Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:51 pmBut when you read those sections you find key details that have no part of our canonical gospels, so whether one says Justin knows the canonical gospels of if, as Wells says, those passages are interpolated into Justin from our gospels, we have a problem.

the point of Wells is not that Justin is based on our canonical Gospels. He says that Justin sounds more genuine when he repeats that the Jews and only them crucified Jesus (Gospel of Peter here?) while there are strong clues that where he talks about Pilate and/or Acts of Pilate, it is not the true Justin who is speaking, but a late interpolator.

So, if one accepts that Wells' conclusion about Justin, the Secret Alias' case for antiquity of Pilate in the Gospel tradition collapses a priori.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:02 am

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:51 pmBut when you read those sections you find key details that have no part of our canonical gospels, so whether one says Justin knows the canonical gospels of if, as Wells says, those passages are interpolated into Justin from our gospels, we have a problem.

the point of Wells is not that Justin is based on our canonical Gospels. He says that Justin sounds more genuine when he repeats that the Jews and only them crucified Jesus (Gospel of Peter here?) while there are strong clues that where he talks about Pilate and/or Acts of Pilate, it is not the true Justin who is speaking, but a late interpolator.

So, if one accepts that Wells' conclusion about Justin, the Secret Alias' case for antiquity of Pilate in the Gospel tradition collapses a priori.

Yes, I know that, and I said that in my comment -- (I explicitly covered two options, including the Wells' interpolation view) -- and my point was that even as an interpolation it fails because the interpolator is not drawing on our canonical gospels. The interpolation thesis has significant problems.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:16 amand my point was that even as an interpolation it fails because the interpolator is not drawing on our canonical gospels. The interpolation thesis has significant problems.

the interpolation is inserting references to late Acts of Pilate, not to our canonical gospels.

Frankly I don't understand your point. And how you can harmonize the Justin's view (against only the Jews as killers of Jesus) with the mention of Pilate. As to the difficulty of having both the views as original, Wells lists some strong anomalies in the text. Anomalies that disappear without the mention of Pilate in Justin.

In addition to this, the clear anti-marcionite implication of a Roman trial is alone decisive to reject the presence of Pilate in the First Gospel. Enough beyond if Justin mentioned him or not.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:48 am In addition to this, the clear anti-marcionite implication of a Roman trial is alone decisive to reject the presence of Pilate in the First Gospel. Enough beyond if Justin mentioned him or not.

You sound as sure of that as you once did of the "certain proof" that Pilate was part of the original gospel on the basis of the Barabbas/Atonement argument.

Check the data discussed and think it through and see if Wells' argument really is as watertight as you say -- as watertight as your earlier logic on the Pilate argument once was.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 3:13 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 2:48 am In addition to this, the clear anti-marcionite implication of a Roman trial is alone decisive to reject the presence of Pilate in the First Gospel. Enough beyond if Justin mentioned him or not.

You sound as sure of that as you once did of the "certain proof" that Pilate was part of the original gospel on the basis of the Barabbas/Atonement argument.

Check the data discussed and think it through and see if Wells' argument really is as watertight as you say -- as watertight as your earlier logic on the Pilate argument once was.

I have passed through various views, Indeed.

• Before, reading this article, I believed that Pilate was the natural translation of a Gnostic myth.

• Then, as you have pointed out, docet Dubourg, that Pilate was part of the original gospel on the basis of the Barabbas/Atonement argument

.

• Now , docet Wells, my current position is that a trial before Pilate works very well as pointer to Messianic credentials of Jesus, against Marcion.

It's that sort of experience, familiar to us all, that leads me to shuffle and hesitate a little when someone asks me for my view on X. I know my views have changed so are likely to do so again -- so what is the value of my understanding at this moment? Unless it is to underscore the tentative nature of it all.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 10:50 am Paul teaches:

'On that cross he discarded the cosmic powers and authorities like a garment.'

Paul also reminds initiates who have symbolically died and resurrected with the figure of Jesus:

'Did you not die with Christ and pass beyond the reach of the elemental powers of the cosmos?

[/box](Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, p. 154, my bold)

In which letters from Paul did he proclaim these teachings?

Colossians 2:20

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:35 am Colossians 2:20

For both of them?