Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Yes but you have to realize knuckle-head that the gospel could only have been written in one language - Hebrew or Aramaic - your two suggestions don't work in each of the two languages but not both and in the case of Jairus suggest a completely different etymology. It would be like have plays on words in both Spanish and Italian in the same text and where a name which means one thing in Spanish means something completely different in Italian and the whole text was written in Italian. You assume the people reading the first gospel were like you - lonely people sitting around with lots of time to waste.

At least we can agree that Pilatus is Latin. So who “has eyes to see” could read PLT in Pilate, just as QRN in Cyrene, etc.

אפלט (pallet) is the homologue of ἀπαλλάττω (ἀpallátto) 'Set free, deliver from, to depart from, to destroy'. a plausible etymological candidate for Pilate 'Javilin', a weapon that is pulled back then released'.

Barabbas/Liber Pater

Ethan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:43 am אפלט (pallet) is the homologue of ἀπαλλάττω (ἀpallátto) 'Set free, deliver from, to depart from, to destroy'. a plausible etymological candidate for Pilate 'Javilin', a weapon that is pulled back then released'.

Barabbas/Liber Pater

I wouldn't go so far, just as there is no need at all of a Hebrew Gospel to read PLT in the Latin term Pilatus. The banal semitic origin of "Mark" (author) is sufficient.

Well I think we should leave it there. You've found someone who mirrors the ridiculous nature of your postulations. The Semitic root PLT means 'escape' not 'release' if the crowd shouted out what you have in your OP it would have been directed at Barabbas - 'escape Barabas!' It would have been the crowd imploring him to break his own bonds and run away - like the naked youth in Mark chapter 15. You don't know anything about Semitic languages. You are just like Ethan. There is no point continuing with this. Bye.

It is a true shame, to think that the original readers of Mark (the Greek Mark) could read perfectly "Son of Father" in "Barabbas" and realize the reference to Leviticus 16, and in the same time (sic) that the same readers of Mark were totally unable to read PLT (in the meaning of "making escape possible", just as here) in the Latin "Pilate" and realize the reference to Leviticus 16.

And as you put me with Ethan, I put you with Gullotta (sic), since you wrote academic articles with him (an infamous "critic" of Richard Carrier).

But Barabbas might mean other things too. Abba might well be a diminutive of Abraham. That's the problem with your certainty. You just line up self-serving facts without weighing the alternatives. There are many rabbis named Abba and it certainly is a diminutive or familiar form of Abraham cf. R. Abba b. Kahana etc.

The number of 'bar' or 'ben Abba' figures in Jewish antiquity is staggering cf. R. Hiyya b. Abba, Abba b. Abba, Isaac b. Abba. You live within a very artificial world. The certainty of Gentiles who have less than a passing knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. As such things appear as 'self-evident' only because of your absolute ignorance.

In fact of midrash, you ignore the difference between what is more probable (the midrash from Leviticus 16) and what is less probable (your ridicolous mention of many rabbis named Abba). Are you a historicist? Then this is not the thread for you.

Surely after this discovery of the connection Pilate/PLT as collateral effect of the midrash from Lev 16, I am more mythicist than before, and not less. This matters to me, and I am satisfied by this.

The certainty of Gentiles who have less than a passing knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic.

Never said that the Gospel was written by Gentiles. No need of a Hebrew Gospel along the lines of the same Dubourg, too. Pilate is a Latin name, and only a blind doesn't like the irony of Pilate being the "releaser" (the sense of PALAT, as per Psalm 17:13 "Deliver [palat] my soul from the wicked with Your sword",) of Barabbas, the evil goat of Lev 16.

I put you with Gullotta (sic).

I would be very honored to be placed alongside Daniel. He is going to be a great scholar. The fact that he views the situation in antiquity in a different way than I do (i.e. weighing more heavily the historical probability of Jesus's existence) does not make me think any less of him because I at least recognize THAT I COULD BE WRONG! I like surrounding myself with people of all sorts of differing opinions so I don't fall victim to the echo chamber effect. I don't necessarily believe that I am always right about things. When I drive I check my blind spot whenever I make a turn precisely for that reason. I might be wrong, and being wrong - i.e. my ignorance - might lead to calamitous results.

I think you spend too much time alone. It's dangerous to be so isolated. Corrupts your brain.