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

[Giuseppe]

Continuing:

Note that when the root PLT appears in masculine personal names, it has always the meaning of "to save, to release, to set free, to deliver".

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

Obviously "PiLaTe" is a masculine personal name, for a native speaker.

EDIT TO ADD: see page 556 of the link above.

I have made the my case. Next I will talk about the question of the "coincidence".

[Giuseppe]

Still a bit:

Aramaic texts from Qumran make frequent use of the verb plt peal/pael in the sense of " escape, release.""

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

[Giuseppe]

A further bit:

The root plṭ. This term is found frequently in the psalms in the prayers for Yahweh's deliverance (18:2; 71:2; 144:2), and in affirmations of trust (22:4, 8). It is synonymous with “help” ('zr; 37:40; 40:17; 70:5). For example, in 37:40 the verb is found twice and appears together with “help” ('zr): “he Lord helps them and delivers [plṭ] them from the wikced and saves them, because they take refuge in him”. Instead of “deliver”, plṭ could be better rendered as “bring to safety”.

https://books.google.it/books?id=qMESDg ... er&f=false

[Giuseppe]

Now I come to the affair of the "coincidence".

Is it a coincidence the repeated emphasis on the verb "to release" in Mark:

Now it was the custom at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.
9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.
13 “Crucify him!” they shouted.
14 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

My point is that the insiders would have realized easily the irony. If for 4 times the verb "to release" is repeated, then by induction it would occur with a good probability also a fifth time by reading it behind "Pilate".

Even in Acts 3:13 there is the same emphasis:

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

...even if I don't claim that the author of Acts was aware of the irony (he was not an insider).

Sic stantibus rebus, have I the right to deny the possibility of a mere coincidence?

[Joseph D. L.]

The issue is you are comparing a Latin name to a pun that only works in Ugarit/Hebrew. If the Gospels were written in Greek for a Greek speaking and reading audience why would a pun like this be used? or indeed even concieved? plt is just a root but there are, at least according to the theological dictionary of the Old Testament, numerous words which spring from it https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... =1&bsq=plt Translating it to Greek would not work in that way as plt would at best be shorthand for anything. (Plato, Plotinus, Pluto, Plutarch, etc). Words rooted in plt like pálat, yaplut, yaplèt, when translated into Greek lose the punic power. It's why for example the scene with Nicodemus about being reborn could not have been written or translated from an Aramaic source because such puns and entendre do not exist in Aramaic. Unfortunately that is where the buck stops.

I will concede that were there a Hebraic Gospel source that just so happened to contain this very scene, I think your argument would be made stronger. But then we come to the same problem of trying to locate texts to fit our theories. (Maybe, and this is a big maybe, Toledot Yeshu is a witness to such a text, Schonfield thought so anyway.)

[Giuseppe]

I will concede that were there a Hebraic Gospel source that just so happened to contain this very scene,

yes but there is a third option: that the interpolator of the Barabbas episode knew the Hebrew and wrote in Greek. The "translation" (or better the irony) is gained by merely removing the vowels: Pilatos minus "i", "a", "o" would become PLTS (since the Hebrew is without the vowels). Hence the term "translation" is not so apt. With "Barabbas" we can talk more correctly about a "translation": "bar abbas" ("son of father") or "bar rabbas" ("son of the rabbi").

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Is it a coincidence the repeated emphasis on the verb "to release" in Mark:

My point is that the insiders would have realized easily the irony. If for 4 times the verb "to release" is repeated, then by induction it would occur with a good probability also a fifth time by reading it behind "Pilate".

Sic stantibus rebus, have I the right to deny the possibility of a mere coincidence?

Nice overview! I agree with you that it is not a coincidence. Mark repeated the verb several times and clearly wanted to emphasize it. However, the corresponding Hebrew verb to Mark's ἀπολύω in all its facets (send away, divorce, release) is שָׁלַח - shalach.

Leviticus 16:22
The goat will carry on itself all their iniquities into a solitary place, and the man will release (וְשִׁלַּ֥ח - wə-šil-laḥ) it into the wilderness.

[Giuseppe]

Nice overview! I agree with you that it is not a coincidence.

well done. It is a first step.

However, the corresponding Hebrew verb to Mark's ἀπολύω in all its facets (send away, divorce, release) is שָׁלַח -

A my Jewish friend has commented so on facebook, when I have sent to him the argument about PLT:

'' 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.

In addition, it is not "to release" that needs to be translated in Hebrew but the personal name, since read here:

Continuing:

Note that when the root PLT appears in masculine personal names, it has always the meaning of "to save, to release, to set free, to deliver".

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

Obviously "PiLaTe" is a masculine personal name, for a native speaker.

EDIT TO ADD: see page 556 of the link above.

[Giuseppe]

Mlinssen has written:

Hi Giuseppe,

another one of your crazy ideas! I like it, as it would imply that Pilate also is a name made up to fit the narrative at large.
I find the following consonants in Greek:
ἀπολυτικός ἀπολύω

disposed to acquit:— adv., ἀπολυτικῶς ἔχειν τινός to be minded to acquit one, Xen.

PLTK - I'll readily admit that there's a consonant too many there. Yet the verb, however, also is perfect:

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... Aentry%3Da)polu%2Fw

2. set free, release, relieve from

"Pilatos" would be more like

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... po%2Flutos

which would fit not so well.
So while Bar-abbas would be Hebrew wordplay on son of the father, this would seem to be Greek - within margins, I must say. Then again if all of this were so very obvious, then this conversation wouldn't be happening.
Although there are incredibly obvious facts that have so far eluded most if not all

And if we read Mark then we see, from Mark 15:1 till 15:15, a very friendly and benign Pilate who is doing his best to not pass a verdict - this man even is always letting someone off the book according to custom; his own custom according to Mark yet Judaic custom according to John

However, we must always falsify our theories: how is the verb itself used throughout the NT? 65 times!

https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=Co ... sort=false

One thing is for sure: the Coptic has no clues here, the verb is a plain ⲕⲱ.

(Feel free to share, of course)

Martin

An objection similar to Kunigunde's above. But against that, the following is decisive, in my view:


...since the source is highly reliable.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

But against that, the following is decisive, in my view:

I'm trying to understand what you actually want to achieve.

I tend to think that you would have to shorten your reconstructed Passion account even further. I notice a few things that I would consider to be Mark's style.

Giuseppe	KK
So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to the governor. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium). Then they led him out to crucify him. And they crucified him. Jesus breathed his last.	So they bound Jesus and led him away to the governor. He had Jesus flogged and handed him over to be crucified. The soldiers led him out. And they crucified him and Jesus died.

But what do you have then? Apparently a very short, neutral account of the death of Jesus, which could be considered historical in its brevity and sobriety. Is that your goal?