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

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

Post by Giuseppe »

So tojeam is challenged between the two horns of the beast:

if for Paul ''Pilate'' is not relevant, why is ''Pilate'' relevant for Ignatius?

Best answer: because the enemies of Ignatius placed probably Jesus not under Pilate.

If for Paul ''Pilate'' is relevant, why there is no ''Pilate'' in Paul?

Best answer: because Paul placed Jesus not under Pilate. -----> i.e. in the outer space.



In both the cases toejam has to explain why there were Christians who didn't place Jesus under Pilate.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I'm suspicious as to how Pilate even became involved. If indeed the NT is a late second construct, with the relevant events occurring in the late first, early second century, then how did Herod the Great, Caiaphas, and Pontius Pilate become interwoven into the narrative?

To put it another way, why did the church feel the necessity of placing its origins in the early first century? What motifs were at work?

Also, what significance did Tiberius have for pseudo-Marcion?
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 »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:35 am I'm suspicious as to how Pilate even became involved. If indeed the NT is a late second construct, with the relevant events occurring in the late first, early second century, then how did Herod the Great, Caiaphas, and Pontius Pilate become interwoven into the narrative?
Pilate may be the result of the theology behind 70 - 40 = 30 CE (if the focus is the Destruction of Temple in 70).

Or Pilate may be the result of Augustus proclaiming the Pax Augustea as a new golden age (if the focus is to show Jesus as the new Jewish Messiah for the gentiles).
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 »

Question. Did Paul exist in outer space or in the earthly realm?
http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/12-2.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 respect the Mythicists, arnoldo.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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 said:
So tojeam is challenged between the two horns of the beast:

if for Paul ''Pilate'' is not relevant, why is ''Pilate'' relevant for Ignatius?

Best answer: because the enemies of Ignatius placed probably Jesus not under Pilate.

If for Paul ''Pilate'' is relevant, why there is no ''Pilate'' in Paul?

Best answer: because Paul placed Jesus not under Pilate. -----> i.e. in the outer space.

In both the cases toejam has to explain why there were Christians who didn't place Jesus under Pilate.
I didn't say Pilate was not relevant to Paul. I said his lack of a reference to Pilate by name is an irrelevance to your point. Note that Ignatius doesn't mention Pilate's name in most of his epistles, thus showing that it was not always necessary for someone who believed Jesus was crucified under Pilate to mention him in an epistle. Like I said, Paul may well include Pilate within his category of ignorant "rulers (ἀρχόντων) of this age", with ἀρχόντων being a term he elsewhere uses to refer to earthly rulers (Rom 13:3). Have you considered that the reason why Paul doesn't mention Pilate by name is because no one in the communities he was writing to were questioning that? Why do you not present this in your possible explanations? Seems to me you're playing 'heads I win, tails you lose' - when reference to Pilate is made in late sources like Ignatius, you count this as evidence of early communities who didn't believe Jesus was crucified by Pilate, and when no reference is made in early sources, this counts as evidence of early communities didn't believe Jesus was crucified by Pilate.

Pilate is named by Ignatius because he's tackling docetists who think that Jesus only "appeared" to suffer. Ignatius never says that his docetic foes are placing Jesus' crucifixion exclusively in outer-space. Pilate the character was also probably becoming a more common part of the Christian imagination in the early 2nd C (e.g. see the Acts of Pilate, etc.). That Pilate may not have been as indispensable to the tradition in Paul's day does not mean that Paul thought Pilate was irrelevant or that it's suddenly more likely that Paul thought Jesus had only been crucified in outer-space. Your leap from "no Pilate in Paul ------> [Paul thought Jesus was crucified] in the outer space" is just that. A leap. Paul also never says that Jesus was crucified exclusively in outer-space either. Instead, Paul makes references to the crucifixion happening in Jerusalem. But of course you write them off as interpolation without attestative support (even Marcion's gospel included 1 Thess 2:15 it seems) and/or Paul only speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem...
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: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:54 pm when reference to Pilate is made in late sources like Ignatius, you count this as evidence of early communities who didn't believe Jesus was crucified by Pilate, and when no reference is made in early sources, this counts as evidence of early communities didn't believe Jesus was crucified by Pilate.
when Ignatius uses the construct "Kata sarka", the historicists take it as a sure evidence of historicity in Paul also.


This is the great mistake I see in your words:
Pilate is named by Ignatius because he's tackling docetists who think that Jesus only "appeared" to suffer.
if I want to combat simple docetists, there is no need for me of "Pilate" (for that it is sufficient to insist simply that Jesus "really" suffered on the cross: what Ignatius does already) while I would have extreme need of "Mary" (to argue that Jesus is "born really by woman") and of "John the Baptist" (to argue that Jesus is "born really under the Law"): virtually Ignatius mentions Mary and John. So your historicist view of the enemies of Ignatius doesn't explain why Ignatius had to mention Pilate and just Pilate.


About your insistence on 1 Thess 2:14-16 you know already my answer.


About my logical "leap":

If you don't like the "outer space" as logical conclusion of the surprising absence of "Pilate" in Paul, you may well replace an undefinite past and place in any my mention of "outer space" in my words above. The (mythicist) result is the same.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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 »

^Ignatius wasn't writing with the intent of being as succinct and economical as possible. The texts are polemic. Ignatius wants to stretch his points, not be economical. Your assumption that Ignatius didn't need to mention Pilate to make his point is over stated.

Paul distinctly locates Jesus in Jerusalem, and the time can be implied by Paul's reference to Jesus's brother.

Look at all the cards that have to fall in your favor in order for your hypothesis to hold: Firstly, Ignatius' foes can't just be run-of-the-mill docetists, they have to have believed that Jesus was crucified in outer-space. But no where does Ignatius say this. Secondly, you're asking us to assume that this form of doceticm Ignatius criticizes was around in Paul's day too. Assuming authenticity, Ignatius' epistles date at least to the late 1st / early 2nd Century - a generation before Paul's heyday. We are then required to assume that Paul himself held to this retrojected form of docetism, despite that Paul's epistles make numerous explicit and implicit reference to Jesus' earthly activity. To do this, we are asked to follow speculative unattested interpolation theories and interpretive leaps beyond plain readings. Paul's numerous references to Jesus being a born of a woman under the [Mosaic] law, his being an Israelite and descendant "according to the flesh" of David and Jesse, his being a brother to James, his teachings involving handling bread and cups one night "after supper", his crucifixion in Judea/Zion that Paul blames on Judean Jews, his burial, etc. are all to be understood as either allegory or 'alternatively' interpreted. It's simply too much of a stretch for all this to fall in place.
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: Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:28 am ^Ignatius wasn't writing with the intent of being as succinct and economical as possible. The texts are polemic. Ignatius wants to stretch his points, not be economical. Your assumption that Ignatius didn't need to mention Pilate to make his point is over stated.
Two objections to your claim that Ignatius is not deliberately economical:

1) If Ignatius wanted not be economical in the his polemic aganst banal docetists - or, alternatively if ''Pilate'' is so irrelevant for Ignatius also -, then why did not Tertullian - himself in polemic against really a historicist docetist (Marcion of Sinope), and surely not someone who was ''of few words'' - mention Pilate in any moment of the his polemic against Marcion?

2) really, what Ignatius says about a Gospel Jesus is truly only a minimal part of what a Gospel Jesus is:

Jesus Christ… was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died… He was also truly raised from the dead.

(Trallians 9)

''under Pontius Pilate'' is really an useless expression if meant as an anti-docetic expression. In another point Ignatius reports in a negative form what is the belief of the his enemies:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

(Smyrneans 7)

See what is clearly missing: these Christians deny that that ''flesh ... suffered for our sins'', but there is no mention of Pilate there. So what is the entire point behind the mention of Pilate by Ignatius? And moreover, of a so strange temporal expression as ''under Pilate'' ?

I can insist that Hitler died in 1945 only in polemic against who says that Hitler is still alive in Argentina. I can insist that America was discovered the first time ''by Colombo'' only in polemic against who says that Vikings discovered America before Colombo. So Ignatius could insist that Jesus died ''under Pilate'' only in polemic against who placed Jesus in an undefinite past (hence my implication of ''outer space'' as the undefinite space par excellence).

Look at all the cards that have to fall in your favor in order for your hypothesis to hold: Firstly, Ignatius' foes can't just be run-of-the-mill docetists, they have to have believed that Jesus was crucified in outer-space. But no where does Ignatius say this.
I repeat again: for me ''outer space'' or a ''time different from Pilate'' ''pari sono'' (translated: are equivalent things). So please don't misrepresent my arguments.

Secondly, you're asking us to assume that this form of doceticm Ignatius criticizes was around in Paul's day too. Assuming authenticity, Ignatius' epistles date at least to the late 1st / early 2nd Century - a generation before Paul's heyday. We are then required to assume that Paul himself held to this retrojected form of docetism, despite that Paul's epistles make numerous explicit and implicit reference to Jesus' earthly activity.
Against any your (only presumed) Pauline reference to Jesus's ''earthly'' activity, it is surely more important and more strong, alone, the great evidence of pre-pauline docetism found in the pre-pauline Hymn to Philippians: ''in form of men'' ≠ ''fully man''.


To do this, we are asked to follow speculative unattested interpolation theories and interpretive leaps beyond plain readings. Paul's numerous references to Jesus being a born of a woman under the [Mosaic] law,
It is very surprising that ''among so many cards that have to fall in your favor'' there is a particular card that falls (coincidentially?) in my favor:

These things are being taken allegorically.

(Galatians 4:24)

his being an Israelite and descendant "according to the flesh" of David and Jesse,
the Messiah has to be by need so. Even if he is seen only in hallucination:

He [Moses Al-Dar'i] informed them that the Messiah had come, as was divinely revealed to him in a dream.

(Maimonides, Epistle to Yemen, 12th century)

And note that your loved prof Ehrman is greatly mistaken when he says that the Jews couldn't never invent a suffering Messiah: they already had identified Cyrus as the Messiah, and Cyrus was crucified!

For instance, when Cyrus the king of the Persians, the mightiest ruler of his day, made a campaign with a vast army into Scythia, the queen of the Scythians not only cut the army of the Persians to pieces but she even took Cyrus prisoner and crucified him; and the nation of the Amazons, after it was once organized, was so distinguished for its manly prowess that it not only overran much of the neighbouring territory but even subdued a large part of Europe and Asia.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... html#ref25
his being a brother to James,
As any baptized Christian. (per Romans 8:28-29)

his teachings involving handling bread and cups one night "after supper",
just as in the Mthras cult (per some angry Father of the Church).
his crucifixion in Judea/Zion that Paul blames on Judean Jews,
were then ''the Jews'' the rulers of the world? Only for the ''anti-Semite'' Sejanus.

his burial, etc.
Yes, ''according to scriptures'' all is possible.
are all to be understood as either allegory or 'alternatively' interpreted. It's simply too much of a stretch for all this to fall in place.
I would be grateful if you attempt a confutation of my views only about the Ignatius's mention of Pilate (that is the real subject of this thread, thanks).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply