Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Reasons to doubt:

• 1) Pilate is never mentioned as ἡγεμον in Mark, differently from Marcion's incipit etc.

• 2) from (1) it follows that one can't even reconstruct a hypothetical proto-Mark where an anonymous ἡγεμον is named, where now only "Pilate" occurs.

Pilate, for that matter, could be even a king or an emperor, in Mark there is no way to infer differently.

Now, in the Mandean texts, Pilate is named 'king of the world'.

Could "Mark" (author) also think about Pilate as the mere name for the 'king of the world' et similia during the time Jesus appeared on the earth?

The Jesus's answer in the Fourth Gospel:


assumes that Pilate is, by contrast, the "king of this world".

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:58 am The Jesus's answer in the Fourth Gospel:

My kingdom is not of this world

assumes that Pilate is, by contrast, the "king of this world".

When was Pilate declared to be the Emperor?

Google 'Pilate', 'Mandeans', 'king of the world'.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:26 am 'Mandeans', 'king of the world'.

It appears that the King/Prince of the/this World figure was the earliest conception of Christ's total antagonist, with the identification ranging from Satan, Yahweh, the Demiurge, or any combination of those. It looks like it was, at its earliest stage, an otherworldly figure (insofar as the devil or demiurge would be), but perhaps it was first historicized into the Emperor of the World, i.e. the Roman Emperor? Basically, I wonder if there was a stage between the otherworldly King of the World and Pilate where the perpetrator was, vaguely the Roman Emperor.

It also fits with my general theory that the older version of the gospel narrative featured its hero darting around the sea, with THE sea of the era being the Mediterranean. Probably at the same time that Pilate was specified as the perpetrator, the great sea was recast as Lake Tiberias (which we only seem to call a "sea" because the gospels do)