Could the tradition of the crucifixion under Pilate come from a Samaritan source?

[mlinssen]

I'd have to check Klinghardt but I can imagine that Marcion just had Herod, that Mark invented Pilate

Unfortunately we have no evidence of Marcion being without Pilate, apart the not-so-strong 'argument' that a gentilizer would have hardly introduced a gentile as judge.
In addition, we have evidence of the sect of Carpocratians who possessed an image of Jesus painted by Pilate himself. Since the Carpocratians adored the images of Socrates, Pythagoras, etc., then that tradition about Pilate hardly has a catholic origin.

I can clearly see how carrying out the execution of Jesus by order of a Roman would be a fine mitigation attempt of a possible execution in *Ev by Judeans. But I have a very vivid imagination

I can have a go at it for 30 minutes and decide whether it's feasible or not. Or I could just continue to enjoy the sun and a beer

[Giuseppe]

There would be another argument to exclude that Mcn had Pilate:

Pilate was introduced because the historical Pilate was the famous slayer of Samaritans, and since the Samaritans called themselves 'sons of Joseph', then the obvious sequitur is that Jesus, while he is despised as 'Samaritan' by the sinedrites, is also implicitly recognized as 'son of Joseph'.

Could Marcion introduce the idea that Jesus was "son of Joseph", when the same Marcion denied a human birth for Jesus? Hardly so.

However here prof Vinzent comes in help, since he writes that precisely in the incipit of Mcn Jesus has to remove suspicions about him being a mere 'son of Joseph':

This is contentwise a somehow distorted passage, and the comparison with The Gospel teaches, why – it is the result of Luke avoiding to read it as a response to Jesus’ rejection of him being the Messiah ben Joseph, and as Jesus attacking his audience, knowing that they want to provoke him to heal himself, and to fight and to do precisely what they wanted to have proven, that he is the warrior ben Joseph Messiah. What in The Gospel is, indeed, a theologial dilemma, well grafted and literally formulated, has been watered down into an inconsistent narrative

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2011/ ... rding.html (my bold)

So in Mcn, according to Vinzent, the pharisees want that Jesus throws the mask and reveals himself as, in the same time:

• the son of Joseph, ergo a Samaritan, ergo a false Messiah;

• the son of Joseph, ergo a warrior, ergo one accused rightly of sedition.

• a mere human being, ergo not an alien deity.

Hence one may see clearly why Marcion himself introduced Pilate:

the choice of Pilate was part and parcel of the conspiracy of the pharisees against Jesus: just as they tempted him by asking "Is not this the Joseph's son?", in order to expose his humanity and false messianic status and sedition, so along the same line they "handed him over" to Pilate, in order to make him throw the (presumed) mask definitely before the famous historical enemy of the Samaritans so-called "Joseph's sons".

So Pilate is a sinedrite expedient to tempt Jesus.

Since Jesus doesn't triumph on Pilate, since at contrary (=antithesis) he is crucified by Pilate, then he reveals himself as not really the warrior messiah "ben Joseph".

[Giuseppe]

...continuing the post above...

There is another subtle clue why in Mcn Jesus couldn't be a "son of Joseph", despite of the fact that his judge was the famous slayer of Samaritans (so-called "sons of Joseph").

Joseph is said to be: carpenter.

So the two questions:

"Is not this the Joseph's son?"

"Is not this the carpenter's son?"

...are really interchangeable.

I know only one "carpenter" of the universe: the creator, the demiurge.

So, the denial that Jesus is 'son of Joseph" is equivalent really to a denial of Jesus as a mere creature of the demiurge. He is not son of YHWH, but of an alien god.

[Giuseppe]

the corollary of what I have described above, is that Pilate is mentioned implicitly in the same incipit of Mcn (1:3-7):

when Jesus came down from above, he appeared and began teaching in the synagogue.
And all were puzzled at the gracious words coming out of His mouth. And they said, ‘Isn’t this Joseph’s son? Let be! What have we to do with you, Jesus! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God.’ But Jesus rebuked him and said to them: ‘No doubt you will quote to me the proverb, “Physician, heal yourself!”’

That "let be!" is very illuminating, and I am very grateful to prof Vinzent for having pointed out it with so great emphasis. It allows to realize with certainty what is the logic of the enemies of Jesus in Mcn:

if Jesus is the Samaritan messiah "son of Joseph", then he has to be crucified by the famous slayer of Samaritans: Pilate.

So the same incipit has to be re-written for the insiders how it follows:

when Jesus came down from above, he appeared and began teaching in the synagogue.
And all were puzzled at the gracious words coming out of His mouth. And they said, ‘Isn’t this Joseph’s son? Let be! [==let him be killed by Pilate!] What have we to do with you, Jesus! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God.’ But Jesus rebuked him and said to them: ‘No doubt you will quote to me the proverb, “Physician, heal yourself!”’

[Giuseppe]

"Is not this the Joseph's son?" sounds as a valid reason for having Jesus crucified by Pilate and only by Pilate, given that

• Pilate was universally infamous as the slaughterer of Samaritans, and

• the Samaritans called themselves "sons of Joseph".

Corollary: if it was Festus, or Gratus, or another Roman governor X who crucified a lot of Samaritans, then we would have in the Creed today "he suffered under Festus, under Gratus, under X".

[schillingklaus]

Marcionists were no gentilizers, as the division of mankind in nations is something to be avoided altogether.