Basic reason why the name of Pilate was absent in the Earliest Passion Story extrapolated from Mark

[Giuseppe]

Isn't this solution a bit too inventive? (And to a "problem" that doesn't exist?)

the premise of the thread (see the first post) is the imperative removal of everything that can be explained by an midrashical, apologetical theological polemical, liturgical reason as mere late embellishment.
In other terms, I don't believe that the embellishment is original to the first gospel. By definition, the embellishment comes after the creation of the object that has to be embellished.

[davidmartin]

Pilate also serves a dating purpose though, otherwise how would we know when it all occurred? are there any other date markers apart from him?

But this idea to exonerate the Romans that's only applicable after Christianity is distinct new religion, though. I mean, if it's a Pilate isn't his Sanhedrin all full of his own Roman friendly buddies and didn't he appoint the high priest? If I was Pilate I'd be bribing and planting all the most loyal goons I could find to do my bidding. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe Pilate was weak and ineffectual. There is discrepancies in the gospel passion stories over who is in charge...??

[Giuseppe]

Pilate also serves a dating purpose though, otherwise how would we know when it all occurred? are there any other date markers apart from him?

simply, without Pilate, the original narrative was undated. Only a Roman "governor" was mentioned, without specifying his name.

But this idea to exonerate the Romans that's only applicable after Christianity is distinct new religion, though.

no, it is applicable only for mere diplomatic reasons. Therefore it is very probable that the Jewish trial comes after the Roman trial.

[Joseph D. L.]

Isn't this solution a bit too inventive? (And to a "problem" that doesn't exist?)

Biblical scholarship is anything but uninventive.

Given that Pilate was the name of the Roman prefect at this time.

I think to better explain Giuseppe's and my own angel of approach is detangling the motivation of why certain features were added to the narrative. For Giuseppe, if the ur-Gospel was completely allegorical/unhistorical, then these historizing anchors were added in full knowledge of this agenda. For myself these are more or less proxies for any number of emerging beliefs and traditions. For Giuseppe, Pilate symbolizes the knowledge of the celestial Christ spirit being released (or being disseminated) to the world; for me, Pontius Pilate is a proxy for Paul who symbolically is the last witness to Jesus's divinity.

[davidmartin]

interesting i suppose it makes no difference to the details of the story if it was earlier or later say under later governers all the way up to Fadus or Tiberius Alexander (i mean same setup, same relationship and background to the Romans/Jews) , but how to explain this -

in Luke Jesus is mocked and abused in the high priests house before being handed over to Pilate, in the other gospels this happens when Pilate has him and he does it. to me it looks like a marcionite position in Luke with the others disagreeing. i just thought, maybe the original story had it all the Romans and the culpability of the priests gets added later (by *ev changing who did the mocking and other embellishments like pilate washing his hands). I mean if you specifically want Jesus to be against YHWH you want the priests to be blamed, if you want him to be against 'the world or kosmos' who better than the rulers of the known world those damn Romans! : )

[Joseph D. L.]

interesting i suppose it makes no difference to the details of the story if it was earlier or later say under later governers all the way up to Fadus or Tiberius Alexander (i mean same setup, same relationship and background to the Romans/Jews) , but how to explain this -

in Luke Jesus is mocked and abused in the high priests house before being handed over to Pilate, in the other gospels this happens when Pilate has him and he does it. to me it looks like a marcionite position in Luke with the others disagreeing. i just thought, maybe the original story had it all the Romans and the culpability of the priests gets added later (by *ev changing who did the mocking and other embellishments like pilate washing his hands). I mean if you specifically want Jesus to be against YHWH you want the priests to be blamed, if you want him to be against 'the world or kosmos' who better than the rulers of the known world those damn Romans! : )

One point I think at the source of mine and Giuseppe's disagreement has been the nature of your last point. The thing is Jews rejecting their prophetic figure is very much in keeping with quintessential Judaism so it is not, for me, anti-Yahwist or contra Judaism. The same cannot be said of the Romans executing Jesus as this would be a gesture of defeat for them and would have clear anti-Rome sentiments attached to it. So it cannot be said that these are opposite positions, more like a table graph where both options have the same exact result at one corner. If the Gospel of Judas is anything to go off of its that the party culpable of fulfilling Jesus's death are in fact the heroes and not the villains, for this is necessary to make possible the very salvation he has come to deliver.

Does knowing who the accused party is reveal the true intention of the Gospel? I don't know. Reading Gospel of Peter I had the distinct impression that it was blaming both Rome and Jews to set Christians apart as a new race entirely. That was definitely what Justin believed they were.

[Giuseppe]

For Giuseppe, if the ur-Gospel was completely allegorical/unhistorical, then these historizing anchors were added in full knowledge of this agenda.

Correct. Pilate was added in virtue of the need of a releaser for Barabbas.

For Giuseppe, Pilate symbolizes the knowledge of the celestial Christ spirit being released (or being disseminated) to the world

Is is not correct. Pilate was chosen as name of the Roman governor (who was anonymous in the primitive narrative) only when the Barabbas' episode was interpolated and there was, only by then, the need of a releaser (PLT) for the released (Barabbas). My emphasis is on the two distinct logical steps: Barabbas was added, and consequently the name of Pilate was added. No Barabbas: no Pilate.

Pilate is not the sower of the parable, even if I concede that, for the anti-demiurgists, the demiurge posed as the Sower.

The same cannot be said of the Romans executing Jesus as this would be a gesture of defeat for them and would have clear anti-Rome sentiments attached to it.

I am applying correctly the criterion of embarrassment (i.e., the Jewish trial was introduced to exonerate the Romans) to derive a more old version of the story, not to derive a historical kernel.

The Romans were there because they had to replace the spiritual "rulers of this age" of 1 Corinthians 2:6-8.

[Joseph D. L.]

I apologize for mischaracterizing your position. To be honest I have never been able to wrap my mind around what you have been arguing because it seems so counterintuitive, especially with the obvert comparison to the Yom Kippur ritual in Leviticus 16.

I can follow the line of thinking that Pilate is added to give a logical believability to Barabbas who is the real allegorical element in the scene, and I have come to some what understand the strange innuendo of plt/Pilate, and I remember Huller once pointing out that "Marcion" was connected to a word which meant something like "fleeing criminal".

Maybe it's because I see a historical center at bottom of these allegories that I just find it easier to think that these writers were not at all clever enough to make such poetic and nuanced literature.

[Giuseppe]

especially with the obvert comparison to the Yom Kippur ritual in Leviticus 16.

I don't deny the midrash from Leviticus 16. But it gives merely the motive of the choice between the good guy and the bad guy. It doesn't say who has to allegorize the bad guy. The opposition "Son of Father" versus "called Christos" gives the identity of the former in opposition to the latter: a Jesus who is not the Jewish Messiah. That only difference (the absence of the title "Christos") makes him the bad guy. In short: the bad guy is the marcionite Jesus.

and I have come to some what understand the strange innuendo of plt/Pilate, and I remember Huller once pointing out that "Marcion" was connected to a word which meant something like "fleeing criminal".

PLT is a hebrew root. As such, it figures behind both the verb "to release" and "to be released". Therefore strictu senso a Pilate may mean also the "guy who is released". But since the context makes it clear that Pilate plays the role of the releaser, then PLT is used in the sense of allusion to the role of releaser.

Maybe it's because I see a historical center at bottom of these allegories that I just find it easier to think that these writers were not at all clever enough to make such poetic and nuanced literature.

indeed my difference is not only from historicists but also from other mythicists. The latter usually think that only a single genius ("Mark"?) was able in making such ironical and "clever" allusions (with all the other writers and interpolators and correctors being merely idiots), while I think that even the judaizers, even a "Matthew", could indulge in such "clever" allusions.

[davidmartin]

The Romans were there because they had to replace the spiritual "rulers of this age" of 1 Corinthians 2:6-8

I agree, this could be the root of it indeed - not that it has to depend on corinthians though...
over in the odes they don't seem interested in naming those responsible which is interesting
there is stuff like "For there went out from them smoke and condemnation but I was tranquil in the rank of the Lord’s people"
the word 'rank' is Tagma which could be a military legion. Is that a hint of Rome? The Odes certainly won't confirm it more like avoid the subject!
but if they aren't interested in 'naming and shaming' then what's left? spiritual rulers of the age type stuff...
and all this prior to any blaming of one party or another having a polemical motive

so on this I agree with Giuseppe minus the 1 Corinthians quote, that was probably common currency and not unique to the epistles so as to make it dependent on them. i mean, I picture some penniless old crone cursing whoever it was that in her view was an idiot, and of course its the whole stinking lot of 'em. the cat lady out the simpsons. this isn't some educated philosophical stance you need Plato for. 'rulers of the age' is just fancy words for passing the blame around equally so they all get the blame