Page 1 of 1
Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2022 3:49 am
by Giuseppe
Because a story where the Jews
alone would have crucified Jesus would have been easily rejected as fiction.
All the peoples in the Empire knew well that only the Romans had the copy-right on the crucifixion.
So the various Justin, Ignatius, Origen, etc knew well that, only by mentioning Pilate, the story would be appeared more and more as History.
Trypho in Justin appears to know only a story where the Jews are the
direct authors of the crucifixion (even more so if Justin introduces Pilate as if he was introducing a new information for Trypho, one never before known by the latter).
Accordingly, Trypho's reaction is rather logical:
you invent a Christ for yourselves...
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:51 am
by schillingklaus
No, it was the other way round: The Jews were originally not part of the crucifiction but only inserted at a later point, exonerating Pilate.
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:27 pm
by Giuseppe
Mmm... In Mcn we have "archontes" referred to the chiefs of the Jews.
The point is that when Ignatius insists that Jesus was crucified really under Pilate, his effort is clearly meant to fix Jesus under the clear light of the History, by simply mentioning the magic word "Pilate".
Pilate is mentioned sine ira et studio, as a banal clarifier.
Which means, by applying easily the 'effect contrast', that a previous narrative without Pilate existed, a narrative where the clarity was absent in the fact itself that the Jews alone had the full control of the crucifixion.
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:49 am
by Baley
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 3:49 am
All the peoples in the Empire knew well that only the Romans had the copy-right on the crucifixion.
But in Antiquities 13, Chapter 14 we can read how the Maccabean king Alexander Jannaeus had hundreds of Pharisees crucified.
2. Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes. This was indeed by way of revenge for the injuries they had done him; which punishment yet was of an inhuman nature, though we suppose that he had been never so much distressed, as indeed he had been, by his wars with them, for he had by their means come to the last degree of hazard, both of his life and of his kingdom, while they were not satisfied by themselves only to fight against him, but introduced foreigners also for the same purpose; nay, at length they reduced him to that degree of necessity, that he was forced to deliver back to the king of Arabia the land of Moab and Gilead, which he had subdued, and the places that were in them, that they might not join with them in the war against him, as they had done ten thousand other things that tended to affront and reproach him.
Were these Pharisees first lapidated and then crucified? Were they put to the cross straight away without stoning? Whatever the case, crucified they were - by a Jewish king-priest.
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:39 am
by Giuseppe
Baley wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 7:49 amWhatever the case, crucified they were - by a Jewish king-priest.
sure. Crucified by a Jewish king-priest in a very remote past, for Josephus
in primis.
No Pilate, no Party for a historical Jesus.
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:28 am
by mlinssen
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 3:49 am
Because a story where the Jews
alone would have crucified Jesus would have been easily rejected as fiction.
All the peoples in the Empire knew well that only the Romans had the copy-right on the crucifixion.
So the various Justin, Ignatius, Origen, etc knew well that, only by mentioning Pilate, the story would be appeared more and more as History.
Trypho in Justin appears to know only a story where the Jews are the
direct authors of the crucifixion (even more so if Justin introduces Pilate as if he was introducing a new information for Trypho, one never before known by the latter).
Accordingly, Trypho's reaction is rather logical:
you invent a Christ for yourselves...
Most excellent Giuseppe - that's an astonishing discovery!
I'll have to retrieve the specific examples in order to verify, but if true then it's a no-brainer indeed that the Romans added Pilate. He'd be a perfect witness as well to advise for the dating of course.
And if there's no Pilate in *Ev then it's highly likely that there are no other signs of Roman rule either: no centurions, but most certainly no Roman loanwords whatsoever - unless those had a meaning that was absent in the native language the text was written in (though copying it into another language may require a loanword for the same reason)
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:38 am
by Giuseppe
mlinssen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:28 am
And if there's no Pilate in *Ev then it's highly likely that there are no other signs of Roman rule either: no centurions,
there would be the possibility that the centurion was a marcionite invention, since we have
archeological evidence that some Gnostics portrayed the demiurge as a centurion.
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:38 am
by Giuseppe
So Schilling Klaus is right: Pilate was introduced in the earliest gospel.
For an anti-demiurgist,
It was sufficient the symbol of the earthly power (in this case, a Roman governor) to identify eo ipso the longa manus of the evil demiurge YHWH.
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:49 am
by Giuseppe
This means that even the Ascension of Isaiah is Gospel-based.
Re: Why Pilate replaced the "Jews" as killer of Jesus
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:54 am
by Giuseppe
If I remember well, Jean Magne argued for the Roman hegemon being anonymous in the earliest gospel. I should recover the article where he said so.
So the possibility is concrete that while the Roman governor was original in the earliest gospel, only the name 'Pilate' was a Catholic addition.