Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by Giuseppe »

Indeed, even the suffering servant of God in Isaiah was so unmistakably described as man that the most resolute elevation of his figure to the supernatural and metaphysical world, such as we find in Paul, could not obliterate his human features. The question is, whether these features are those of a real, that is to say historical, man: whether the heavenly being which must appear as a man according to Paul came upon the earth at a definite moment in historyIndeed, even the suffering servant of God in Isaiah was so unmistakably described as man that the most resolute elevation of his figure to the supernatural and metaphysical world, such as we find in Paul, could not obliterate his human features. The question is, whether these features are those of a real, that is to say historical, man: whether the heavenly being which must appear as a man according to Paul came upon the earth at a definite moment in history.
(Arthur Drews, Witnesses to the historicity of Jesus Christ)

Surely the Ignatius et alia's emphasis that Jesus died "under Pontius Pilate" betrayes all the desire of placing the Paul's Jesus "at a definite moment in history", but Paul never specifies which is the "right time" for Jesus's death. If that time was more specific and/or recent in the eyes of Paul, why wasn't he more specific?

If you say, á la Maurice Casey, that it's idiotic (I go to memory) for Paul remember that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, then why did Ignatius insist so much to remember that Jesus was crucified "under Pilate"? Evidently it was theologically necessary for Ignatius remember Pilate. Why couldn't it be as well theologically necessary for Paul? Only because the enemies of Paul weren't the same enemies of Ignatius? In both the cases, you are moved to accept

1) that Paul didn't know no Pilate, and so no historical Jesus, (since he never mentions Pilate)

Or

2) that the enemies of Ignatius didn't know no Pilate, and so no historical Jesus (since Ignatius takes disturb to remember them the role of Pilate)..

In both the cases, you have to admit the existence of mythicist Christians.


A possible objection represented by the claim that the enemies of Ignatius were only docetic historicist Christians and not docetic myticist Christians is easily confuted: if the enemies of Ignatius were docetic historicist Christians, then Ignatius would have simply need to remember that "Jesus really suffered and died". The addition of Pilate continues to be not-necessary for a simply anti-docetic Ignatius...

(just as mentioning Pilate would be not-necessary for a presumed historicist Paul)

...unless the enemies of Ignatius were docetic mythicist Christians, i.e. Christians who didn't put the apparent crucifixion of Jesus "at a definite time of history".

And as for the enemies of Ignatius, so for Paul.

So the more simple explanation is that both Paul and the enemies of Ignatius didn't put Jesus's death under Pilate.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by Giuseppe »

A dialogue between Ignatius and Paul:

Ignatius: Jesus was really killed under Pilate.

Paul: why do you think that the "right time" of the Death of the Son was the time under Pilate? Nobody knows when the Son was killed. Only God knows.

Ignatius: Jesus was really killed in Jerusalem.

Paul: why do you think that the place of the Death of the Son was Jerusalem? Nobody knows where the Son was killed. Only God knows.



So what is more undefinite than the archontic region between the earth and the moon?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by arnoldo »

The Emperor Julian also found it surprising that no one of the time mentioned Paul.
for nowhere did . . . Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by John T »

arnoldo wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:50 pm The Emperor Julian also found it surprising that no one of the time mentioned Paul.
for nowhere did . . . Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

"On 26 June, 363, he [Julian] was wounded in the side by an arrow in a small cavalry skirmish, and died during the night. Various reports concerning the circumstances of his death have come down to us. Both Christians and pagans believed the rumor that he cried out when dying: Nenikekas Galilaie (Thou hast conquered, O Galilean)."...http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08558b.htm

Trained as a mythicist pagan but died as a Christian?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by hakeem »

An Epistle under the name of Paul mentions a character called Pontius Pilate.

1 Timothy 6:13---I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by arnoldo »

Another thing that is surprising is why Tacitus doesn't mention Paul yet mentions Pilate.
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... acitus.htm

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by Giuseppe »

Please don't mention hearsay or interpolation in Tacitus (who is from second century).

I see that nobody attempts a confutation of the topic of this thread.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by arnoldo »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:17 am Please don't mention hearsay or interpolation in Tacitus (who is from second century).

I see that nobody attempts a confutation of the topic of this thread.
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:17 am 1) that Paul didn't know no Pilate, and so no historical Jesus, (since he never mentions Pilate)

Or

2) that the enemies of Ignatius didn't know no Pilate, and so no historical Jesus (since Ignatius takes disturb to remember them the role of Pilate)..
Perhaps there is a third option?
3) Paul didn't mention Pilate directly due to the same reason the writer of Revelations doesn't mention Rome.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by toejam »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:39 am A dialogue between Ignatius and Paul:

Ignatius: Jesus was really killed under Pilate.

Paul: why do you think that the "right time" of the Death of the Son was the time under Pilate? Nobody knows when the Son was killed. Only God knows.

Ignatius: Jesus was really killed in Jerusalem.

Paul: why do you think that the place of the Death of the Son was Jerusalem? Nobody knows where the Son was killed. Only God knows.
LOL. Where the heck does Paul say that "nobody knows when" Jesus was killed? And Paul does make allusions to the crucifixion event happening in Judea/Zion in 1 Thess 2:14 and Rom 9:33... oh but I'm sure you've got a whiz bang interpolation / 'alternative' interpretation to grasp for...

Paul never says that Jesus was crucified in outer-space. And he does not say that "nobody knows when" Jesus was crucified. Pilate may well be included within the category of Paul's ignorant "rulers (ἀρχόντων) of this age", ἀρχόντων being a term he elsewhere uses to refer to earthly rulers (Rom 13:3). That Pilate is missing by name in Paul's epistles is really an irrelevance.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why it 's surprising that Paul didn't mention Pilate

Post by Giuseppe »

toejam wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:48 pm
LOL. Where the heck does Paul say that "nobody knows when" Jesus was killed? And Paul does make allusions to the crucifixion event happening in Judea/Zion in 1 Thess 2:14 and Rom 9:33... oh but I'm sure you've got a whiz bang interpolation / 'alternative' interpretation to grasp for...
So you know already my answer.

Paul never says that Jesus was crucified in outer-space.
to think that x is died on the earth in an undefinite time is equivalent to think that x is died in outer space (the undefinite place par excellence).


And he does not say that "nobody knows when" Jesus was crucified. Pilate may well be included within the category of Paul's ignorant "rulers (ἀρχόντων) of this age", ἀρχόντων being a term he elsewhere uses to refer to earthly rulers (Rom 13:3).
That Pilate is missing by name in Paul's epistles is really an irrelevance.
Apart the fact that it is extremely relevant for me your use of conditional (''may''...), it is abundantly clear for me what you are escaping deliberately in this thread:

i.e. the fact that for Ignatius the name ''Pilate'' is not an irrelevance.


And Ignatius is the same person who used a lot of times the construct ''according to flesh'' to refer to the humanoid nature of Jesus. Just as Paul.

So we have two writers of epistles who use the same construct, but only one of them mentions ''Pilate''.

This is the exact contrary of irrelevance.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply