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

[Joseph D. L.]

I don't know. I will admit that the plt/savior/releaser pun is conspicuous and does provide for some interesting hermeneutics. What Giuseppe is suggesting is that it is a happy coincidence for Pilate to be both historical so as to tie down the Jesus story on earth, and for his name to have a certain symbolic meaning that emphasizes the point of his action. Is it true? Who knows?

A couple things that prevents me from following through with it is Gospel of Peter where Barabbas is absent, and that what ends up happening doesn't follow the argument of why it was included. Surely a Judiazer would realize that this would make Jews look bad, and would be used for centuries to justify antisemiticism.

[Peter Kirby]

remove the vowels from Pilate and you have PLT, the semitic root behind all the synonyms of "to release", "to set one free".

Sounds like a good proof that this non-event truly is a "coincidence," since you have to resort to a "Semitic root" behind an alleged procedure of removing letters from Pilate's name and aligning them to Semitic language letters.

Is there any direct evidence that ANYONE ever did this EVER at all, in all of literature, before 1500 CE?

Anyone?

[davidmartin]

Giuseppe you'll probably like what the Syriac/Aramaic of PLT means
plˀh, plˀtˀ (pelˀā, peleˀṯā) n.f. parable, allegory, problem, riddle
plˀt vb. to compare, said as a parable

that sneaky Pilate. but there was a real guy named this... then its not on purpose?

[Peter Kirby]

See it in three different ways:

• hypothesis A: The fact that Pilate is an apt name for the releaser inspired the creation of the released Barabbas: no Pilate, no Barabbas.

• hypothesis B: The fact that the Barabbas episode required an apt name for the releaser inspired the choice of the name of Pilate, among all the names: no Barabbas, no Pilate.

• hypothesis C: The fact that Pilate is an apt name for the releaser is a mere coincidence, at all independent from the presence or less of a releaser in the original account.

A is denied by Leviticus 16 being the real midrashical reason behind the Barabbas episode, not PLT in Pilate.

C is denied by the anti-marcionite polemic as the real reason for the name of Barabbas, since it implies that it is too much impossible that an apt name (Pilate) was in the right place in the right moment, expecting the fatidic day when a released (Barabbas) would have found provvidentially the his own releaser (Pilate) already there in the story.

Wasn't that "apt," there is no evidence that anyone even saw in the text what you are alleging here.

[Giuseppe]

Is there any direct evidence that ANYONE ever did this EVER at all, in all of literature, before 1500 CE?

Anyone?

when I see that two independent mythicists who didn't know one the other, Raschke and Dubourg, made the same point about PLT, starting from the common assumption that the irony sometimes derives from hebrew roots, then it can't be a coincidence.

Another classical example:

Usually the term golgotha is referred to Aramaic gilgal (the headquarters of the biblical Joshua) and accepted as such, but this doesn't provoke a similar rejection along the lines that "it is a mere coincidence".

For example: https://standingontheword.wordpress.com ... at-gilgal/

[Peter Kirby]

Is there any direct evidence that ANYONE ever did this EVER at all, in all of literature, before 1500 CE?

Anyone?

when I see that two independent mythicists who didn't know one the other, Raschke and Dubourg, made the same point about PLT, starting from the common assumption that the irony sometimes derives from hebrew roots, then it can't be a coincidence.

Contrary to popular belief, idiots do think alike.

[Peter Kirby]

Another classical example:

Usually the term golgotha is referred to Aramaic gilgal (the headquarters of the biblical Joshua) and accepted as such, but this doesn't provoke a similar rejection along the lines that "it is a mere coincidence".

For example: https://standingontheword.wordpress.com ... at-gilgal/

Each hypothesis has to contend with two similar problems: (a) it is entirely speculative to the point of being invented and foreign to the text, and (b) if the thing itself existed (a historical person called Pilate and a historical place called Golgotha) and was named, being already in that place and in that time where the story is set, that obviates any other "explanation," to the point that we can say simply that any other explanation is false, other than giving the name of the thing.

Every word can be transmuted into some other word by modifying the letters in the word, which can have some kind of significance read into that other word, in some other language if not the actual language of the writer. The only "coincidence" is that a language is being used and words are being used, which can then be abused in such ways. It's impossible to write in such a way that your text cannot have foreign interpretations imposed on it by changing the words in it, substituting different words, and alleging secret meanings. It's too much of a compliment to call this "coincidence" (although I have kindly done so) instead of just someone's imagination running wild.

Since nobody can object to the existence of Pilate with any kind of sanity, that speculation can be deprecated more, but it is true that these two conjectures are imposed on the text, even though it isn't found in them, in somewhat similar style.

[Giuseppe]

Contrary to popular belief, idiots do think alike.

an idiot would be one like myself, focused only on PLT/Pilate. But I have mentioned not coincidentially Dubourg and Raschke, as they show a lot of examples where Hebrew terms are hidden behind the Greek.

A modern scholar has given a review to Dubourg's view.

So I don't think that Peter would address his words along the lines "it is only someone's imagination running wild", secunda facie.

In p. 129 of this book (Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis, Zev Garber, Routledge, 2014), Simms writes:

The so- called Champs de Midrash school in France, a Christian group, considers that they can pick apart the Gospels, Epistles, and other early Christian documents by two processes: one, by translating them back into Aramaic to find various word- plays, common idioms, and other linguistic turns that were either lost or mistranslated when these texts were published in Greek as canonical books; the other, by using various rabbinical modes of exegesis to re- assemble the narratives and rhetorical arguments into stories and speeches more appropriate to the political and religious beliefs at the time of Jesus’s putative life. It may seem possible therefore to
consider the daughter religion named after Christ as the product of seeing ancient and Second Temple Judaism through the filter of Hellenistic philosophies, from Stoicism through Neoplatonism. Reinach points out that Saul/Paul goes so far as to call the Judaism he supposedly learned from Rabbi Gamaliel radix stultiæ, the root of all madness or foolishness. Moreover, throughout the period between the formation of the Church and canonization of its New Testament, other legends and mythical amplifications were put together to fit the official version of Jesus’s life and Christ’s Passion; and whereas some of these extra-Scriptural episodes were stripped away by the Reformation in its effort to focus on the canonical books, the result was hardly a version true to Second Temple or early rabbinical Judaism, or what Schmiedel called “the error of a religion of servility and from the error of a religion of pretensions.”
The Jesus, like the Christ, that emerges from such historical procedures can only be taken as Jewish after a much more recent shift in sensibility and ideology that takes place to bring in the need for modern historicity of a different kind altogether,...

(my bold)

But note that I am diverging from this same midrashical school insofar I think that the Barabbas's episode was interpolated against Marcion.

[DrSarah]

[...]

• hypothesis C: The fact that Pilate is an apt name for the releaser is a mere coincidence, at all independent from the presence or less of a releaser in the original account.

[...]
C is denied by the anti-marcionite polemic as the real reason for the name of Barabbas, since it implies that it is too much impossible that an apt name (Pilate) was in the right place in the right moment, expecting the fatidic day when a released (Barabbas) would have found provvidentially the his own releaser (Pilate) already there in the story.

Firstly, could you please give your reference for PLT being the root for the Semitic word 'release'? I don't speak Hebrew, but I've checked a couple of sites and none of the words I can find for 'release' have this root. So I'd like to start out with an initial fact-check, please.

And secondly: no, I don't see it as too much of a coincidence that someone's actual name might coincidentally match with an appropriate meaning in another language. We could just as well argue that 'Giuseppe' can't possibly be your real name because it's far too much of a coincidence for someone who keeps adding posts to the forum to just happen to have a name that means 'he will add'. Or to argue that Godfrey cannot be the actual surname of the person who runs the Vridar blog because it's far too much of a coincidence for someone who left Christianity to have a name that sounds like 'God Free'. Or to say that, as I've written about contraception/abortion/safe sex in the past, I can't possibly be actually called Sarah because the letters SRH stand for Sexual and Reproductive Health so clearly this is just a name given to me to suit my subject matter. You see what I mean? Once things get this vague, you can argue that anything is too much of a coincidence.

[Secret Alias]

Giuseppe, perhaps because of a linguistic blindspot, has consistently rendered "to escape" as being the equivalent of "to release" even though this is clearly wrong:


plṭ vb. a/a, a/u to escape
In general intransitive with /a/ thematic vowel, transitive with /u/

G View a KWIC


1 (intrans.) to escape Qumran, Gal, Sam, Syr, JBA, Man, LJLA. 1QapGen 19.20 : ותפ֗לט֗ נפשי בדיליכי‏ my life shall be spared because of you. TrShem 2a:11 : כל דפלט [ח]מי בטבתה‏ whoever escapes will see good things. P Dt32:39 : ܠܝܬ ܕܦܿܠܛ ܡܢ ܐ̈ܝܕܝ‏ . TgJob30:14 : בתקוף פלטית גללי ימא‏ with force I escaped the sea's waves. (a) fig. : Syr, JBA, Man. LSt.105:19 : ܐܢܐ ܘܐܚܝ ܬܐܡ̈ܐ ܚܢܢ܂ ܘܒܚܕܐ ܫܥܬܐ ܦܠܛܢܢ ܡܢ ܡܪܒܥܐ‏ my brother and I are twins and escaped the womb at the same time. BT Pes 118a(21) : לא פלטינן מניה דקאכלינן עסבא דדברא‏ we have still not escaped from it [i.e. from the nourishment of animals] for we are eating herbs of the field . Pishra D-ainia 738 : kḏ hamra ḏpaliṭ mn pum šataia like wine that spews out from the mouth of a drunkard. (a.1) to be dislocated Syr. HippAp 28(3) . (a.2) to escape one's notice Syr. Nest 43:19 . (a.3) to leave an enclosure Syr. Am7 82:22 : ܕܠܡܐ ܢܸܦܠܲܛ ܢܡܘܬ‏ if he leaves he may die. BHNom 189:1 : ܨܸܦܪܹ̈ܐ ܕܠܐ ܦܵܠ̈ܛܵܢ‏ birds that do not go out (i.e., that are caged). (b) to be rejected Gal. PalLaws2(1) 65:10 : לא פלטת מן כהונתה‏ she is not rejected from (marrying into) the priesthood.

2 (trans.) to eject JLAtg, PTA, Syr, JBA, LJLA. TgJ Jonah2:11 : וַאֲמַר יוי לְנוּנָא וֻפלַט יָת יוֹנָה לְיַבַשתָא‏ the Lord spoke to the fish and it ejected Jonah onto the dry land. TN Lev18:28 : ולא תפלוט ארעא יתכון בסאבותכון יתה‏ the land will not eject you when you defile it. P Jonah2:11 : ܘܦܠܛܗ ܠܝܘܢܢ ܠܝܒܫܐ‏ . BT Ḥul 108b(11) : דמיבלע בלע מיפלט לא פליט‏ (the meat) will certainly absorb (the milk, but) it will definitely not discharge (it). PJ Lev18:25 : ופלטת ארעא ית דיירהא‏ the land ejected its inhabitants. (a) to bring forth Syr. Bhce3 211:17 . (a.1) to give birth Qumran, Syr. 11QtgJob 32.2=39:3 : ילדן בניהן ויפלטן‏ . P Is66:7 : ܘܬܦܠܛ ܕܟܪܐ‏ . (a.2) to bring out faded writing JBA. BT Git 19b(47) : אי פליט פליט ואי לא פליט לא כלו׳ הוא‏ if (the treatment with an extract of pomegranate peels) enhances (the faded writing) it is well. If it does not enhance (it) there is nothing. (b) to vomit JBA, LJLA. BT Ned 49b(18) : כל מדעם לא תפלוט קמי רבא לבר מן קר׳ ודייס׳‏ do not disgorge anything before your teacher except for a gourd and a d'-dish. TgJob20:15 : נכסין דסלעם ופלט יתיה‏ property that he swallowed and vomited it. (c) to spit out Gal, Sam, LJLA. PTDem 22.a:12[2] : וגזר עלוי ופלטה‏ he decreed over it and it spit it out. TgJob30:14 : בתקוף פלטית גללי ימא אתיין תחות רגושא מתגלגלין‏ I spit out the sea's waves with strength, coming and rolling beneath the tumult. (d) impers. : to escape Gal. PRK178.7 : מן תלת לא פלטה לך‏ you will not escape from three.


D View a KWIC


1 to free, rescue Qumran, CPA, Syr. 1QapGen 11.14 : ופלט לג֗ב֗ר֗ צד֗י֗קא‏ . P Gn19:17 : ܦܿܠܛ ܢܦܫܟ‏ . P Ps41:2 : ܕܒܝܘܡܐ ܕܒܝܫܬܐ ܢܦܠܛܝܘܗܝ‏ . (a) to discharge, spit out Gal, Syr, JBA. EphBread 3:12b : ܓܣܵܬ ܦܲܠܛܲܬ ܘܲܫܕܵܬ ܥܲܡ̈ܡܸܐ ܕܲܚܝܲܘ‏ (Sheol) belched, spit out, and threw out the people who lived. BT San 101a(33) : איבלע בארזא, אתעביד ליה ניסא, פקע ארזא ופלטיה‏ he was swallowed by a cedar tree, a miracle happened for him: the cedar burst apart and spit him out. (b) to detach, separate Syr, Man. Astrolabe 74:13 : ܒܗܿܝ ܕܡܦܠܛ ܂܂܂ ܒܕܡܘܬ ܐܝܿܢܣ ܡܕܡ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܡ̈ܢܐ ܕܐܝܬ ܒܓܘܓܝ‏ inasmuch as (the rete of the astrolabe) is separated by what looks like some veins or threads that are in a spider web. DC 42 3.211 : palṭit upirtit udirit palga ḏbẖ I detached, split, and took half of it. (c) to stick out, extend Syr.

2 to preserve Syr.

3 to make to discharge JBA.


C View a KWIC

to free Syr. EphSerm 1:8.8 : ܗܫܐ ܕܝܢ ܒܫܡ ܢܝܪܐ ܪܫܗܝܢ ܐܦܠܛ ܡܢ ܢܝܪܐ‏ but now in the guise of being yoked, they freed their head of the yoke. ES1 431:35 : ܐܦܠܛܢܝ ܡܢ ܪ̈ܘܪܒܢܝ ܥܡܐ‏ free me from the people's nobles.


Gt View a KWIC

to be rescued Sam.


Dt View a KWIC


1 to be preserved Syr.

2 to be freed CPA, Syr. P Gn14:13 : ܡܢ ܕܐܬܿܦܠܛ‏ . P Job23:7 : ܕܡܬܦܠܛ ܗܘܝܬ ܒܕܝܢܐ‏ for I was freed in court.

3 to escape Syr. P Gn19:17 : ܠܛܘܪܐ ܐܬܿܦܠܛ‏ . P Job1:15 : ܘܐܬܦܠܛܬ ܐܢܐ ܒܠܚܘܕܝ‏

The terminology is used in Aramaic to denote "refugees." To be a refugee has nothing to do with another person "releasing you" (or does not necessarily require the act). It means that you "escaped" from somewhere. Not the same thing as "release." But he won't listen to reason or Italian doesn't make these same distinctions.