DCHindley

Here is the Greek:

(VI) 36 Ἦν τις μεμηνὼς ὄνομα Καραβᾶς

Note just one β (beta = "b"), so it really doesn't matter how Yonge transliterated it.

DCH

davidstarlingm

One English transliteration of a Greek name does not an argument make.

Consider instead the actual Greek text:
I checked; the spelling of Barabbas is the same in the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types of Mark. So it's "Kara-bas" and "Bar-abbas", not Carabbas and Barabbas.

EDIT: Oops, sniped by DCH. See what I get for trying to respond to two things at once?

Isn't that what expositors are supposed to do? Look in the Old Testament to see the events of the New Testament foretold and explained? Oh, wait....if you don't think any scripture can be inspired, then you have already ruled that out, so any similarities must be invented by Mark and the other gospel writers.

That's what I don't understand. If ya happen to be an atheist or a hard agnostic, then that's fine; of course you've already ruled out the possibility of divine foreshadowing. I expect that. But if you believe that there might be anything supernatural out there, what's so extraordinarily unbelievable about such a Being giving advance notice and explanation of an important part of history? I mean, isn't that something you might conceivably do?

maryhelena

Here is another way of viewing the Carabbas story in Philo.

Philo’s Carabbas story, set in Alexandria, is linked to Agrippa I, ie. Carabbas is viewed as stand-in for the mocking of Agrippa I. The gospel story cuts to the chase, as it were, and has the mocking of JC. However, the ‘villain’ in the gospel story, Barabbas, is a prisoner, while Carabbas, in Philo is not. However, Agrippa I was a prisoner and had just been realized and been made a king.

The Agrippa I story does have echoes of the story of Joseph: Like Joseph, Agrippa is released from prison and elevated in status, Kingship for Agrippa and second in command for Joseph in Egypt. Joseph was hated by his brothers, ridiculed re his dream of being bowed down to - his coat of many colors was viewed as an expression of favouritism by his father. Joseph is sold by his brothers and ends up in prison in Egypt. Agrippa I is mocked, in Alexandria, via the story re Carabbas.

Josephus adds further to the Joseph and Agrippa I connection....

Ninety nine dollar question - why are Philo and Josephus connecting Agrippa I with Joseph?

davidstarlingm

I think that the similarities are still too vague to establish a definite connection; there are plenty of kings in history who were in prison at some point -- look at the Tower of London, a fortress specifically for keeping royal prisoners.

However, if Philo or Josephus really were borrowing from Genesis in their "histories", that would at least be interesting.

maryhelena

davidstarlingm

If nothing else, it would establish a tendency in Philo and/or Josephus to creatively borrow details from outside stories, which would make it more likely that Philo had borrowed anecdotal reports of the Passion, including a Grecianized name. This would tend to support the historicity of the Markan account....at least with respect to that part of Mark.

maryhelena

And which passion would that be

Fully fledged ahistoricist/mythicist here......so JC is ruled out - so no borrowing from gMark for Philo re the mocking element of that storyline. Philo died around 50 ce. which would make dating gMark very early.....

If there is any historical passion and humiliation of a Jewish King that Philo would be interested in - it would be that of Antigonus in 37 b.c. Crucified, scourged and beheaded - and humiliated by being called by a woman's name...Oh, and Antigonus also spent a few years in a Roman prison....

my bolding

Toto

If you believe in supernaturalism, you can explain anything. There's no real point to this - with god all things are possible, as the motto of the state of Ohio claims.

But I wonder what the logic or goodness or mercy of such a god is. Why show your divine powers by planting cryptic clues in an ancient document? Why not actually do something supernatural in view of the skeptics?

davidstarlingm

Mel Gibson's, of course. :P

If there was a historical Yeshua Nazreth who was beaten and crucified by Pilate's men at the request of the Jewish authorities around 30 AD, then Philo could have incorporated anecdotal reports of this event into his part-myth, part-history account of Flaccus. Since it seems increasingly unlikely that the Markan account borrowed from Philo, this is one possible explanation for the similarities between the accounts. Of course, coincidence is the more likely explanation, since the similarities are pretty generic.

I don't want to get off on a tangent here, but this bothers me. I'm a fully fledged historicist....but that doesn't mean I rule out other explanations. If I ruled out every explanation that didn't fit with my preconceived ideas, I would have no opportunity to adapt or change those ideas; I would never know if I was wrong.

It is good -- very good -- to have a firm framework for examining evidence and history. However, I don't think it's a good idea to hold an a priori commitment to a particular viewpoint in a way that automatically rules out possible interpretations of the evidence. That doesn't mean that you have to approach issues with gullibility, but you can't let your presuppositions prevent equitable consideration.

Sorry to rant a bit....but I always thought it was Christians who automatically rule out anything that doesn't "fit" what they are already sure of. I guess it is sometimes the other way around.

Care to define "believing in supernaturalism"? I daresay there is a significant difference between believing in the supernatural and believing in supernaturalism....or were you just tacking on the "-ism" for effect?

Grammar is rhetorical.

We skeptics have been around for thousands and thousands of years. What makes our skepticism particularly special? :huh:

Toto

I don't think there is a difference, from my point of view. What do you think the difference is? Are some supernatural forces more believable than others?