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

[Giuseppe]

Psalm 32:7:

You are my hiding place; You preserve me from trouble; You surround me with songs of deliverance. Selah.

פַלֵּ֑ט
p̄al-lêṭ; of deliverance

There is no way to imagine "songs of escape".

[Joseph D. L.]

Far be it for me to impose a hermeneutic interpretation onto texts written two thousand years ago, I think what Giuseppe is doing underlies two points of poignant scope that address Peter's and SA's criticisms respectively.

Point 1 for Peter: The Gospels are not historical and thus should be treated and read as suprameta texts.

Even when historical events and persons are related, they should not be treated as such for they are existing in a hypertextual reality in and of itself. Herod, Caiaphas, Pilate, in the New Testament are not the same as the historical Herod, Caiaphas and Pilate. This might seem self evident but I don't think you're appreciating the full breath of what this implies for a further critical analysis of Christianity itself.

Point 2 for SA: One thing that has irked me is the reverence paid to these texts as belonging to the time they were written and we have to come to their truth. Why should we allow these writings to dominate our thinking about them? Even Christians are eternally reinterpreting these texts texts, because there is not a transcendental truth that radiates from them from their time, they are living even today and should be understood in that way.

I am not suggesting Giuseppe's interpretation is correct or even meaningful, but if we're not allowed to "play" with these texts and experiment with different thoughts, right or wrong, then why even bother? And please don't take my above points seriously, they were just idle thoughts I had and should be left as such.

[Joseph D. L.]

And I'm on my phone in the breakroom at work so I can't go too in depth. Hopefully you guys can understand the spirit of what I was saying.

[Peter Kirby]

Far be it for me to impose a hermeneutic interpretation onto texts written two thousand years ago, I think what Giuseppe is doing underlies two points of poignant scope that address Peter's and SA's criticisms respectively.

Point 1 for Peter: The Gospels are not historical and thus should be treated and read as suprameta texts.

Even when historical events and persons are related, they should not be treated as such for they are existing in a hypertextual reality in and of itself. Herod, Caiaphas, Pilate, in the New Testament are not the same as the historical Herod, Caiaphas and Pilate. This might seem self evident but I don't think you're appreciating the full breath of what this implies for a further critical analysis of Christianity itself.

Point 2 for SA: One thing that has irked me is the reverence paid to these texts as belonging to the time they were written and we have to come to their truth. Why should we allow these writings to dominate our thinking about them? Even Christians are eternally reinterpreting these texts texts, because there is not a transcendental truth that radiates from them from their time, they are living even today and should be understood in that way.

I am not suggesting Giuseppe's interpretation is correct or even meaningful, but if we're not allowed to "play" with these texts and experiment with different thoughts, right or wrong, then why even bother? And please don't take my above points seriously, they were just idle thoughts I had and should be left as such.

Why even bother if you are not trying to do it well?

Anyone can have fun eating crayons.

[Peter Kirby]

And I'm on my phone in the breakroom at work so I can't go too in depth. Hopefully you guys can understand the spirit of what I was saying.

Same!

[Secret Alias]

It seems to me that this site is serious and reliable, sorry

That's why you are Giuseppe

[Joseph D. L.]

Well you guys can have it your way but I think you both should get some perspective about this.

Peter, if you have such an issue with what Giuseppe is saying then why engage with him? Surely you don't think you can change his mind about this?

SA, did not you yourself not too long ago make a post about how some people are not allowed at the table of higher scholarship?

[Peter Kirby]

Peter, if you have such an issue with what Giuseppe is saying then why engage with him? Surely you don't think you can change his mind about this?

My last "engagement" was just and we seem to have left it at that.

[DrSarah]

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.

'' PaLeT", removing the vowels from Pilatos=in Hebrew פילטוס.

As Aaron releases (פלט) the goat for Hayom Kippur (= the day of atonement) so Pilate=פילטוס releases (פלת) Barabbas for the Pesach.

I've checked that verse (Lev 16.10) on Sefaria.org, and can’t find the PLT root anywhere in there either.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6403.htm?fb ... crR8XY5Qc4

palat: to escape

NASB Translation
calves (1), carries it off (1), deliver (5), delivered (4), deliverer (5), delivers (3), escape (1), preserve (2), rescue (3).

Secret Alias is ignoring the fact that one of the possible meanings of PLT is 'deliverer'.

pallet: deliverance
Original Word: פַלֵּט
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: pallet
Phonetic Spelling: (pal-late')
Definition: deliverance

NASB Translation
cast them forth (1), deliverance (1).

Hence, as you see, PLT can mean, inter alia (and pace Secret Alias), both delivered and deliverer. Pilate wants to deliver Jesus, but he ends to deliver Barabbas.

Firstly, be aware that biblehub.com is a Christian apologist site. I'd be very wary of using that as the sole source of information about how Hebrew words are interpreted in Jewish scriptures.

Secondly, I’ve checked the word in each of the verses on this page where it’s translated as ‘deliverer’, and in each case there’s a mem before the three letters you’ve got, making the actual sequence MPLT. When I copy-pasted the Hebrew into the site doitinhebrew.com, it translated this as ‘refuge’ or ‘haven’; which would work contextually in each of the verses where it’s translated as ‘deliverer’, but wouldn’t work in the Pilate context (while he’s Barabbas’s releaser in the story, he isn’t his refuge or haven; those words have different connotations). Plus, of course, there’s the fact that I cannot find any examples in which the PLT sequence on its own, without the M, is translated as ‘deliverer’. So, while we're both hampered by not speaking Hebrew, I still don't think your argument stands up linguistically.

Thirdly, in response to your lengthy quote of Carrier; I am not discussing whether the gospels ever used a convenient fake name to make a point. I'm discussing whether your particular argument on this particular name stands up.

On which subject… Fourthly, let’s have a reality check here.

The most you’ve managed to find is that the three consonants in Pilate are the root of part of a word, in a completely different language from the one in which the NT authors were writing, which can possibly be translated as something related to the meaning you think is relevant.

You’re insisting that this cannot possibly be a coincidence.

So. Two hypotheses here:

1. An interpolator of Mark was looking to indicate that the governor in this story was releasing one of the characters in the story (even though this is the less significant part of the governor’s role in this story, with his much more significant role in the story being the execution of the story’s main character, meaning the governor’s main act in the story was in fact the opposite of a release). This interpolator decided that the best way to do so would be to pick a name that had three of the four consonants of a word that, in a completely different language, does not actually mean ‘releaser’ but could mean ‘deliverer’ in a different sense that doesn’t really fit the context of this story. In order to do so, rather than come up with a fictitious name, the interpolator picked a name of a known Roman governor of the time... despite the fact that the writing was clearly, and for fairly obvious political reasons, trying to avoid casting the Romans as the villains and yet using this governor's name would only the Roman role. Oh, and, for some reason which you haven’t explained, this all had to be a secret known only to an elite within the group.

2. Pilate actually was the governor who pronounced sentence on this rabbi, and the fact that the three consonants in his name happened, in a completely different language, to mean something vaguely relevant to the topic of release, is actually just a coincidence.

Between those two explanations, you are insisting that it cannot possibly be the second, and that the first is the clear explanation and far more probable.

Now, please could you read all that over, think about it, weigh it up, sit with it, and see if you can see why so many people might be disagreeing with you here. Thank you.

[Giuseppe]

DrSarah, I am not obliged to be fixed on the Hebrew.

It is sufficient for the my argument that in the wider area around Israel, PLT was a Semitic root (a better term would be "lexeme") for "to free", "salvation", et similia. I use "Semitic" in a more large sense.

The following is a more academic reference. I invite you to read it entirely:

https://books.google.it/books?id=TyJBBD ... ew&f=false



Note where it says:

The simple name PALAT "salvation", has a Hebrew equivalent in PELET.

So it is said that the lexeme PLT is a Ugaritic root, a Phoenician root, hence it could be understood by the peoples around Israel, too, as meaning: "salvation".

Mention is made of the Psalm 37:40:

40 And the Lord shall help them, and deliver them: he shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him.

The lexeme PLT was recognized as meaning "to free" even in Syriac:

1 to free Syr. ES1 431:35 .

This fact is interpreted by Secret Alias as a counter-argument ("it is not pure Hebrew!"), but really it is an argument supporting indeed the thesis that the lexeme PLT was extended in the entire area including Israel, Phoenicia, Syria and part of Irak as meaning "to save, to free" etc.

In short, the lexeme (being common to that wider area) matters, not the instances of it in Hebrew.