A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by Giuseppe »

Neil, I propose a riddle for you.

Do you know why Nanine Charbonnel writes, in page 136, note 1 of his book on Jesus:

... Mais Dubourg aura été, au XX° siècle, et particulièrement en France où les critiques envers Jésus ont souvent volé bas, un véritable libérateur (droit au texte hébreu!).

(my bold)
:whistling: :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4154
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by neilgodfrey »

Why do you ask me that? And why do you use the word "riddle"? And why the whistling? What do you think I understand about both Charbonnel and Dubourg for you to make your question a thread here?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by Giuseppe »

By calling Dubourg "a liberator" and exhorting to go "directly to Jewish text", Charbonnel wants to point out, a bit cryptically (=hence I woild call it s little riddle proposed by her), the Dubourg's finding that PLT is the semitic root for "to release/to free" and his implication being fatal to the possibility that Pilate had been introduced in the Gospel story for reasons different from the intention of inventing a midrash from Leviticus 16.

This finding is not a marginal detail. Basically, it says : no midrash from Lev 16 → no Barabbas episode → no need of a releaser → no Pilate in the original Gospel story.

Hence, I have thought that you would like this observation.

As to whistling, I interpret this smile: :whistling: as the expression of who wants to say and not say.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4154
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:17 pm This finding is not a marginal detail. Basically, it says : no midrash from Lev 16 → no Barabbas episode → no need of a releaser → no Pilate in the original Gospel story.
I have never doubted that the Barabbas story is derived from Leviticus 16 (well, at least not since reading Wratislaw, anyway).

I am on your side re much of the insights from Dubourg, by the way. (I wonder if the way I worded some of my comments has caused misunderstandings in relation to Dubourg.) After reading Charbonnel's comments about him I ordered his two volumes and have almost finished translating them into English. I still have more things to check up and double-check before taking the next step, though.

Where I differ from you -- and to some extent some of Duboug's theme, too -- is what comes across as a heavy emphasis on proving the gospel narratives to be fiction and Jesus to have been a myth. I think those points can in one sense simply be set aside without further comment. There is no argument for a historical Jesus that conforms to the norms of historical inquiry in other history and classics departments so the question doesn't interest me. What does interest me is what the implications of Dubourg's (and Charbonnel's) thesis are for understanding Christian origins.

We saw how out of control many scholars got over the suggestion Abraham, then David and Solomon, might not have been historical figures, and how much moreso over the very thought that Jesus may have not existed --- but I feel that Dubourg's thesis will simply send some of those folks ballistic and he will only be ridiculed and ignored totally. There will be no engagement if history tells us anything. Dubourg's thesis has the potential to blow much of what has been accomplished in New Testament studies in the past 100 years completely out of the water.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by Giuseppe »

To prove that the Gospels are midrash is not a so great novelty (see Bob Price). Not even that they have an Hebrew original (see Tresmontant).

The connection Pilate/PLT found by Dubourg is a kind of 'bolt from the blue', in the panorama of the explanations found until today about why the presence of Pilate in the Gospel story.

Loisy said that without the involvement of Pilate, he would have denied the historicity of Jesus. I should remember where I read this Loisy's claim, but it has been done.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4154
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 11:40 pm To prove that the Gospels are midrash is not a so great novelty (see Bob Price). Not even that they have an Hebrew original (see Tresmontant).

The connection Pilate/PLT found by Dubourg is a kind of 'bolt from the blue', in the panorama of the explanations found until today about why the presence of Pilate in the Gospel story.

Loisy said that without the involvement of Pilate, he would have denied the historicity of Jesus. I should remember where I read this Loisy's claim, but it has been done.
I thought we were talking about a riddle arising from page 136 of Charbonnel's reference to Dubourg.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by Giuseppe »

Well, the riddle in question is that NC calls Dubourg a "liberator" and she wants to explain the reason of such label by saying: "directly to the Jewish text", because in Hebrew PLT means "to set free, to release" (making eo ipso of Pilate a "liberator" of Barabbas) . Hence, I am not surprised by the fact that NC introduces Dubourg and his great merits, concluding with a cryptic reference, inter alia, to his finding about which I have talked above: Pilate/PLT.

The corollary is that NC agrees with me in thinking that this finding is not marginal, as it would be, for example, to find the symbolical meaning of Mary Magdalene in the context, or the meaning of Jairus, etc.

As I have said, the 'coincidence' PLT-Pilate is fatal to the same possibility that a Pilate was involved with Jesus in the real past.

Unless one believes in the power of divine coincidence.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4154
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:42 am

As I have said, the 'coincidence' PLT-Pilate is fatal to the same possibility that a Pilate was involved with Jesus in the real past.
This is where we have different approaches. I am not interested in the question of the historicity of Jesus. That is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. The historical problem is to explain Christian origins. That's what interests me.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by mlinssen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:03 am This is where we have different approaches. I am not interested in the question of the historicity of Jesus. That is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. The historical problem is to explain Christian origins. That's what interests me.
Would you be prepared to start with a clean slate there?

Or rather, what is the point where you are now? DSS? Marcion? Philo? Justin Martyr?
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A riddle for Neil Godfrey

Post by Giuseppe »

I am expecting Neil who gives an alternative explanation for the Charbonnel's words above.
Post Reply