Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 05-17-2009, 03:21 AM

According to this link (my bolding):

Quote:

It is not improbable that Barabbas' riot and murder were connected with Pilate's appropriation of the Corban; this explains the eagerness of the people to release him rather than Jesus; the name may mean "son of Abba," an honorary title of rabbis, from whence the elders were strongly in his favor. Livy (5:13) mentions that prisoners used to be released at a lectisternium or propitiatory feast in honor of the gods.

I checked Livy 5:13, and this is what Livy says there:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy05.html

Quote:

The priests who had charge of them appointed for the first time in Rome a lectisternium... Men who had been enemies held friendly and sociable conversations with each other and abstained from all litigation, the manacles even were removed from prisoners during this period, and afterwards it seemed an act of impiety that men to whom the gods had brought such relief should be put in chains again.

So, two questions:
1/ Could "Barabbas" suggest that he was son of a Rabbi? Were Rabbis called "Abba" at that time?
2/ Could prisoners be released at the period of a Lectisternium? Livy doesn't seem quite clear on this, saying only it seemed an act of impiety to put prisoners back in chains again.

spin · 05-17-2009, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

1/ Could "Barabbas" suggest that he was son of a Rabbi? Were Rabbis called "Abba" at that time?

As there is a double "b", one learns that the doubled letter is expected where found in the original. The underlying form would involve some sort of bar-rabbi. Obviously the double "r" would also be expected -- even more as it appears between two words. (Normally in English we don't care about doubled consonants, so think of the name "Dekker", but now think of the word "bookkeeper". In the second you repeat the sound of the "k" -- it has significance, because each is in a different word. It should be the same in Hebrew words transliterated into Greek.)

One would also have to explain the loss of the final sound of rabbi. Why doesn't the Greek preserve the "i" in some form?

It's possible, Gak, but I think it's not likely.

spin

Toto · 05-17-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

According to this link (my bolding):

Note that this website also claims that "Wearied with misfortunes Pilate killed himself (Josephus, Ant. 18:4, section 1-2; Eusebius, H. E., ii. 7)." But there is nothing in Josephus to support this.

I think that you bolded the wrong parts - let me highlight the weasel words:

Quote:

It is not improbable that Barabbas' riot and murder were connected with Pilate's appropriation of the Corban; this explains the eagerness of the people to release him rather than Jesus; the name may mean "son of Abba," an honorary title of rabbis, from whence the elders were strongly in his favor. ...

Quote:

So, two questions:
1/ Could "Barabbas" suggest that he was son of a Rabbi? Were Rabbis called "Abba" at that time?

There is some commentary in An exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew at p 389, but this involves changing Barabbas to Bar-Rabban. If skeptical scholars tried to rewrite the gospels like that to their advantage, it would lead to hoots of derision on your part, I suspect.

There seem to have been a few rabbis with the name "Bar Abba" but I have found nothing about this being a common or an honorary title.

This does point to the creativeness on the part of Christian apologists to extract some history from what is obviously a legendary tale, based on the release of the scapegoat in Leviticus 16. Why are you resisting the most obvious interpretation?

Quote:

2/ Could prisoners be released at the period of a Lectisternium? Livy doesn't seem quite clear on this, saying only it seemed an act of impiety to put prisoners back in chains again.

Lectisternium was a ritual, not a fixed feast day. It could be held on a daily basis.

Amaleq13 · 05-17-2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Livy doesn't seem quite clear on this, saying only it seemed an act of impiety to put prisoners back in chains again.

And the manacle removal description doesn't read like freedom but more like a respite from the chains. It seems to me that the phrase "and set free" should have been included if, in fact, they were set free and not just given some time without chains.

Steven Carr · 05-17-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I checked Livy 5:13, and this is what Livy says there:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy05.html

Quote:

The priests who had charge of them appointed for the first time in Rome a lectisternium... Men who had been enemies held friendly and sociable conversations with each other and abstained from all litigation, the manacles even were removed from prisoners during this period, and afterwards it seemed an act of impiety that men to whom the gods had brought such relief should be put in chains again.

So, two questions:
1/ Could "Barabbas" suggest that he was son of a Rabbi? Were Rabbis called "Abba" at that time?
2/ Could prisoners be released at the period of a Lectisternium? Livy doesn't seem quite clear on this, saying only it seemed an act of impiety to put prisoners back in chains again.

Are there parallels between release in Rome of prisoners in a Lectisternium, and the alleged release of a prisoner at Passover?

Isn't this a perfect example of 'parallelomania' - finding parallels where none exist?

This was in 399 BC, if I understand correctly.

And all prisoners were released, not just one.

Is there any evidence that this release of prisoners was still a custom in 1st century Palestine?

Steven Carr · 05-17-2009, 02:05 PM

I thought from the Gospels that Pharasaical double-talk about corban was a national scandal.

Why then would people want rabbis to be released over Corban, because of their enthusiasm for corban?

And why wasn't this Barabbas killed as quickly as Jesus was, rather than languishing in prison?

'Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.'

According to Josephus, there was no uprising after this corban slaughter. They held their peace.

GakuseiDon · 05-17-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

1/ Could "Barabbas" suggest that he was son of a Rabbi? Were Rabbis called "Abba" at that time?

As there is a double "b", one learns that the doubled letter is expected where found in the original. The underlying form would involve some sort of bar-rabbi. Obviously the double "r" would also be expected -- even more as it appears between two words. (Normally in English we don't care about doubled consonants, so think of the name "Dekker", but now think of the word "bookkeeper". In the second you repeat the sound of the "k" -- it has significance, because each is in a different word. It should be the same in Hebrew words transliterated into Greek.)

One would also have to explain the loss of the final sound of rabbi. Why doesn't the Greek preserve the "i" in some form?

It's possible, Gak, but I think it's not likely.

The article doesn't say "Bar-Rabbi", but "Bar-Abba", where "Abba" (as Father) designated a Rabbi. I was wondering whether sons of Rabbis could be referred to as "Bar-Abba", as stated by the article author.

GakuseiDon · 05-17-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There seem to have been a few rabbis with the name "Bar Abba" but I have found nothing about this being a common or an honorary title.

This does point to the creativeness on the part of Christian apologists to extract some history from what is obviously a legendary tale, based on the release of the scapegoat in Leviticus 16. Why are you resisting the most obvious interpretation?

It was the first time I'd come across those particular apologetics, so I was interested in whether the claims were accurate. Thanks Toto.

GakuseiDon · 05-17-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Livy doesn't seem quite clear on this, saying only it seemed an act of impiety to put prisoners back in chains again.

And the manacle removal description doesn't read like freedom but more like a respite from the chains. It seems to me that the phrase "and set free" should have been included if, in fact, they were set free and not just given some time without chains.

Yes, it struck me that way as well. Livy never actually said that they were set free. Thanks Amaleq.

God Fearing Atheist · 05-17-2009, 03:35 PM

Here is Brown (Death of the Messiah, vol 2, pg. 799) on Barabbas = rabban:

Quote:

What does "Barabbas" mean? One explanation hsa it reflect Bar-Rabban (a reading reflected in the "rr" spelling found in some mss.). "Rabban" was an honorific title for an eminent teacher or head of the Sanhedrin, built upon "rabbi." The medieval Epistle of Sherira Gaon claimed that the first person to bear the title "rabban" was Gamaliel at the end of the 1st cent. AD; more frequently, however, it was applied to Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi a century later. In this same vein some have taken "Barabbas" to mean "son of the [eminent] teacher," or even simply "teacher" (on the analogy that "son of man means "man"). A further varient is the suggestion that in the 2d cent. berabbi meant "attached to the rabbi." In a 10th-cent. uncial ms. of the NT (S) and in about twenty minuscule mss. there appears a marginal comment: "In many ancient copies I have dealt with, I found that Barabbas himself was likewise called Jesus...apparently the paternal name of the robber was 'Barabbas' which is interpreted 'son of a/the teacher.'" Overall, the rabban/teacher interpretation of "Barabbas" is not truly probable because of lack of proof that this title was in use in the early 1st cent., because the best attested orthography has one "r", and also because one would expect a patronymic to contain a personal name and "rabban" is not such a name.

About "Abba":

Quote:

"Abba" appears as a personal name with frequency in the Gemara section of the Talmud (ca. AD 200-400). In TalBab Berakoth 18B we find: "I am looking for Abba.' They said to him, 'There are many Abbas here.' He said, 'I want Abba bar Abba.' They said 'There are several Abbas bar Abba here.' He then said to them, 'I want Abba bar Abba, the father of Samuel." In the same TalBab the only example of "bar Abba" as a personal name applied to a figure of the Tannaitic period before AD 200 is Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba (Berakoth 48A,B). Yet "Abba" has now appeared as a name in a pre-70-AD burial at Giv'at ha-Mivtar (E.S. Rosenthal, IEJ 23 [1973], 72-81)

About the Lectisternia (pg. 815-16):

Quote:

Grotius (+ 1645) suggested a parallel in the Roman Lectisternia. Livy (History 5.13.7-8) reports that on the first historic celebration of this type of eight-day feast in 399 BC prisoners were unbound, and such was the religious awe inspired by the proceedings no one dared afterward to rechain them. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Ant. 12.9.10) reports that there was a release of slaves who had been placed under arrest by their masters. The Lectisternia was not celebrated annually but only on the occasion of thanksgiving in time of special stress. It is not clear that the unbindings were repeated, or that the concessions went much beyond parole.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-17-2009, 02:05 PM	#6
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I thought from the Gospels that Pharasaical double-talk about corban was a national scandal. Why then would people want rabbis to be released over Corban, because of their enthusiasm for corban? And why wasn't this Barabbas killed as quickly as Jesus was, rather than languishing in prison? 'Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.' According to Josephus, there was no uprising after this corban slaughter. They held their peace.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.