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

[davidmartin]

Reminds me of the wedding at Cana and Jesus refilling the water jugs with wine for the guests. A Bacchic influence perhaps? Judas partakes in the Bacchic sacrament and, drunk on the ecstasy of the Holy spirit, drives him to betray Jesus?

Maybe. The Odes have both positive and negative drunkenness
They lead astray the world and they destroy it and they invite many to the wedding feast and give out to drink the wine of drunkenness making them spew out their wisdom and their mind and they leave them senseless, then they abandon them


And speaking water came to my lips from the un-possessive Lord’s spring of life and I drank and became drunk on the living water that does not die. My drunkenness was not senseless but I forsook emptiness for the Most High my God and by His gift became enriched


I'm happy to call that two different sides of the same coin. Whether it's Bacchic, ummm confession time, my knowledge of that stuff sucks. I think the theme on its own is probably too common to narrow down without some other pointer cause drink was cheap, probably half the adult population of the ancient world at any given time was drunk out of their gourd.

[Giuseppe]

"Barabbas" as "bar Abba" would, I think, be generic enough to warrant such a broader interpretation, especially when you consider that the name Jesus was at one time appended before it.

Ok but do you think that the author of the Barabbas episode knew that "Barabbas" means "Son of Father" in Hebrew? If the answer is yes, then can we conclude that the author of the Barabbas episode, and by logical extension of the Pilate's episode, knew the Hebrew?

I don't claim to know the relative symbolism (well, really I do), but even beyond of it, I claim that the inventor of Barabbas, whoever he was, knew the Hebrew enough well to know what Barabbas means.

Question, is your theory about Barabbas possible even without the Pilate/plt layer?

Clearly so. Barabbas is based on Leviticus 16. Basically every possible detail minus the name: Son of Father. None can know who the Father is. There is the key of the enigma: an unknown Father is what makes virtually a such Jesus Barabbas execrable in the eyes of the inventor of Barabbas. The other Jesus at contrary is approved just in virtue of the his being a known Jesus: he is called the Christ, the king of the Jews. His messianic title allows to know his origin: the messiah is son of YHWH. There are no doubts: Barabbas is the execrated marcionite Jesus. The impostor who wanted to pose falsely as the true Jesus called Christ. The fact that Barabbas is interpolated in the Fourth Gospel is only a further detail to an interpretation that is already sufficient per se as proof of itself.

Forgive me if about Barabbas I sound dogmatic but really that is the interpretation that more makes sense to me.

The PLT affair at contrary is only required by the midrash on Leviticus 16, where the two goats become Jesus and Barabbas, while the role of releaser played by the high priest required an apt name for the (otherwise anonymous) governor. It happens that Pilate is a good historical candidate. Unfortunately, there was no Roman governor with HPLT in his name. But there was one with PLT in his name, and the not-theophoric name Pelet means "deliverance".

Another question, (and this is also for SA too), taking SA's criticism into account: could you accept that the the Pilate/plt is the result of the interpolator's misunderstanding of Hebrew, in that I mean the intent was still there even though the author would have been grammatically misappropriating the Hebrew to do so?

I think that the interpolator couldn't invent ex nihilo the name of a governor unknown to the History. He could only play with the cards given by real History, in this case. Pilate would have been the best he could gain.

[rgprice]

So the possibility is not so implausible, that Matthew has preserved here the original anonymous "governor" while "Mark" has removed it, just as "Mark" has preserved the old expression "called king of the Jews" while Matthew has replaced it with "called Christ".
Luke, when has expanded *Ev, felt obliged to add "when Pilate was governor of Judea" in the original incipit, hence emphasizing even more that the "governor" was "Pilate", as if these two items, "Pilate" and "governor", had been still remembered, even then, separated one from the other, as two free electrons.

Hence at the moment I am inclined to think that the author of Mark, or the author of *Ev, were mere beautifiers of the original narrative with the very short epilogue mentioning only an anonymous "governor".

There are many reasons why I don't think this is how things happened. But we may need to take a few steps back. Might there be a version of the Gospel narrative that does not name Pilate and instead uses governor? Yes. BUT that narrative wouldn't look like what you first proposed.

Was this ever a thing:

So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to the governor.
He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium). 20 Then they led him out to crucify him.
24 And they crucified him.
Jesus breathed his last.

No.

But was this a thing?

15 Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to the governor.

2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked the governor.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

3 The chief priests accused him of many things. 4 So again the governor asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.”

5 But Jesus still made no reply, and the governor was amazed.

6 Now it was the custom at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked the governor to do for them what he usually did.

9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked the governor, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have the governor release Barabbas instead.

12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” the governor asked them.

13 “Crucify him!” they shouted.

14 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked the governor.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, the governor released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Maybe, but I'd say that your interesting points about PLT = 'deliverance' work against such a proposition. However, I think my reconstruction of the opening of the First Gospel may open a door here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11542&sid=b682a9486 ... abc15b8c59

The result of that reconstruction is that Herod can be removed from the narrative. Herod is not the killer of John "the Baptist", so Herod has no need to be in the narrative at all. If we remove Herod we may have cause to remove Pilate as well. What we have in Mark then is a narrative that is not set in a particular time.

As for this:

the author of Mark, or the author of *Ev, were mere beautifiers of the original narrative

This is a complex issue to address for many reasons. Firstly when we talk about "Mark" who are we really talking about and what layer of revision are we talking about? I'm quite confident at this point that Canonical Mark was conformed to Matthew by the editor of the four Gospel collection. So yes, some layer of revision took place when "Mark" was added to the four Gospel collection. But it is doubtful that Pilate was added at this point, because Pilate exists in so many other Gospels, including non-Canonical. However, I do think that the naming of Jesus' mother as Mary was done at this point because the mother of Jesus is unnamed in core Luke/*Ev and John.

So I think that there is a "most recent" layer of Mark (not counting the even later additions of the longer ending and some other changes) that was created by the editor of the four Gospel collection, but the modifications made by this editor are relatively modest.

There were also, however, more significant modifications made prior to this. There were likely a few different modifications made. But the original narrative is the one that was heavily driven by scriptural references and the Pauline letters. So when we see narrative elements that are derived from scriptural references, like the Crucifixion and Psalm 22, that is the original narrative. There was no narrative prior to the narrative that was concocted from scriptural references. Prior to the narrative based on scriptural references there was only the Pauline letters and perhaps similar unwritten claims. "Jesus was Crucified by the archons in weakness and raised in glory" etc. But there was no story. The first story was the story that was invented based on Elijah/Elisha, etc. Prior to that we had mini-narratives, like the Christ Hymn from Philippians, which is a very small narrative of sorts, but that was about it.

The thing about what we have in the Gospel of Mark is that it is like a jigsaw puzzle. There are many pieces of it that MUST fit together, they have to go together and they all had to have been created by the same person as part of a single cohesive narrative. The thing about this narrative is that #1 The author of this narrative had to have a lot of freedom to invent what he/she wanted, so they were not constrained by any prior story. #2 Every other Gospel writer used this narrative as the base for their story, which shows that there was no other prior narrative to use. Everything traces back to a single narrative, not two or three sources, there is only one source. John does not come from multiple sources, it's new material is invented in response to the first narrative and other interpretations of the first narrative. The new material in John is specifically reactionary. For example the "miraculous signs narrative" in John is reacting to the claim in "Mark" that "no signs would be given". The writer is starting from that statement in the first narrative and then inventing a counter to it. The writer isn't working from some pre-existing separate narrative that talking about Jesus preforming signs.

So there are parts of Mark that all had to have come into existence simultaneously, they couldn't have been built up over time. I will grant that it is possible that the name Pilate could have been added later, BUT, as I said, the writer of the original narrative was a sophisticated user of hidden meaning, secret codes, symbolism, allegory, etc., and what you are proposing about the use of the name Pilate fits exactly to this writer's M.O.

I definitely think Barabbas was part of the original narrative, created by the person who invented the story based on the Elijah/Elisha narrative. The word play in the name Barabbas and its connection to "Abba, Father" in Mark 14 indicate that the person who put Barabbas in the narrative is the same person who wrote other elements of the story based on scriptural references and the Pauline letters.

Not one single other Gospel writer displays this type of sophistication or use of symbolism. All the rest are crude imitators.

[Giuseppe]

But was this a thing?

15 Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to the governor.

2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked the governor.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

3 The chief priests accused him of many things. 4 So again the governor asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.”

5 But Jesus still made no reply, and the governor was amazed.

6 Now it was the custom at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked the governor to do for them what he usually did.

9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked the governor, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have the governor release Barabbas instead.

12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” the governor asked them.

13 “Crucify him!” they shouted.

14 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked the governor.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, the governor released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Maybe, but I'd say that your interesting points about PLT = 'deliverance' work against such a proposition.

Indeed it is the same answer I would have given. Barabbas and Pilate (PLT) are doubly connected and both required by the midrash from Leviticus 16 (respectively as released and releaser). There are only two options: removing both them or having them both in the original story.

Not one single other Gospel writer displays this type of sophistication or use of symbolism. All the rest are crude imitators.

I understand your need of an original author who was a such genial symbolist.

From the other hand, was it ever possible that the earliest story had already an apologetical firewall against the easy and expected accusation that Jesus was a rebel merely in virtue of a Roman crucifixion? I mean: the fact that, with the Barabbas episode, the governor Pilate is virtually exculpated from any responsability, which is music for Roman authorities. I am inclined to think that before the accusation is thrown and after (i.e. after some time) the apologetical expedient (the Jewish trial, the Barabbas episode) is introduced.

Hence gradual expansions of the primitive story appear slightly more expected to me than a story already provided of the tools to justify itself before the Roman authorities.

[maryhelena]

Slavonic Josephus does not have a Barabbas and Pilate story:

THE MINISTRY, TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS.
(Follows on B. J. II. ix. 3.)

1. At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. 2. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man. 3. His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. 4. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. 5. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel.

6. And all that he wrought through some kind of invisible power, he wrought by word and command.

7. Some said of him, that our first Lawgiver has risen from the dead and shows forth many cures and arts. 8. But others supposed [less definitely] that he is sent by God.

9. Now he opposed himself in much to the Law and did not observe the Sabbath according to ancestral custom. 10. Yet, on the other hand, he did nothing reprehensible nor any crime; but by word solely he effected everything.

11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. 12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.

13. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives facing the city. 14. And there also he avouched his cures p. 107 to the people. 15. And there gathered themselves to him of servants (Knechten) a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude.

16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us. 17. But that one scorned it.

18. And thereafter, when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the High-priest and spake: "We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans. 19. But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined." 20. And they went and told it to Pilate.

21. And he sent and had many of the people cut down. 22. And he had that wonder-doer brought up. And when he had instituted a trial concerning him, he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free. 23. He had, you should know, healed his dying wife.

24. And he went to his accustomed place and wrought his accustomed works. 25. And as again more folk gathered themselves together round him, then did he win glory through his works more than all.

26. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. 27. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose.

28. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.

https://sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm

The Slavonic Josephus story does not name the 'anointed one'/ wonder doer, or the baptizer figure - suggesting the naming took place later - then perhaps re the gospel story - Barabbas was a later literary figure addition to the story. Since the Slavonic Josephus, Philo and Josephus, have used the name *Pilate* without any need to make a connection to Barabbas - this whole debate is pretty meaningless. The name stands, as it were, on its own.

[rgprice]

From the other hand, was it ever possible that the earliest story had already an apologetical firewall against the easy and expected accusation that Jesus was a rebel merely in virtue of a Roman crucifixion? I mean: the fact that, with the Barabbas episode, the governor Pilate is virtually exculpated from any responsability, which is music for Roman authorities. I am inclined to think that before the accusation is thrown and after (i.e. after some time) the apologetical expedient (the Jewish trial, the Barabbas episode) is introduced.

Hence gradual expansions of the primitive story appear slightly more expected to me than a story already provided of the tools to justify itself before the Roman authorities.

Yes, BUT. I think we are saying the same thing, just thinking about it in different ways. You say, "expansions of the primitive story appear slightly more expected."

I'm saying yes, there was a "primitive story", but that "primitive story" was very primitive. It is merely the Christ Hymn and similar accounts.

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

This is the primitive story. And take note of something here.

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.

19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the Lord will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it!

Yes there are a variety of complexities in trying to read one reference directly into the other, but the themes here are clearly consistent.

The Christ Hymn tells us that "every knee should bow" and "every tongue" should praise the Lord. It is no coincidence that the writer of the Gospel narrative chose this Psalm as the inspiration for his crucifixion scene. The choice of this Psalm was dictated by the Christ Hymn. The Christ Hymn is the prior narrative.

The Christ Hymn tells us that the crucifixion of Jesus is what brings about the universal worship of the Lord. Psalm 22 tells us that the salvation of the suffering servant will result in the universal worship of the Lord. But, in typical "Markan" fashion, Jesus is not "saved" in the way that the Psalmist envisioned, by preventing the harm, rather he is saved through resurrection from the harm, according to Pauline teaching.

[maryhelena]

Referring to Pilate as a governor is in the Slavonic Josephus story. War gives Pilate as a procurator.

Slavonic Josephus. And then a govenor was sent by Tiberius to Judaea. who brought into Jerusalem secretly by night the image of Caesar called 'semaia'. And he set it up In the city. And when morning came, the Jews seeing It. created a great tumult being horrified at the sight of their law being [thus] trampled on. It does not allow any image in the city. And the people from round about all came running in haste, when they heard what had happened. And they hastened to Caesarea imploring Pilate to remove the semaia from Jerusalem.

Josephus War. Pilate, being sent by Tiberius as procurator to Judaea, introduced into Jerusalem by night and under cover the effigies of Caesar which arc called standards. This proceeding when day broke. aroused immense excitement among the Jews: those on the spot were in consternation, considering their laws to have been trampled under foot. as those laws permit no image to be erected in the city; while the indignation of the townspeople stirred the country-folk. who flocked together in crowds. Hastening after Pilate to Caesarea the Jews implored him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to uphold the laws of their ancestors.

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison: H. Leeming (Author), K. Leeming (Author)

Matthew ch.17

And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

Makes no sense to me to attempt to remove the name *Pilate' from an earlier version of the gospel story - Pilate is the governor the gospel writers place their crucifixion story under. What is the point of attempting to remove the name of the governor - Pilate ?

[rgprice]

One problem is that biblically the deliverer is God. So its putting Pilate in the place of God here which is a little... awkward although I suppose the counter to that is Pilate is doing 'God's will' in delivering Barabbas. Still, it's a bizarre interpretation where a cypher for another Jesus gets delivered by Pilate acting as 'God the deliverer' meanwhile the other Jesus isn't delivered and calls out 'why am I forsaken' to God the deliverer.
This is whack. I can't get my head round it. How is this Marcionite? or is it anti-Marcionite or something else. Is Pilate 'the just God' of justice or the 'good God'?
Because the implication is the 'good/just God saves his son' (and Pilate is portrayed as a good/just guy contrary to every expectation since he's reported to be a real sod). Is what happens to Barabbas a form of ransoming according to Marcionite ideas? I do not know. All I'm saying is... it's a really bizarre scene that Giuseppe managed to pull out of the text!

All this has to be interpreted through the sources used by the writer, which were the Jewish scriptures and the Pauline letters.

1 Cor 2:7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Working from Pauline theology, Jesus has to "die for the sinner". That Jesus is executed in place of Barabbas the sinner is just the narrative fulfillment of Pauline teaching.

That Jesus says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," on the cross is just part of the literary allusion to Psalm 22, which is provides the scriptural fulfillment of the Christ Hymn from Philippians 2, as I just explained in a prior post. The story cannot be understood without understanding the literary references being made by the writer, to both the Pauline and Jewish scriptures.

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena wrote, above, Thu Feb 29, 2024 8:37 am, in part, that it
"Makes no sense to me to attempt to remove the name *Pilate' from an earlier version of the gospel story -[....]"
I agree with her about that.

[Joseph D. L.]

Maybe. The Odes have both positive and negative drunkenness

There might be something there. I have speculated that the Odes were an inspiration to the Johannine theology with the Temple being washed away in a divine torrent. Jesus's miracle with the water turning to wine might add to the symbolism.

Getting drunk was believed to be imbibing the essence of Bacchus which gave his Maenads their madness.