Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-14-2012, 03:13 PM

Yes, that is true. And one can only speculate WHY the author chose the name Barabbas instead of Jacob or Nathaniel, leaving aside the meaning of "Son of Father" with its Christian overtones.
i am getting the stronger hunch that a story involving Barabbas/Bar Abba could only have been written in the
4th century when it was apparently very common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

If Mark invented the character "Barabba" then any narrative that uses that character in the same context that Mark used it in is necessarily dependent on Mark.

One has to consider the uncharacteristic nature of Pilate in the same pericope as well. All of the gospels depict him as patient and willing to give a trial to two people. All other sources outside of the Gospels depict him as impatient. That makes me skeptical that the Pilate/Barabba pericope is independent between Mark and John.

Grog · 05-15-2012, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

If Mark invented the character "Barabba" then any narrative that uses that character in the same context that Mark used it in is necessarily dependent on Mark.

One has to consider the uncharacteristic nature of Pilate in the same pericope as well. All of the gospels depict him as patient and willing to give a trial to two people. All other sources outside of the Gospels depict him as impatient. That makes me skeptical that the Pilate/Barabba pericope is independent between Mark and John.

Not to be an apologist for Pilate, I am sure his reputation is well-deserved. However, he was not beyond compassion:

"...and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea. " [Antiquities, 18.3.1]

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 05:45 PM

Speaking of names I am amazed that the author of the Jesus genealogy couldn't go beyond what he though names sounded like to a Greek ear to get the names clearer as others are directly from the Tanakh. He could have checked with a Jew to avoid making mistakes.......
He's got these names, and I add in what I think the Hebrew is:

Cosam = Chusham (he could have seen it in 2 Samuel)
Jorim = probably Yoram (Book of Kings)
Jonam = probably Jonah
Mattat = Mattityahu/Mattathias, probably the same as the other name Mattatha
Menna = probably Menachem
Elmadam = Eliam + Adam
Addi = Uziah
Melki = Malachi
Neri = Neriah as in Baruch the son of Neriah.

EarlDoherty · 05-16-2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Steve Carr:

You cannot conclude that Mark and John are independent based on the presence of Barabbas in both book. The conclusion of independence is based on the many dissimilarities that are obvious if you read the books side by side.

The presence of the same character in two independent sources suggests that both writers had heard about Barabbas somewhere, but not necessarily from the same place. Thus two independent attestation to the presence of Barabbas.

Steve

Nonsense. There isn't a critical scholar alive who doesn't think Barabbas and his freeing by Pilate is a fiction.

Two independent attestations to a fictional character and episode?

John is dependent on Mark on more than this one element. But the dissimilarities are John's own invention. He didn't slavishly follow Mark because he had his own agendas.

Earl Doherty

Earl Doherty

Duvduv · 05-16-2012, 10:52 PM

The name Esli must have been Chushiel or Ezra.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Speaking of names I am amazed that the author of the Jesus genealogy couldn't go beyond what he though names sounded like to a Greek ear to get the names clearer as others are directly from the Tanakh. He could have checked with a Jew to avoid making mistakes.......
He's got these names, and I add in what I think the Hebrew is:

Cosam = Chusham (he could have seen it in 2 Samuel)
Jorim = probably Yoram (Book of Kings)
Jonam = probably Jonah
Mattat = Mattityahu/Mattathias, probably the same as the other name Mattatha
Menna = probably Menachem
Elmadam = Eliam + Adam
Addi = Uziah
Melki = Malachi
Neri = Neriah as in Baruch the son of Neriah.

Duvduv · 05-20-2012, 10:58 AM

So the question remains as to how the author of GLuke could find correct spellings for some names of the genealogy in Tanakh and yet get mixed up over other names which ALSO appear in the Tanakh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The name Esli must have been Chushiel or Ezra.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Speaking of names I am amazed that the author of the Jesus genealogy couldn't go beyond what he though names sounded like to a Greek ear to get the names clearer as others are directly from the Tanakh. He could have checked with a Jew to avoid making mistakes.......
He's got these names, and I add in what I think the Hebrew is:

Cosam = Chusham (he could have seen it in 2 Samuel)
Jorim = probably Yoram (Book of Kings)
Jonam = probably Jonah
Mattat = Mattityahu/Mattathias, probably the same as the other name Mattatha
Menna = probably Menachem
Elmadam = Eliam + Adam
Addi = Uziah
Melki = Malachi
Neri = Neriah as in Baruch the son of Neriah.

Duvduv · 05-22-2012, 02:33 PM

I haven't yet managed to find anyone who discusses the discrepancy between the correct names of some of the "ancestors" of Joseph and the incorrect ones. Presumably the author who was able to find the patriarchs, David and Nathan, etc. could also get the other names straight, at least by asking an educated Jew. Now let's suppose the scribes started making mistakes, why would they make mistakes with certain names appearing in the Tanakh and not others?
Jonam, Jorim and Melki could easily be corrected from the Tanakh to JONAH, JORAM and MALACHI.

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

05-15-2012, 05:45 PM	#43
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Speaking of names I am amazed that the author of the Jesus genealogy couldn't go beyond what he though names sounded like to a Greek ear to get the names clearer as others are directly from the Tanakh. He could have checked with a Jew to avoid making mistakes....... He's got these names, and I add in what I think the Hebrew is: Cosam = Chusham (he could have seen it in 2 Samuel) Jorim = probably Yoram (Book of Kings) Jonam = probably Jonah Mattat = Mattityahu/Mattathias, probably the same as the other name Mattatha Menna = probably Menachem Elmadam = Eliam + Adam Addi = Uziah Melki = Malachi Neri = Neriah as in Baruch the son of Neriah.

05-22-2012, 02:33 PM	#47
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I haven't yet managed to find anyone who discusses the discrepancy between the correct names of some of the "ancestors" of Joseph and the incorrect ones. Presumably the author who was able to find the patriarchs, David and Nathan, etc. could also get the other names straight, at least by asking an educated Jew. Now let's suppose the scribes started making mistakes, why would they make mistakes with certain names appearing in the Tanakh and not others? Jonam, Jorim and Melki could easily be corrected from the Tanakh to JONAH, JORAM and MALACHI.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.