Is Pilate really a positive figure in Mark? A case for Barabbas=the spiritual Christ

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe wrote:

... the Cerinthians (the first users of proto-Mark) ...

Where do you get the idea that the Cerinthians used proto-Mark (whatever that may be)? My understanding is that the Cerinthians used a form of Matthew.

Assuming obviously that Cerinthus never existed but the ''Cerinthians'' existed, I agree fully with pseudo-Tertullian about their description:

Pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. omn. haer. 3 :

“His successor was Ebion, not in agreement with Cerinthus in every point, because he says that the world was made by God, not by angels, and because it is written, no disciple is above (his) master, nor a servant above (his) lord, he brings to the fore likewise the Law, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.”

So in my view it is really expected that the Cerinthians evolved in Ebionites (i.e. that proto-Matthew corrected proto-Mark) since the former were Gnostics (haters of the Creator) while the latter were later Judaizers (worshipers of the Creator).

Probably the Cerinthians are those described by Ireneus as users of proto-Mark.

[John2]

I see now. You are inferring the idea that the Cerinthians used Mark from Ireaeus AH 3.11.7:

For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

Okay, but the Ebionites also "separate Jesus from Christ," but as Irenaeus notes, they used "Matthew's Gospel only."

Hippolytus notes that the Ebionites ("similarly with Cerinthus") separated Jesus from Christ in RH 7.22:

The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

And Epiphanius says in Pan. 30.14.2-4:

For by supposedly using their [the Ebionites] same so-called Gospel according to Matthew Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph's seed and Mary.

But these people [the Ebionites] have something else in mind. They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew's Gospel and make its opening, as I said, 'It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan' and so on.

This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him—as we have found already in other sects—and been united with him. Christ himself is from God on high, but Jesus is the offspring of a man's seed and a woman.

[neilgodfrey]

Usually it is common to say that Pilate is a saint in the Gospels, to give the ''hot potatoes'' to the Jews. Ok this for Matthew and John. But is it true also for proto-Mark and proto-Luke (= Mcn in my view) ?

You may find something of use in an older post I wrote arguing that Pilate in the Gospel of Mark (our canonical version, however) is portrayed as an evil Roman potentate toying with the crowds to have them bay for the blood of Jesus. http://vridar.org/2009/05/17/that-villa ... l-of-mark/

[John2]

Giuseppe,

Also, what Irenaeus says about those who "separate Jesus from Christ" in AH 3.11.7 is gainsaid by what Epiphanius says about Cerinthus.

AH 3.11.7:

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

Pan. 28.6.1:

In turn this Cerinthus, fool and teacher of fools that he is, ventures to maintain that Christ has suffered and been crucified but has not risen yet, but he will rise when the general resurrection of the dead comes.

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe,

Also, what Irenaeus says about those who "separate Jesus from Christ" in AH 3.11.7 is gainsaid by what Epiphanius says about Cerinthus.

AH 3.11.7:

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

Pan. 28.6.1:

In turn this Cerinthus, fool and teacher of fools that he is, ventures to maintain that Christ has suffered and been crucified but has not risen yet, but he will rise when the general resurrection of the dead comes.

How can you derive a dependence of Irenaeus on Epiphanius on an information so general? In addition, Irenaeus talks about the Gospel of Mark, that is absent in the words of Epiphanius about Cerinthus. It is not clear what is your point: it seems that you don't like the fact that Mark is said to be a separationist Gospel according to some heretics...

[John2]

Giuseppe wrote:

How can you derive a dependence of Irenaeus on Epiphanius on an information so general? In addition, Irenaeus talks about the Gospel of Mark, that is absent in the words of Epiphanius about Cerinthus. It is not clear what is your point: it seems that you don't like the fact that Mark is said to be a separationist Gospel according to some heretics...

I'm fine with the idea of Mark being a separationist gospel according to whoever, but my point is null because (as I had been wondering in the back of my mind) the word "Christ" in Pan. 28.6.1 is purely Epiphanius' choice and is not intended to convey the idea that Cerinthus thought that "Christ" suffered in contrast to what Irenaeus is saying in AH 3.11.7. This is obvious by what Epiphanius says about Cerinthus in Pan. 28.1.5-7:

I have already said of him that he too preached that the world was not created by the first, supreme power—and that when 'Jesus,' the offspring of Mary and the seed of Joseph, had grown up, 'Christ,' meaning the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, came down to him in the Jordan from the God on high, revealing the unknowable Father to him, and through him to his companions.

And therefore, because a power had come to him from on high, he performed works of power And when he suffered, the thing that had come from above flew away from Jesus to the heights.

Jesus has suffered and risen again but the Christ who had come to him from above flew away without suffering—that is, the thing which had descended in the form of a dove—and Jesus is not Christ.

I still don't get the impression, however, that Irenaeus is alluding to Cerinthus or the Cerinthians in AH 3.11.7.

Cerinthus is mentioned once in this context, in 3.11.1:

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impassible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable.

Then in 3.11.2-3 he discusses these kinds of "errors" and mentions Marcion and others, and judging from what he says in the bolded part I would include among them Cerinthus:

But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge. For he (Soter) caused such similitudes to be made, after the pattern of things above, as they allege; but the Demiurge accomplished the work of creation. For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother ...

But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Æons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if anyone carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; while others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary.

This, then, is the context of 3.11.7 (with the key part bolded).

Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,— [principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

So the question is, does the bolded part refer (or apply) to Cerinthus? I suppose it could, but in AH 3.11.3 Irenaeus mentions two names, Marcion and Valentinus, and then says as "they will have it":

For they [Marcion and Valentinus] will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma.

But then he says that "others" make the assertion "that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary," and that part seems more applicable to Cerinthus:

Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible.

And this makes me suspect that "Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark" in AH 3.11.7 is not directed at Cerinthus, because we know from other sources that Cerinthus was someone who thought "that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible" (as Irenaeus puts it above).

As Epiphanius puts it:

Pan. 28.1.2:

For he [Cerinthus] slanderously gives the same account of Christ as Carpocrates, that he was born of Mary and Joseph's seed, and likewise that the world was made by angels.

Pan. 28.1.5:

I have already said of him [Cerinthus] that he too preached that the world was not created by the first, supreme power—and that when 'Jesus,' the offspring of Mary and the seed of Joseph, had grown up, 'Christ,' meaning the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, came down to him in the Jordan from the God on high, revealing the unknowable Father to him, and through him to his companions.

And Pan. 28.5.1:

For they [the Cerinthians] use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy—and they cite the following as a proof-text, arguing from the Gospel, ' 'It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master.'

And it would make sense if the Cerinthians used Matthew given their association with Ebionites (who used only Matthew), and because Mark doesn't mention Joseph's name.

As Epiphanius says in Pan. 30.14.2:

For by supposedly using their [the Ebionites] same so-called Gospel according to Matthew Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph's seed and Mary.

[John2]

Yes, Irenaeus more or less rules out Cerinthus as a candidate for "Those ... who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark" in AH 3.11.7 by what he says about Cerinthus in AH 1.26.1 regarding Joseph (who is not named in Mark) and then associating him with Ebionites (who used only Matthew, which does name Joseph) in 1.26.2, all of which is in keeping with what Epiphanius says about Cerinthus:

1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree [with orthodox Christians] that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only ...

[Giuseppe]

I don't see the reason to make a so complex castle of dependence only in order to distance Cerinthus from the first separationist users of Mark.

1) ''Mark'' was separationist.
2) ''Cerinthus'' was separationist.
3) Therefore ''Cerinthus'' = ''Mark''.

It seems clearly that you don't like the fact that "Those ... who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark" in AH 3.11.7 consider the man Jesus à la Cerinthus way: ''as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary''.


The silence about Joseph in Mark doesn't prove that the author of Mark was unaware of Joseph as father of the man Jesus, since Mark did mention Mary.
I think that if the man Jesus did come to be purified by his sins at the Jordan (as he does in Mark), then he was ''more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men'', in other words, his observance of the Law of the Demiurge was not vain after all, if he wanted to be purified by going to John the Baptist.

The alternative would be that the man Jesus was (FOR MARK) only a terrible sinner, mere passive recipient of the Christ. But which is the theological goal behind this alternative (negative) conception of the man Jesus possessed by the spiritual Christ?

After all, the function of a recipient of a sacred spirit is to be as much as possible clean and unblemished by sin. Mary is Virgin because she gave birth to a god. So Jesus is a right man according to the Law because he has to contain the spiritual Christ.

According to Dykstra, the Jesus in search for baptism by JtB is the Paul sinner as anti-christian persecutor. But that hypothesis is too much speculative.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't see the reason to make a so complex castle of dependence only in order to distance Cerinthus from the first separationist users of Mark.

1) ''Mark'' was separationist.
2) ''Cerinthus'' was separationist.
3) Therefore ''Cerinthus'' = ''Mark''.

While I have no strong opinion as to the identity of Mark and Cerinthus, I do know a faulty syllogism when I see one:

• Ted Cruz is a Southern Baptist.
• Billy Graham is a Southern Baptist.
• Therefore, Billy Graham = Ted Cruz.

[John2]

Giuseppe wrote:

I don't see the reason to make a so complex castle of dependence only in order to distance Cerinthus from the first separationist users of Mark.

1) ''Mark'' was separationist.
2) ''Cerinthus'' was separationist.
3) Therefore ''Cerinthus'' = ''Mark''.

I don't see it as being complex so much as just acknowledging the context of Irenaeus' statement in AH 3.11.7, which is that there were multiple separationist sects who preferred to use Mark, and maybe Irenaeus is including Cerinthus among them and maybe not, but judging by what he (and others) say about his association with Ebionites and their use of Matthew and repeated references to Joseph and Mary (who are both named in Matthew, unlike in Mark), I would lean towards maybe not.

Some of these separationist "heretics" are named and some aren't. In 3.11.2-3 he only names Marcion and Valentinus but there are more who are unnamed ("others like him"; " certain of the Gnostics"; "some"; "others"; "the very heretics"; "the systems of them all"). So there are a multitude of other options besides Cerinthus here (who is not named in 3.11.7 and whose "system" is represented by just one of the several that are mentioned there, i.e., "others ... say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary," which matches what Irenaeus says about Cerinthus in AH 1.26.1). He could have had any number of these "other" sects in mind as "preferring the Gospel by Mark."

And he associates Marcion with Luke and Valentinus with John and Ebionites with Matthew and not with Mark, even though their beliefs are separationist. So why should we think that he has Cerinthus in mind when he refers to those who prefer Mark when he associates Cerinthus with Ebionites (who used only Matthew) and Joseph and Mary (who are both named in Matthew) elsewhere?

In other words, Marcion and Valentinus also "separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered" in 3.11.3 (like Cerinthus in AH 1.26.1):

But, according to these men [Marcion and Valentinus], neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Æons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma.

But they aren't consequently said to have preferred the gospel of Mark in 3.11.7:

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.