“Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

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

“Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Giuseppe »


“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
You have said so,” Jesus replied.

(Mark 15:2)

According to Couchoud, "Mark" wanted confirm precisely the identity of Jesus before Pilate at least in a point: he was the Jewish Christ. So there is no question that the crucified Jesus was the "one called king of the Jews" and not the robber "Son of Father".

The answer of Jesus emphasizes the fact that Pilate was to call him "the king of the Jews": the same person who decided his crucifixion knew who he was condemning to death.

So the role of Pilate is the role of the primary witness of the Jewishness of the Crucified Christ.

This is why Pilate appeared in the Testimonium Taciteum: he confirmed the Jewish identity of the auctor nominis eius.

So the entire sense of the trial before Pilate is to secure the readers that, even if in the first trial before the Sanhedrim Jesus seems to be so foreign to the sinedrites, even so an impartial judge as Pilate is able to confirm that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.

This fact reveals that the second trial before Pilate was a late insertion. In the Earliest Gospel Jesus was killed directly by the Jews to a such enigmatic degree to raise doubts about his being really the Jewish Messiah.

And so, thanks to Couchoud, I realize now the true reason of the introduction of Pilate in the Gospel tradition.
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: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Giuseppe »

So the demonic "rulers of this age" were euhemerized by the Earliest Gospel not as Pilate and the Romans, but as the Jews or only the Sinedrites among them.

This means that the first "persecutors" of the Church were the same Jews and/or the Judaizers.
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: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Giuseppe »

It is incredible how these few lapidary words of Couchoud have unveiled an entire lost world in the my eyes:


In front of Pilate Jesus is formally accused of saying is Christ, a King (Luke 23:2), and when Pilate asks to him whether he is it, he does not contradict. Thus there is no doubt. The one crucified in truth is well Jesus the Christ.

Once you realize how all that emphasis is so interested and polemic in essentia, only then the Earliest Gospel appears there in the horizon.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Stuart »

You read the passage too superficially. John's Christ is denied by the Jews (representing Jewish Christians of the Matthew text, or what evolved into Catholics). The entire passage from verse 18:29 to 19:22 is a rewrite of Matthew's account (or something like that) to underscore the difference between the Jews and Jesus and also Pilate. The most important verse in this sequence is 19:21 when the Jews (Jewish Christian stand-ins) say after Pilate inscribes King of the Jews on the title of the cross, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'This one (a) said, I am King of the Jews.'" This is a flat rejection of John's Jesus, saying it is not the Jesus they believe in. (Note, we are given a hints of this in verses 7:41-42 which the Matthew version fulfills in verses 2:1-16, and 7:52, as well as pro-Torah conditions for Jesus in 9:28-29)

Pilate makes common ground with Jesus in two points. First when he tells the Jews to "judge him by your own law" (these are Torah observing Christians) in verse 18:31. This is exactly in line with how John's Jesus characterizes the law and the Jews (i.e., Jewish Christian), referring to it as "your law" in verses 8:17 and 10:34, and by implication not his (Jesus') law. Pilate then settles it in verse 18:35, saying, "Am I a Jew?"

John's story is not anti-Marcionite in focus, but anti-Matthew. John's Christ is similar to the Marcionite, but differs in in certain respects. The sharpest contrast is in co-opting John the Baptist to be of the same God as Jesus, and not aligned with the Jewish God. This puts John in conflict with both the Jewish Christians of Matthew and the Marcionites.

Footnote:
(a) I changed "Man" to "one" (underlined) as the Greek is ἐκεῖνος not ἄνθρωπος, specifying that "this one" as in John's Jesus.
Last edited by Stuart on Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:46 pm You read the passage too superficially.
...
Pilate makes common ground with Jesus in two points. First when he tells the Jews to "judge him by your own law" (these are Torah observing Christians) in verse 18:31. This is exactly in line with how John's Jesus characterizes the law and the Jews (i.e., Jewish Christian), referring to it as "your law" in verses 8:17 and 10:34, and by implication not his (Jesus') law. Pilate then settles it in verse 18:35, saying, "Am I a Jew?"
all correct but only an observation: what you seem not note is that the author of proto-John (I mean: the gnostic John you are referring as a gnostic a bit different from marcionites) is accepting Pilate but under a condition: he is really reiterating the point of the first Jewish trial (the only trial of the Earliest Passion Narrative: the "Jews" - as you say, the Judaizers - killed Jesus) so de facto making it entirely vain the same real reason of the (Judaizing) introduction of Pilate in the story: to establish the "fact" that Pilate crucified just the king of the Jews and not someone different from the king of the Jews (as could be a "Jesus Son of Father").

The titulum crucis had precisely the same function of Pilate (i.e. judaize Jesus in the eyes of the readers), so it is not surprising that the gnostic John, being in a situation where he has to accept velim nolim the titulum crucis as integral part of the Gospel (once it was introduced in the gospel tradition by the Judaizers for the reasons above described), de facto de-judaized the titulum crucis, by specifying, just as you say, that the same Judaizers reject the fact that Jesus is their Jewish Christ:
The most important verse in this sequence is 19:21 when the Jews (Jewish Christian stand-ins) say after Pilate inscribes King of the Jews on the title of the cross, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'" This is a flat rejection of John's Jesus, saying it is not the Jesus they believe in.
I should conclude necessarily that:
1) Pilate
2) Barabbas
3) the titulum crucis

Were all items introduced by the Judaizers to make it more clear that Jesus was the Jewish Christ.

The Gnostics like the author of proto-John accepted these items (so de facto giving up to the previous Gospel narrative that was basically without these three items) by gnosticizing them in the manner descrived above.

So just as they accepted the Titulum Crucis, so they accepted Barabbas, despite of the fact that the Titulum Crucis and Barabbas were introduced by the Judaizers.

Note that also the two robbers are a Judaizing item: Jesus is enumerated among the robbers so he can't say that he is different from who preceded him (the robbers = the OT prophets).

So the Gnostics did make evil at least one of the two robbers, to reiterate the difference.
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: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Giuseppe »

In virtue of what I have written above, the difference between my view and Stuart's view is basically that I think that we have sufficient evidence to conclude that the Earliest Gospel was without Judas, Pilate, Barabbas, the Cyrenaic, the titulum crucis and the two crucified robbers .

And in a next thread I will say how was the original Empty Tomb story in the Earliest Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Stuart »

One thing you are correct in, each Gospel author built upon the elements of myth of his predecessor(s). Once an element is accepted as part of the story, rather than drop it if it conflicts with your theology, you flip it to match your theology. This is a spot on observation! But your argument falters after that. (I'll accept that first observation independent of your conclusions, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater)

[digression]
This process is what I refer to as the polemic debate developed at the dinner table (the Christian ritual of eating the meal or "breaking bread"). One can see how Marcion while having a Docetic Christ, had him eat fish to prove his resurrection was real. This became the argument for a flesh Jesus. Then Apelles (and other Gnostics) sought to explain this flesh of Jesus by saying he borrowed elements from the heavens as he passed down from the Pleroma to earth. You can see a similar development with Adoptionist positions, and also the proto-Orthodox until we eventually arrive at the Trinity.
[/digression]

As for the robbers, I am not sure they are part of the "first version" of John which I refer. I think only these word were original from verses 19:17-18
19.17 So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross.

This is to reiterate that John's version of Jesus never asked for the cup to be removed (he refutes the synoptic accounts), and that no Simon or anyone else bore the cross for him, he alone took it up. The mention of Golgatha and the robbers is purely a later harmonization to the synoptic accounts, as neither plays a role in John's story. In fact they intrude on the story, which continues about the cross, and make the crucifixion occur before even writes the inscription!

Now if you wish to say the Catholic version of John opposes the Marcionites, well I think you have your work cut out for you before you can even make such a statement. You have to identify what is later Catholic revision, and then identify whether it has any specific theological value or is simply harmonization. My take on the ending is that it went something like this:

18:29-19:23a (stops before "But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom"), then 19:28-29 read,
"After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Then 19:38-20:1, 20:11-20:15 and then some parts of 20:16-18.

I am partly convinced Peter does not appear in the original version of John. (note his absence from the walking on water, and in general the secondary nature of everything he says -- you can remove his every verse from the story and it flows seamlessly.)

Anyway, until you reconstruct that first version of John (and in my view its roughly 90-95% of the content of chapters 1-19, with surprisingly little added to Catholicize it; and ironically I think the first published version was itself two layers -- there is a subtle difference in theology between the narrators words and the story in that version).
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Giuseppe »

I don't assume that proto-John is the Earliest Gospel in any case. It is clearly after Matthew. So I don't see which utility is in reconstructing proto-John if our first goal is to reconstruct the Earliest Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Stuart »

Matthew isn't the earliest either. It's a reaction of it's own, witness verse 5:17.

BTW, your second post is true, but only in the same sense as Political parties today run people out who do not accept their creeds out of the party. When John speaks of ἀποσυνάγωγος he means being barred from the building/compound.

It is probably easier to think of early churches as something like a modern mosque, where many different philosophies may be taught by different teachers (preacher) putting forth their school's (sect) doctrine. As time passed one group (proto-Ortodox "Jewish Christians") assumed control of the Synagogue (physical church building, like a mosque today) and appointed an official bishop (Imam for Sunnis) who controlled the building and led the official sessions. He was the leader of the elders, and with them they started to exclude those of competing philosophies/theologies. This is what John's Gospel speaks repeatedly in terms of his disciples fearing the Jews/Pharisees (Jewish Christians/their clergy or brethren) who are throwing people out of the building.

We today tend to read persecution in post-Decian and even more post-Diocletian persecution eyes of the 4th and 5th century accounts in which found their way into the writings under the name Eusubius. But if we go back to the original meanings of the words, persecution (διώκω, per John 5:16, 15:20 as well as many other places in the NT ... note, this is an element in Mark 4:17 that indicates it is later than the other synoptic accounts) meant to harass, heckle, chase out, put to flight. This goes hand in hand with ἀποσυνάγωγος, which is essentially excommunication, banning somebody from the church compound. That practice of ἀποσυνάγωγος, is quite probably the reason Gnostics went "underground" and became secret societies within the Church, and did not have an apparent -or rather visible to outsiders- hierarchy in order to avoid such banishment. John's Gospel is almost an announcement of going underground.

************************
As for the reconstruction, or at least the understanding of what is early and what is later in John, that is necessary to understand what John was responding to.

BTW, I don't think you will find the magical "first Christian beliefs" with the original Gospel. This is because when the Gospels were first written, the major sects we know about in the 2nd century already existed and competed. It was evangelism that "kicked it up a notch" and caused the explosion of writings that became the New Testament. What I suspect you will find is a proto-Gospel used as a sort of play in various Jesus communities (monasteries similar to the Theraputae) where scenes were acted out. Many different monastic orders (sects) had their hand in the prototype, and like the Pauline writings even in Marcionite form, a diversity of elements and theologies were mashed together within it.

It may seem a cop out, but even getting to the above description of the origin is pretty speculative, although it fits the evidence and gives motive for the rapid and diverse compositions of the NT.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Are you the king of the Jews?” as anti-marcionite question

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:05 pm One thing you are correct in, each Gospel author built upon the elements of myth of his predecessor(s). Once an element is accepted as part of the story, rather than drop it if it conflicts with your theology, you flip it to match your theology. This is a spot on observation! But your argument falters after that. (I'll accept that first observation independent of your conclusions, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater)
From what I understand, it seems that for you the ''baby'' would be the fact that ''each Gospel author built upon the elements of myth of his even rival predecessors'', while the ''bathwater'' would be the my conclusion that the Earliest Passion Narrative had Jesus crucified only by the Jews. But that conclusion descends directly from the obssessive insistence by the Judaizers that Jesus is the king of Jews (with a lot of items introduced only to that goal) and from the Gnostic acrobacies to reiterate, even by accepting these items, the point that Jesus is not the king of the Jews.

What is more probable, given that scenario, is that the entire second Roman trial was a later addition to the preceding Gospel. Given that the only role of Pilate is the same role of the titulum crucis. If the Gnostic author of John was disturbed by the titulum crucis (to the point that he invented the words "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'This one (a) said, I am King of the Jews.'", as you have so well described, to neutralize in advance the theological judaizing effect of the titulum crucis), then the logical conclusion is that the titulum crucis was not there originally, before that the source of proto-John (i.e. the Synoptic tradition) introduced it.

As about the titulum crucis, so about Pilate. if the titulum crucis is rejected, then also Pilate has to be rejected from the Earliest Passion Narrative. The reason of their presence is the same: to confirm again and again that the crucified one is the King of Jews.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply