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

[davidmartin]

The egyptians got ritually drunk if i remember as well? some festival or other

You're talking about Ode 4. I've studied the temple washing episode. here's some notes i made
it's unclear if the temple is washed away the flood seems to stop at the temple, not be restrained by it (or its inhabitants) and carry on to flood the entire world. after that the flood becomes a life giving drink which everyone can drink since everything was flooded.
put it this way. the idea the flood washes away the temple is sort of suggested without being said it's all very metaphorical
the flood seems to pause at the temple overcome some restraints there then carry on I wonder if this is an allusion to the crucifixion more than the temple being washed away

literally - flooded for everything and-broke and-arrived to-the-temple

Does the destructive flood destroy the temple or merely arrive at it?
Lattke has ‘and it flooded everything and shattered and carried it to the temple’
Zinner has ‘it flooded everything, and it covered and carried the Temple’

The key word is ‘arrived’ – the Aleph means ‘to make come, to summon, bring’. It’s worth noting that a word of the same spelling means ‘a sign, mark, token’. This could be significant

Lattke says the object of the last 2 verbs is the ‘everything’ and the metaphor is the stuff the flood collects is brought to the temple.
I don’t see here that the temple is being broken up or carried off. The flood comes to it and we find out what happens next in the following verses.

‘Arrived at’ = ‘Came to’
‘Flooded’ – ‘to rush as a torrent or flood, to overflow, overwhelm, seize, carry away’. Yes, here the object is the ‘everything’
‘Broke’ – ‘to break up small, shatter, pound’
The Coptic doesn’t help much here it has ‘it dragged everything along and turned toward the temple’.

[Joseph D. L.]

The egyptians got ritually drunk if i remember as well? some festival or other

Yes. Specifically it was to be imbued with the Ka of the Osiris/ntr. Not quit the intoxicating reverie of the Dionysian mystery.

With the Odes, keep in mind:

the flood is destructive
it turns to the Temple (one translation does speak of it being swept away)
the flood waters are what shall sustain man

It is as you say metaphorical but metaphors have to have a grounded meaning for them to make sense and in the context of what is described the Temple can only be washed away, or at the least washed out and sanctified anew.

[davidmartin]

you might be right (ode 6) but it can't be translated as swept away that translation is false I checked the Syriac, but you are right it could be understood to mean that and argued that is the intended meaning (which the translator used to inform his translation in this case)

it is also possible that it's the inhabitant's of the temple, ie the Sadducees not the actual building because it speaks of 'the craftiness of those whose business is to restrain water'' located at said temple
so we can't know if the temple still stood or not at the time of the composition of this ode
maybe the gospel story of Jesus arriving there is what it has in mind. i'm still undecided. I'll admit the Odes are not exactly pro-temple but it's not in a Marcionite sense, the flood originates from the 'most high' himself

It is referencing perhaps Habakkuk 2:14 'For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea'. I'm assuming this is classically messianic being referenced by the Odes here

[Joseph D. L.]

I don't want to dwell on this for too long since that is a habit I am trying not to repeat. I will concede the more direct reading is spurious and stick with the mainstream one in which I don't really have anything more to say about that. From a base reading it seems to indicate to me that the Odes are looking forward to a renewal of the Temple, whether or not that means destroying completely and starting fresh is what is not as clear.

My thinking is still in line somewhat with Xoroaster's in a preexisting Johannine theology that sprung up as a result of the Temple's destruction 70ad so in that way the Odes would be closer to it and not a Marcionite theology which came much later and different reasons, possibly as an outgrowth. So for that admittedly self-serving reason I am comfortable in dating the Odes 71+ad.

[Joseph D. L.]

Thinking a little bit about it. John the Baptist much??? Huh. Oh well.

[davidmartin]

I don't want to dwell on this for too long since that is a habit I am trying not to repeat. I will concede the more direct reading is spurious and stick with the mainstream one in which I don't really have anything more to say about that. From a base reading it seems to indicate to me that the Odes are looking forward to a renewal of the Temple, whether or not that means destroying completely and starting fresh is what is not as clear.

My thinking is still in line somewhat with Xoroaster's in a preexisting Johannine theology that sprung up as a result of the Temple's destruction 70ad so in that way the Odes would be closer to it and not a Marcionite theology which came much later and different reasons, possibly as an outgrowth. So for that admittedly self-serving reason I am comfortable in dating the Odes 71+ad.

I'm well familiar with that self serving reason for datings. I think the Odes are comfortable with the spiritualised inner temple idea and are adamant about it. and this does not help date them. i date them pre 70 for another reason, the messianic idea is primitive and couldn't work after 70 (without some alt. theories with laser beams on their foreheads).
i'm happy to talk about the odes all day long its the one text i actually spent time looking at properly but this may not be the place, i've forgotten what the original question was

[Giuseppe]

To put the things in clear about the genius who discovered the first time Palat in Pilate:

Diese Haltung eines römischen Militärs ist ganz unmöglihc. Josephus schildert uns einen ganz anderen Pilatus, der an Strenge und Bedenkenlosigkeit dem Pilatus der Evangelien in allem widerspricht. Nach jüdishcem Strafrecht hätte Jesus nur den Stephanustod durch Steinigung erleiden können, den Tod des Ketzers, der sich am jüdischen Glauben vergangen hatte. Und das war wieder nicht die Strafe, die in die Zuständigkeit des Pilatus gefallen wäre. Der Widespruch des Josephus-Pilatus und des Evangelien-Pilatus ist nicht zu lösen. Hier stimmt etwas nicht. Und da den geschitlichen Tatsachen nicht zu widersprechen ist, so gehört der Evangelien-Pilatus in das Gebiet der Dichtung. ich verweise hier auf mein Buch «Christus-Mysterium», S. 115. Der evangelische Pilatus is kein echter Pilatus, er ist nur die Maske des geschichtlichen Pilatus; sein Inneres ist nur die hebräische Wortwurzel «palat»: retten, loslassen, entkommen lassen. Der Dichter hat es darauf abgesehen, seinen Pilatus so sehr wie möglich zu entlasten, und dagegen das Volk und die Hohenpriester so sehr wie möglich zu belasten, das Tempeljudentum und den Jerusalemismus überhaupt, nach Apk 2, 9: die Blasphemie, die von denen kommt, die sich selbst Juden nennen und doch nicht Juden sind, sondern die zur Synagogue des Satans gehören.

(Hermann Raschke, Der ungeschichtliche Jesus, in Karlheinz Deschner, Jesusbilder in theologischer Sicht, p. 397)

I raise an appeal to all the people who can find or read or quote the page 115 of the Raschke's book, Das Christusmysterium.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

... Der Dichter hat es darauf abgesehen, seinen Pilatus so sehr wie möglich zu entlasten, und dagegen das Volk und die Hohenpriester so sehr wie möglich zu belasten, das Tempeljudentum und den Jerusalemismus überhaupt, ...

(Hermann Raschke, Der ungeschichtliche Jesus, in Karlheinz Deschner, Jesusbilder in theologischer Sicht, p. 397

I would rather not share this view. Do you agree with Raschke on this point?

[Giuseppe]

... Der Dichter hat es darauf abgesehen, seinen Pilatus so sehr wie möglich zu entlasten, und dagegen das Volk und die Hohenpriester so sehr wie möglich zu belasten, das Tempeljudentum und den Jerusalemismus überhaupt, ...

(Hermann Raschke, Der ungeschichtliche Jesus, in Karlheinz Deschner, Jesusbilder in theologischer Sicht, p. 397

I would rather not share this view. Do you agree with Raschke on this point?

I think that it is too much obvious, that having a Pilate releasing Barabbas works also, inter alia, as a good pro-Roman apologetics. Note that without the release affair, Pilate (or the Roman governor who was in his place, since Pilate is connected with the idea of the release), would be portrayed very negatively. Why do you disagree with the elementary idea that the idea of the release (between Jesus and Barabbas) is what makes Pilate a good guy (and the Jews the bad guys)?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I would rather not share this view. Do you agree with Raschke on this point?

I think that it is too much obvious, that having a Pilate releasing Barabbas works also, inter alia, as a good pro-Roman apologetics. Note that without the release affair, Pilate (or the Roman governor who was in his place, since Pilate is connected with the idea of the release), would be portrayed very negatively. Why do you disagree with the elementary idea that the idea of the release (between Jesus and Barabbas) is what makes Pilate a good guy (and the Jews the bad guys)?

I fully understand the argument and its strength, including the broader circumstances. I largely agree with that too. I just think it's about something else.

My impression is that these historical-critical scholars believe that blame for Jesus' death was a hot topic - as if we were fighting over Markan priority. But I think that Matthew, Luke/Marcion and John were totally cool and only had the sensibilities of their readership in mind, and therefore wanted a more Roman-friendly gospel on this point. (Just as the Centurion of Capernaum was introduced to appeal to an even larger and financially stronger readership.) I hope I was able to make it somewhat clear that imho there is a difference.

I also believe that the Barabbas story in GMark has nothing to do with this question in the first place, but should be understood primarily from a post-war perspective (the Jews made the wrong decision under the influence of the religious elites). Of course that's not your point of view.

I would also argue that from the perspective of a patriotic Roman, some things in GMark might seem offensive, especially that Pilate does not carry out formal legal proceedings (which, in my opinion - Markan priority -, Luke/Marcion have carefully corrected and even describe a very painstakingly Pilate, who even considers the question of foreign jurisdiction and hands Jesus over to Herod). But you could draw the same conclusion: if Mark cut all that out, he was trying to make Pilate look really bad.