesus is son of Joseph ?

"Joseph" is never named in Mark as father of Jesus. The only way to realize that Jesus dies as the Messiah Son of Joseph in Mark, in absence of a stupid anti-marcionite birth story with Joseph and Mary etc, is to see:

• that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus, just as Joseph buried Israel (docet Maguer), which means: the body of Jesus is his exclusive property, as true father of Jesus;

• that Pilate is the killer: not coincidentially, the same historical killer of the "sons of Joseph", how the Samaritans called themselves.

What other gospels have made, by introducing a putative father called Joseph, is merely to make it explicit the idea already found in nuce in Mark: that Jesus dies as Son of Joseph.

But there is another reason to make it explicit:

• "Mark" (author) had limited himself to say that Jesus died as Son of Joseph (by being killed by Pilate killer of Samaritans and buried by the patriarch Joseph masked as Joseph of Arimathea).

• The other gospels, against both Mark and Marcion, want that Jesus was born as Son of Joseph, also.

The difference is entirely theological: in Mark, the separationism requires that the spiritual Christ didn't suffer, while only the carnal Son of Joseph suffered. Hence not coincidentially, the separationist Mark has need to insist that Jesus is son of Joseph only during the time of his extreme suffering and death.

Against the separationism, Matthew and Luke have Jesus as son of Joseph from the birth, hence implying a natural birth by Mary and Joseph. If Jesus was said explicitly to be born (and not only died) as son of Mary and Joseph, then:

• (1) Marcion is confuted (for obvious reasons);

• (2) the separationism is eclipsed, since the link "suffering death"/"Son of Joseph" is lost, not more being put in evidence.

[neilgodfrey]

here is a indication of the kind you are asking for.

The weak link is your association of Pilate with "sons of Joseph". Yes, Josephus says that the Samaritans advertized their descent from Joseph when things were going well for them, but that is many books away from his discussion of Pilate and -- correct me if I am wrong -- when he discusses Pilate there is no reminder of Joseph. Now the link would be very strong if Joseph were mentioned in the same context as Pilate.

But yes, what you/Bolland are proposing is most certainly an intriguing possibility. But without a close association between Pilate and Joseph in Antiquities then by itself it does not amount to "proof". Your argument will backfire if you try to claim too much for it. It is a point worth adding to the mix of many other coincidences, I am not denying that. It is, as I said, an intriguing possibility that is worth keeping in mind.

Further, though Marcionism might be behind the gospel as we have it, and though there is evidence for "separationism" in the gospel, each of these points is also subject to debate and the data underlying them is open to other interpretations. Each can be argued, but for that reason they are not "facts" on which to support the Joseph-Pilate link.

[neilgodfrey]

Hi Giuseppe -- you pushed very hard a while back your claim that Pilate stood trial and become famous in Rome as a killer of Samaritans -- sons of Joseph. By making such a strong claim it is too easy for others to build up a resistance to your case. Now that you have dropped that claim, rightly, you have a stronger case to make. Yes, Pilate did slay Samaritans who "claimed to be sons of Joseph". --- But notice that there is a strong and immediate link between the first three parts of that statement (Pilate - killing - Samaritans) but that the last two elements are more distant and not of the same proximity in the data as the first three.

Nonetheless, the association of the Samaritans with Joseph is well-known and generally understood, as even the DSS testify at the time.

Yes, it is a quite reasonable proposal to suggest that the gospel was set in Pilate's time in order to build on the link with Pilate as the slaughterer of the descendants of Joseph.

[Giuseppe]

I am satisfied that you like the argument.

My Mythicist sympathies are a bit deluded, though, because I don't know until what point if, starting with a mythicist argument (proving that Jesus was placed under Pilate for reasons not related at all to a hypothetical historical Jesus), I end ironically with a historicist argument (if, for example, Dennis McDonald is correct when he says that Pilate was decaded because he had killed a Samaritan prophet who claimed to be the Messiah Son of Joseph).

Bolland had the same my problem.

If you have read Bolland in the context, he doesn't introduce the link Pilate/Joseph to explain why Jesus was placed under Pilate (he had answered that question in another point, talking about John the Baptist considered to be the Prophet predicted by Moses). He thinks about that link in a context where the general tenor is to find possible clues of a historical Jesus or a "galilean tradition". He appears to conclude that the Samaritan false prophet is the only best candidate for the role of a "historical Jesus" in circulation, precisely because it is very hard to decide if Pilate was introduced in virtue of what Pilate did (== to kill Samaritans), or(==AUT) if Pilate was introduced in virtue of what the Samaritan false prophet did (== to be killed by Pilate).

In the latter case, the historicist probability increases.

[neilgodfrey]

I am satisfied that you like the argument.

My Mythicist sympathies are a bit deluded, though, because I don't know until what point if, starting with a mythicist argument (proving that Jesus was placed under Pilate for reasons not related at all to a hypothetical historical Jesus), I end ironically with a historicist argument (if, for example, Dennis McDonald is correct when he says that Pilate was decaded because he had killed a Samaritan prophet who claimed to be the Messiah Son of Joseph).

Bolland had the same my problem.

If you have read Bolland in the context, he doesn't introduce the link Pilate/Joseph to explain why Jesus was placed under Pilate (he had answered that question in another point, talking about John the Baptist considered to be the Prophet predicted by Moses). He thinks about that link in a context where the general tenor is to find possible clues of a historical Jesus or a "galilean tradition". He appears to conclude that the Samaritan false prophet is the only best candidate for the role of a "historical Jesus" in circulation, precisely because it is very hard to decide if Pilate was introduced in virtue of what Pilate did (== to kill Samaritans), or(==AUT) if Pilate was introduced in virtue of what the Samaritan false prophet did (== to be killed by Pilate).

In the latter case, the historicist probability increases.

There are many quests for the historical Jesus. Some find him in Jeschu of the Talmud, some find him in Jesus ben Ananias, some in Jesus ben Saphat, others in The Egyptian, and Bolland/Giuseppe in the Samaritan!


What all of these have in common, I think, is the failure to "take seriously" (I really do hate that expression!) the gospels as "midrashic" activity. They draw on figures from all over to make their Jesus: Moses, Joseph, David, Adam, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, Dionysus, Heracles, Hermes, Odysseus, Socrates, the Temple, the people of Israel, the Tabernacle, the Torah, Wisdom, . . .

There is no evidence that anyone in the first century attracted a popular following by declaring himself to be the messiah -- despite what so many read into (they cannot read it out of) Josephus. There is even some evidence that the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE merely left most people bemused and wondering when it would be rebuilt. No sudden panic looking at the sky hoping to see the messiah on his way.

In the second century we see the beginnings of attempts to link the destruction of the Temple in Hadrian's time with the events of 70 CE. That's when the shadows of Jesus ben Ananias and ben Saphat and others, perhaps, via their reading of Josephus, helped shape a narrative outline in the minds of the evangelists.

Before then, there had been isolated midrashic interpretations of this and that OT scripture to understand the messiah, but the plot for the story of the narrative came after 135 and some ideas from Josephus.

Once we forget about messiah-mania infecting the Palestinian landscape in the first century -- for which we have no evidence that I can identify -- then we no longer have any reason at all to look for any historical person as the model for any of the gospel Jesuses.

But I think you should advertize your concern that your investigations have led you to doubt mythicism and to think there was indeed at the root of it all a historical Jesus of some kind. That should, indeed, give pause to those who accuse mythicists of being on a mission to "destroy Christianity" by "disproving the historicity of Jesus".