Caligula RELEASED (=PLT) Agrippas to make him the King of Jews

[Giuseppe]

So Mergui:

Toujours est-il que cette foule juive, non contente d’avoir mis l’Empire de Rome en échec, exige maintenant la mort de Jésus et la libération de Barabbas. Libération qui découle, elle aussi, non du verdict d’une juridiction (pensez-vous !) mais d’une coutume juive qui, par malchance, ne nous est pas parvenue et dont personne n’a jamais entendu parler. Heureusement, un détail nous met sur la voie. Hérode et Pilate, à chaque fête (Hag), ont coutume de relâcher (sens de plt en hébreu) leur prisonnier. On a vu plus haut que cette fête renvoie à Kipur, car c’est la seule où on relâche quelque chose (un bouc). La voilà, notre coutume.

Mergui, Maurice. Comprendre les origines du Christianisme: De l'eschatologie juive au midrash chrétien (French Edition)

Still, this Jewish crowd, not content with having defeated the Roman Empire, is now requiring the death of Jesus and the release of Barabbas. A liberation which also results not from the verdict of a court (do you think!) But from a Jewish custom which, unfortunately, has not reached us and which no one has ever heard of. Fortunately, one detail puts us on the right track. Herod and Pilate, at each feast (Hag), have the custom of releasing (meaning of plt in Hebrew) their prisoner. We saw above that this festival refers to Kipur, because it is the only one where something is released (a goat). Here it is, our custom.

The implication is:

no midrash from Lev 16 → no Barabbas episode → no need of a releaser → no Pilate in the original Gospel story.

[Giuseppe]

Mergui mentions the relation also in another book:

Pilate et Hérode présentent de nombreux points communs. Les deux compères se rapprochent d'ailleurs en Lc 23,12.

• Ce sont d'abord tous deux des étrangers (des non-Juifs).

• Pilate, de par son nom, est un libérateur ou un libéré. La racine plt en hébreu, signifie libérer. Même en grec, son nom sonne comme "plateia" qui signifie en grec "large" (hébreu: raHab).

• Les deux hommes ont aussi en commun, d'avoir leur jour faste (yom tob) au cours duquel ils doivent faire quelque "largesse" au peuple, ou “élargir “quelque prisonnier. Mt 27. 15 - à chaque Fête, le gouverneur (Pilate) avait coutume de relâcher à la foule un prisonnier, celui qu'elle voulait.

Mergui, Maurice. Un Etranger sur le toit: Les sources midrashiques des Evangiles (French Edition)

Pilate and Herod have many points in common. The two friends are getting closer in Lk 23:12.

• They are first of all foreigners (non-Jews).

• Pilate, by name, is a liberator or a freed one. The root plt in Hebrew means to free. Even in Greek, its name sounds like "plateia" which in Greek means "wide" (Hebrew: raHab).

• The two men also have in common, that they have their auspicious day (yom tob) during which they have to do some “largesse” to the people, or “donate” some prisoner. Mt 27.15 - At each Feast, the governor (Pilate) used to release to the crowd a prisoner, the one they wanted.

What matters here is that PLT is a Semitic root for both: to escape, to set someone free (=to cause to escape == to release).

Please Neil, don't be victim of the fallacy of the difference without a real distinction.

Who can think that to release ≠ to cause to escape ?

Note that the French élarguir, similar to Italian elargire, from largus (=generous), gives the idea of a "width" of inclusive feelings.

[neilgodfrey]

I don't understand why you insist in saying that release requires 2 parties.
Release is the same meaning of: to expel, to eject. The two parties are involved.

?? Yes, two parties are involved. Yes, two parties are required for a release. Some confusion here.

[Giuseppe]

I don't understand why you insist in saying that release requires 2 parties.
Release is the same meaning of: to expel, to eject. The two parties are involved.

?? Yes, two parties are involved. Yes, two parties are required for a release. Some confusion here.

PLT is only a Semitic root and it can mean, according to context:

• to escape

• to cause to escape

The Gospel context allows no doubt to think that:

• "to cause to escape" is used in the Gospel episode, with Pilate as subject and with Barabbas as object of the release

• to cause to escape == to release.

Who may think otherwise?

Why do you think that the 2 parties are not recognized?

Secret Alias's obsession about PLT meaning only escape, freed, released and NOT 'who makes one escape', 'who frees one', 'who releases one', is explained by his implicit grotesque desire that Pilate is the fugitive, as per Acta Pilati. And not Barabbas.

[neilgodfrey]

I don't understand why you insist in saying that release requires 2 parties.
Release is the same meaning of: to expel, to eject. The two parties are involved.

?? Yes, two parties are involved. Yes, two parties are required for a release. Some confusion here.

PLT is only a Semitic root and it can mean, according to context:

• to escape

• to cause to escape

The Gospel context allows no doubt to think that:

• "to cause to escape" is used in the Gospel episode, with Pilate as subject and with Barabbas as object of the release

• to cause to escape == to release.

Who may think otherwise?

Why do you think that the 2 parties are not recognized?

Secret Alias's obsession about PLT meaning only escape, freed, released and NOT 'who makes one escape', 'who frees one', 'who releases one', is explained by his implicit grotesque desire that Pilate is the fugitive, as per Acta Pilati. And not Barabbas.

There is a language barrier here. I am saying that 2 parties ARE necessary in the action of releasing.

You speak of SA's allowing of only one meaning, but he has made a good case by appealing to the available evidence. I think we have seen some more evidence that broadens the meaning -- at least in Aramaic -- since then. You also need to be careful. Is there a meaning for 'release' in Hebrew? So far the sources I cited indicate the examples are only in Aramaic. Does it matter that the examples are in Aramaic anyway? Don't take things for granted and jump to conclusions. (You remind me of a friend of mine once who kindly sent me lots of photo images of a book I was looking for but he forgot to check if the photos were legible -- they were all blurred and illegible! Slow down. Check things out first.)

I am trying to start with the facts we can know and that are the basis of D's and M's hypotheses, to establish the facts behind the arguments. Don't rush ahead on assumptions that everything Dubourg or Mergui or Charbonnel says is always correct. Check things out first. If you find out in the process that they are right then you will have a much better grasp of why they are right. If you find otherwise, you might need to qualify some things they say -- that does not mean necessarily throwing out everything they say.

It is easy to look for any scene involving a "releasing" of something and say, Hey, look at all those coincidences. But a closer look in the context of the facts we can establish may lead to a different but richer view of what is happening. "Delivering up" is a major concept in the NT. Sometimes we can go so fast we ending up arguing the point from our conclusions -- not realizing we are presenting a circular argument even though in our own minds we know we can take a couple of steps back and reframe the arguments into a valid form.

[Giuseppe]

You speak of SA's allowing of only one meaning, but he has made a good case by appealing to the available evidence.

what has he shown? That it can mean "to escape" or "to cause to escape". He claims that to cause to escape is not the same thing as to release someone, which is an absurd distinction for me.

[Giuseppe]

"to cause to escape, cast forth" does sound synonymous with "release".

precisely the point of Mergui, who calls Pilate a liberator.

Charbonnel calls Dubourg a "liberateur" as homage to his finding about PLT and Pilate.

When the fish vomits out Jonah, surely Jonah is freed.

When the goat is released in the wilderness, the goat is freed, isn't it?

The Secret Alias's objections are not justified at all.

[neilgodfrey]

"to cause to escape, cast forth" does sound synonymous with "release".

precisely the point of Mergui, who calls Pilate a liberator.

You are missing my point. I can add nothing more to what I have said.

Charbonnel calls Dubourg a "liberateur" as homage to his finding about PLT and Pilate.

No, Giuseppe, she does not call Dubourt a liberator as homage to his comment on PLT & Pilate. You are overstating your case to the point of losing credibility. If you don't stick to what people say exactly but claim they are saying what you have only extrapolated from their words then you will not convince anyone that you are careful with what you read.

Recall that Dubourg actually said Pilate failed to release Jesus. So you cannot claim that Charbonnel is even implying the PLT meaning of "release" in her reasons for calling him a "liberator".

When the fish vomits out Jonah, surely Jonah is freed.

When the goat is released in the wilderness, the goat is freed, isn't it?

Indeed, Giuseppe, but repeating such examples does nothing to advance your argument. You are missing the point of SA's objection. By simply repeating such examples you are putting the cart before the horse. Circularity.

There is indeed a difference between releasing and escaping. That cannot be denied. Now there is also overlap between the two concepts, obviously. But when you refuse to acknowledge that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous then there is no room for discussion with you. That doesn't mean Dubourg is wrong, but it does mean we need to take a step back and look carefully at the evidence before us.

Keep in mind that for Dubourg the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic was very significant for his thesis. Yet the unless I am mistaken, the only two examples we have seen in this thread of a use of PLT meaning "release" in an unambiguous manner are in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

To simply deny that there is a difference between release and escaping does not help your case.

That there is room for PLT meaning "release" is not denied. You do need to consider the concept of "delivering over" or "delivering up", also.

[Giuseppe]

No, Giuseppe, she does not call Dubourt a liberator as homage to his comment on PLT & Pilate.
...
Recall that Dubourg actually said Pilate failed to release Jesus. So you cannot claim that Charbonnel is even implying the PLT meaning of "release" in her reasons for calling him a "liberator".

I disagree here.

• First: Dubourg uses both the verbs, "to release" and "to free", as synonimous.

• Second: you have no alternative explanation about why Charbonnel calls him a "liberateur" by alluding directly to Jewish text for "to free".

• Third: you ignore deliberately Mergui's point (correcting Dubourg here) that the releaser is apt for Barabbas.

Indeed, Giuseppe, but repeating such examples does nothing to advance your argument. You are missing the point of SA's objection. By simply repeating such examples you are putting the cart before the horse. Circularity.

There is indeed a difference between releasing and escaping. That cannot be denied. Now there is also overlap between the two concepts, obviously. But when you refuse to acknowledge that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous then there is no room for discussion with you. That doesn't mean Dubourg is wrong, but it does mean we need to take a step back and look carefully at the evidence before us.

I give you a notice,then: both Dubourg and Mergui use the two terms as synonimous. Mergui even recognizes that Pilate can be both a freed and "one who frees" (=a liberator). The context obviously obliges us to see Pilate as "one who frees" (=a liberator).

What I find disturbing is that you ignore Mergui in this discussion.

Keep in mind that for Dubourg the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic was very significant for his thesis. Yet the unless I am mistaken, the only two examples we have seen in this thread of a use of PLT meaning "release" in an unambiguous manner are in Aramaic, not Hebrew.

on this I am open. But I remember you the similarities between the essenes and the early Christians, and how is used PLT in Qumran.

To simply deny that there is a difference between release and escaping does not help your case.

Mergui concedes that difference (see the quote above), between one freed and "one who frees". Should you translate "YHWH PLT", where it occurs, as "YHWH delivers" or as "YHWH is delivered"? (Rethorical question)

That there is room for PLT meaning "release" is not denied. You do need to consider the concept of "delivering over" or "delivering up", also.

Pilate delivered Jesus (called Christ), effectively, and this may be not a coincidence. But I want to focus on the LIBERATION, "EJECTION", LIBERATION of Barabbas.

I have quoted above as PLT is defined a "more delicate term" than : to expel, to vomit out.

What Pilate does is to expel the goat Barabbas in the wilderness.

No obligation to be fixated only on release.
I repeat: Mergui and Dubourg use both the terms: LIBERATION AND EXPULSION.

And Charbonnel emphasizes the "LIBERATION".

[Giuseppe]

Pilate, de par son nom, est un libérateur ou un libéré. La racine plt en hébreu, signifie libérer.

Do you want to use 'to escape' for Plt ? Well:
Pilate is a fugitive or one who causes to escape.

Please don't the fallacy of a distinction without a real difference.