Why Pilate? Because of Hebrew "PLT"

[Secret Alias]

You can always separate the morons at this site because they sit all day reading translations of Biblical texts in their own native tongue and argue with the original text. I couldn't care less what your English or Italian translations say. They were devised to harmonize the awkwardness of the original Hebrew construction with 'normal ways of speaking' in your native tongue. For the 100th time pelet means to escape not to deliver - as the example you gave clearly shows.

[Secret Alias]

Pilate is really who is causing Barabbas to escape.

YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID!!!!! You have no clue about Hebrew verb construction. I don't have time for this nonsense. For the 101st time pelet means to escape not to deliver someone else.

[Secret Alias]

Why oh why - would you venture into a subject YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF - i.e. the Hebrew language - to construct what must be the 1,000,000th 'invention' related to the gospel you've come up with since you've been active on this board? Surely there are easier ways of making shit up than going on line and starting playing around with Hebrew. Why not construct your imaginative notions in Italian or English? Why Hebrew? I fail to see what about a language you know absolutely nothing about gives you confidence to embrace Hebrew play on words? Why not tackle Polish poetry? Or Serbo-Croatian haiku?

[Secret Alias]

If the gospel writer was inventing a narrative and wanted to make a play on words in Hebrew on the name Pilatus he'd have a hard time because of the yod in Pilate. It disqualifies it from being a natural construct related to pelet. That's the first problem. The second problem is that Pilate doesn't escape. Pilate is not a refugee. Because of these two reasons your imaginative musing isn't likely to have much in the way of explanative power. No one should believe that the original gospel writer was doing what you are saying he was doing.

And what's more. Since you acknowledge that Pilate was a historical person why is this explanation even necessary? Are you saying that he chose Pilate as the governor because he invented a narrative involving 'escaping'? So the narrative came first and then his decision to plant the narrative under the rule of Pilate came second. Or are you saying that he knew about the existence of Pilate first and then decided to invent a narrative about an 'escape' that took place under his rule? Does it really make sense that Pilate would figure so prominently in his imagination given that - as you also claim - the gospel was written in the middle of the second century.

So you have a historically minded Hebrew-speaking gospel writer working after the bar Kochba revolt who - stumbles across a rather obscure Roman governor of the province and then constructs an escape narrative related to (a) the Creator god - who is symbolized by Pilate and (b) another god who is his enemy. What are the odds that the late second century gospel writer was going to expect his Greek speaking audience would know Hebrew or would get the play on his name? Why is this even essential to the narrative? Why is the 'escape' so important that it needs a play on the name of the judge anyway? How does this further the narrative?

[Secret Alias]

And why - if the gospel narrative - is entirely mythical does the author strive so hard to attach this 'escape' to a historical person like Pilate? Surely Pilate was forgotten in 150 CE. Also certainly none of the Greeks he wrote for spoke Hebrew or would pick up an a horrible play on words like you suggest (i.e. PYLT(W)S from PLT). What's the point of all of this? This would suggest to me at least that the gospel was based on something historical. Why emphasize Pilate so much?

[Giuseppe]

1) I am not talking about pelet, but about palat.

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fu ... /palat.htm

2) In the translation seen by me in the link above, I read the following example:

Psalms 71:2: "Deliver me in thy righteousness, and cause me to escape: incline thine ear unto me, and save"

Therefore there is no need of a Pilate who escapes. There is need, really, of a Pilate who causes another person to escape. And a such need is fully satisfied by the Gospels, so this is not a coincidence.

In the example above ("cause me to escape"), it is not God the guy who escapes. God is the entity who is causing the author (of the Psalm) to escape.

You are not able to explain me why PALAT should mean "I escape" as opposed to "I cause another being different from me to escape".

[Giuseppe]

If the gospel writer was inventing a narrative and wanted to make a play on words in Hebrew on the name Pilatus he'd have a hard time because of the yod in Pilate. It disqualifies it from being a natural construct related to pelet. That's the first problem. The second problem is that Pilate doesn't escape. Pilate is not a refugee. Because of these two reasons your imaginative musing isn't likely to have much in the way of explanative power. No one should believe that the original gospel writer was doing what you are saying he was doing.

And what's more. Since you acknowledge that Pilate was a historical person why is this explanation even necessary? Are you saying that he chose Pilate as the governor because he invented a narrative involving 'escaping'? So the narrative came first and then his decision to plant the narrative under the rule of Pilate came second. Or are you saying that he knew about the existence of Pilate first and then decided to invent a narrative about an 'escape' that took place under his rule? Does it really make sense that Pilate would figure so prominently in his imagination given that - as you also claim - the gospel was written in the middle of the second century.

So you have a historically minded Hebrew-speaking gospel writer working after the bar Kochba revolt who - stumbles across a rather obscure Roman governor of the province and then constructs an escape narrative related to (a) the Creator god - who is symbolized by Pilate and (b) another god who is his enemy. What are the odds that the late second century gospel writer was going to expect his Greek speaking audience would know Hebrew or would get the play on his name? Why is this even essential to the narrative? Why is the 'escape' so important that it needs a play on the name of the judge anyway? How does this further the narrative?

As I explain in the beginning of this thread (if only you have the patience to read), I think that the Herod in Mark is a clone of Pilate insofar:

1) both are not-Jews

2) both are innocent

3) both want to give a gift for a crowd (remember that Herod wanted to give to Herodias "even the half of the his kingdom", so Herodias is assumed to represent the value of half of the Jewish people).

4) both are facing people who want the death of a guy

5) and both want to FREE/to release/to save the same person of which the death is wanted by others

6) and both fail to free that person.

7) and both lead to a "Golgotha" (in the case of Herod: the head of John the Baptist).

8) both are having a good day for a feast but...

So these similaties have helped me to realize partially that the only function of Pilate is to release someone in the place of another.

So "Mark" (author) was introducing the historical Pilate in the narrative because the his role was "to cause another being to escape", per (one of the meanings of) PaLaT. "Mark" had extreme need of a guy with a name apt for that role, since "Mark" wanted to historicize the ritual of the Lev 16: during a feast, someone has to release the goat in the wilderness and has to kill another goat on the altar, by washing his hands in the blood of this latter (or something of the kind).

Other authors had already detected Lev 16 as the midrashical source behind Barabbas. Other authors had already detected the similarites between Pilate and Herod. I am only building on their case, by explaining another detail of the puzzle: the name of Pilate being connected a lot of times with the occurrence of ἀπολύσω.

But attention: "Mark" wasn't placing Jesus under Pilate for that reason. "Mark" had already decided that Jesus had to live under Tiberius since Herod was a dirty Idumean: the first foreign usurper of the Throne of Israel. So the Shiloh prophecy had to be realized: the Messiah had to show himself under Herod, hence under Pilate.

[Charles Wilson]

SA --

I'm having a not so good day so please save your usual "Fuck you, fuck you, you stupid fuck" banter for another time.
"I come to praise SA..."

SA is correct here (for the most part...)

The Logical Positivists had their Verification Principle: "The meaning of a proposition is to be found in the form of its verification" and Giuseppe runs afoul of this. He needs a thousand more historical footnotes to show that his "backmapped" Mythicist position has plausibility. Otherwise, you could as easily assert that Pilate was the first cousin twice removed of Mortulex, Vanguard Savior of the planet Pustular. The Scientologists have made more with less. As it is, "there's no there there". If ever there was an argument against "backmapping", its found in the study of the NT.

And why - if the gospel narrative - is entirely mythical does the author strive so hard to attach this 'escape' to a historical person like Pilate?

I believe you know the answer to this. Pilate has to be the fall guy so the time lines can work - even though the time lines don't exactly add up. Pilate as Bad Guy is as good as any and is used as a container for the replacement story. Pilate cannot be as he is depicted except to provide the acceptable time line for the created stories of the savior/god.

Surely Pilate was forgotten in 150 CE.

Not in the Roman Court and probably not in Caesarea. This is prolly not as important in the long run. I believe these stories were ginned up after 70, probably no earlier than 105 - 110 but you may see some historical pointer that goes back to mid-first century. The point is that "Pilate" would have been remembered by those who were constructing the NT. YMMV.

Also certainly none of the Greeks he wrote for spoke Hebrew or would pick up an a horrible play on words like you suggest.

YES! One of my favorites is "Gabbatha", a one way pointer from the Hebrew Story to the Greek. In John we find "Gabbatha" as a "single use word" and "Golgotha" within several verses of each other. Someone is leading us down the garden path.

This would suggest to me at least that the gospel was based on something historical.

You are correct.

Before we go metaphysical, we must solidify the physical and that hasn't been finished yet.
It's like they say about SA: "If only he could use his powers for good..."

Best,

CW

[Secret Alias]

1) I am not talking about pelet, but about palat.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Secret Alias]

Just a rule of thumb Giuseppe.

1. allegorical or symbolic arguments are hard to make convincing unless they have some history behind them (i.e. someone besides you who thought of it)
2. play on words need to be exact as possible (i.e. the yod in Pilate is extremely problematic)
3. the meaning of symbolic arguments have to be exact (i.e. that pelet means 'escape' not as you think 'to deliver someone else)
4. there has to be some overriding 'sense' to what you are suggesting.

None of these criteria have been met.