Barabbas (Bar Abba) as a Common Personal Name

  

27:16: Barabbas, Βαραββᾶν.

 

Bar Abba בר אבא “son of Abba,” a common personal name.

 

Babylonian Talmud Berakot 18B: Funds for orphans had been deposited with the father of Samuel († 254). When his soul entered into rest, Samuel was not with him. He was called a son who consumes orphan funds (from the deposit). He went out to his father at the cemetery. He cried out to them (the dead), “I’m looking for Abba” (so his father was called). They answered, “There are many Abbas here.” He cried out, “I’m looking for Abba bar Abba!” (Samuels grandfather was also called Abba.) They answered, “There are also many Abbas bar Abba here.” He cried out, “I’m looking for Abba bar Abba, the father of Samuel. Where is he?” They answered, “He has ascended into the heavenly academy.… (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1186)

 

Overview of "40 Questions about Mormonism" by Kyle Beshears

 I am cross-posting this from youtube. As of writing, I hope to join Blake Ostler on Jacob Ryder's youtube channel to interact with the book.

Overview of "40 Questions about Mormonism" by Kyle Beshears The first half of the book was okay; lot of problems, but was hopeful it would be at least decent. Second half was a huge let down. Here are the good points: (*) I believe that Beshears is a good-faith actor. (*) He admits some popular arguments against LDS theology and other claims are not that good. Consider, for e.g., the following from p. 67: ==It is unlikely Smith intentionally revised his First Vision primarily to match his new ideas about God or to secure power, as some critics have suggested. The church’s explanation is more convincing, which suggests differences between the accounts could be “read as evidence of [Smith’s] increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience.” = (*) Beshears does not believe that Joseph Smith (or Solomon Spalding et al) wrote the Book of Mormon (see pp. 112-13 Some of the cons of the book: (*) The exegesis offered in favor of his (Reformed Protestant) understanding of doctrines (e.g., forensic justification; perseverance of the saints) is lacking--the MO is just throw out a proof-text and expect one's readers to agree with it (*) One would not know from the book that the overwhelming evidence from modern biblical scholarship supports LDS theology on God being substantially anthropomorphic in nature in the Old Testament and that the biblical authors did not hold to creation ex nihilo. Ditto for the "number" of God(s) in the Old and New Testaments. To use Deut 6:4 as evidence for strict monotheism is a joke (*) Relating to the above, not quoting/interacting with/critiquing Blake Ostler's 2005 response to Copan and Craig? Even if you think Blake is wrong about his interpretation of the KFD & Sermon in the Grove, he is not "outside the LDS mainstream" on the nature of creation. Also, May's work (who is not LDS) is not interacted with, too. (*) Beshears claims that the "gospel" (as he understands it) has always been present since the end of the NT period, ergo, no Great Apostasy, ergo, LDS claim of a need of a restoration through Joseph Smith is nullified. Outside eisegesis, there is no evidence of any patristic author holding to an understanding of sola fide similar to that of Protestantism (yes, Ambrosiaster and even Aquinas used 'sola fide' approvingly, but they both held to baptismal regeneration and transformative justification; also, Aquinas used that phrase in the context of a hymn in favor of Transubstantiation [which is intimately related to the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice!]). (*) The chapters on soteriology were a disappointment. No meaningful defense of his Reformed understanding of baptism, wrestling with the fact that baptismal regeneration is the unanimous teaching of the patristics and even medievals, and no meaningful exegesis of texts such as Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3-7, etc. *Sola Scriptura Assumed, Never Proven* Throughout his book, Beshears assumes (his Reformed understanding of) Sola Scriptura. Whenever he tries to defend it, even in passing, it is lame. 2 Tim 3:15 is speaking of the Old Testament writings Timothy knew since his childhood, and as he was living during times of public revelation, "scripture" (which would not have been exhausted by the Protestant 66 book canon at the time [even if Sola Scriptura is true]) was not the sole infallible authority or the sole authority that could immediately bind the conscience of believers. Furthermore, one would not know there is a debate throughout history of Heb 4:12 is about "scripture" (which Beshears reads into this as being "the Bible" a la tota scriptura, which is anachronistic eisegesis) or the person of Christ (the latter is supported by it having volition of will [being able to discern thoughts]). And to read biblical sufficiency into 2 Pet 1:16 (which again, was revealed during times of public revelation) is eisegesis to the extreme. With that being said, I will happily interact with Kyle on the topic of Sola Scriptura. As with so many Protestant treatments of “Mormonism,” that is something he assumes/reads into the Bible (such as Heb 4:12; 2 Pet 1:19; 2 Tim 3:15-17, etc). If anyone can swing a debate between us on that topic, I will be appreciative. Robert Boylan ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

R. Alan Culpepper on Matthew 27:15-16 and the Barabbas Event

  

While releasing a prisoner would have been appropriate for the observance of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, it is not attested outside the Gospels. The Mishnah allows slaughtering a Passover lamb “for one whom they have promised to bring out of prison” (m. Pesaḥ. 8:6). A papyrus text records the governor of Egypt releasing a prisoner named Phibion and declaring, “You were worthy of scourging, … but I give you to the crowds.”⁸³ Josephus also records instances of procurators releasing prisoners and crowds demanding the release of a prisoner on various occasions (Ant. 17.204; 20.215). The custom is credible, therefore, although the evidence for it is inconclusive. It is the kind of gesture that the prefect might have made as a way of maintaining good relations with the chief priests and the pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem. (R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Lousiville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021], 544)

 

Ulrich Luz and R. Alan Culpepper on the Use of both Psalm 22 and Wisdom of Solomon in Matthew 27:43

 

 

■ 43 The Jewish leaders go even further with their ridicule and in so doing use words of the godless from Ps 21:9 LXX. The words are even more malicious than those of v. 42. There the Jewish leaders challenged Jesus to save himself; now they speak of God: “He trusts in God.” God should save him, and he should do it right away! They thereby expose themselves in their own godlessness. They end by referring also to Jesus’ divine sonship and state that he claims to be God’s Son. We probably have echoes here of the mocking words of Wis 2:18: “If the righteous man is God’s son (υἱὸς θεοῦ) … , he will deliver him (ῥύσεται αὐτόν).” Matthew is probably thinking of the way of the suffering righteous man depicted in Wis 2:5. However, for him “God’s Son” is much more than an exemplary righteous man from the Bible. He is the one whom God himself has revealed as his only Son (Matt 3:17; 17:5), who is intimately united with the Father (11:27), whom people confess as their savior (14:33; cf. 16:16). It is this one who in the manner of the biblical righteous man goes the way of obedience. Only when “God’s Son” (θεοῦ υἱός) is invested with all of the connotations of the Matthean understanding of Son of God, of which his obedience to God’s will is only one, does it become clear what it means that the Son of God, Jesus, does not come down from the cross but goes the way of obedience. Then it also becomes clear how deep the truth is that the Jewish leaders in their malicious irony unknowingly state. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: A Commentary [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2005], 539)

 

 

In 27:43, Matthew quotes Ps 22:8 with echoes from the Wisdom of Solomon, where the righteous one “calls himself a child of God” (2:13) and God “will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries” (2:18). Twice in Matthew the voice from heaven has said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased” (3:17; 17:5). The verb “to deliver” (hryomai, 27:43) links Matthew with both Ps 22:8 and Wis 2:18 while echoing the Lord’s Prayer (6:13; see also 26:39–42). Not surprisingly, the hope of deliverance is repeated frequently in the NT (Luke 1:74; Rom 15:31; 2 Thess 3:2; 2 Pet 2:9). (R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021], 558)

 

A. T. Robertson on the Present Participle

  

5. Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative.

 

(a) The Time of the Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principal verb. Thus in πωλοῦντες ἔφερον (Ac. 4:34. Cf. πωλήσας ἤνεγκεν in verse 37) the time is past; in μεριμνῶν δύναται (Mt. 6:27) the time is present; in ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι (Mt. 10:22), ὁ βλέπων ἀποδώσει (Mt. 6:18), ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον (24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu. 5:4; 12:43. Further examples of the pres. part. of coincident action are seen in Mt. 27:41; Mk. 16:20; Jo. 6:6; 21:19; Ac. 9:22; 10:44; 19:9.

 

(b) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a futuristic sense, so the pres. part. may be used of the future in the sense of purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. εὐλογοῦντα (Ac. 3:26); ἀπαγγέλλοντας (15:27); διακονῶν (Ro. 15:25). In Ac. 18:23, ἐξῆλθεν διερχόμενος τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν, the pres. part. is coincident with the verb. In 21:2 f. the pres. parts. διαπερῶν and ἀποφορτιζόμενον are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass, page 189, notes ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Jo. 11:27) and ἐρχόμενον (1:9). This use of the pres. part. is common in Thuc. (Gildersleeve, A. J. P., 1908, p. 408).

 

(c) Descriptive. But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in ἄγοντες (Ac. 21:16). In τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10).

 

(d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or imperf. ind. as in πείθων (Ac. 28:23) or τοὺς εἰσερχομένους (Mt. 23:14).

 

(e) Antecedent Time. By implication also the pres. part. may be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of “imperfect” part.). So τυφλὸς ὣν ἄρτι βλέπω (Jo. 9:25). See further Mt. 2:20; Jo. 12:17; Ac. 4:34; 10:7; Gal. 1:23. Cf. ὁ βαπτίζων (Mk. 1:4).

 

(f) Indirect Discourse. Cf. p. 864. An example of the pres. part. with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc. with verbs of sensation) is found in εἴδαμέν τινα ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια (Lu. 9:49). The pres. part. is common after εἶδον in Rev. (10:1; 13:1, 11; 14:6; 18:1; 20:1, etc.). Cf. Ac. 19:35, γινώσκει τὴν πόλιν οὖσαν.

 

(g) With the Article. The present participle has often the iterative (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So ὁ κλέπτων (Eph. 4:28)=‘the rogue.’ Cf. ὁ καταλύων (Mt. 27:40); οἱ ζητοῦντες (2:20). The part. with the article sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, Prol., p. 127; Kühner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the papyri, τοῖς γαμοῦσι, C. P. R. 24 (ii/a.d.). Cf. τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47). So in Gal. 4:27, ἡ οὑ τίκτουσα, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα.

 

(h) Past Action Still in Progress. This may be represented by the pres. part. So Mk. 5:25; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59.

 

(i) “Subsequent” Action. Blass finds “subsequent” action in the pres. parts. in Ac. 14:22 and 18:23. But in 14:22 note ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Λύστραν—ἐπιστηρίζοντες τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν μαθητῶν, the aorist ind. is “effective” and accents the completion of the action. The pres. part. is merely coincident with the “effective” stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist.

 

(j) No Durative Future Participles. The few fut. parts. in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless τὸ γενησόμενον (1 Cor. 15:37) be durative, but this example is pretty clearly ingressive punctiliar. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Logos Bible Software, 2006], 891-92)

 

Notes on the Present Participle of ἐκχέω (to pour out/shed) in Matthew 23:35 and 26:28

  

Which is shed for many (το περι πολλων ἐκχυννομενον [to peri pollōn ekchunnomenon]). A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in 20:28. There ἀντι [anti] and here περι [peri]. Unto remission of sins (εἰς ἀφεσιν ἁμαρτιων [eis aphesin hamartiōn]). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins. (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1933], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

 

In Jewish legend there is the murder of Isaiah. Further, the Zechariah whose murder is recorded in 2 Chron 24 20ff. came to be identified with Zechariah the prophet. We should perhaps make allowance for a certain amount of poetic licence here, and taken Jerusalem as typical of Israel as a whole. The present participles of the Greek text may then be taken to mean something like 'ever ready to slay the prophets and stone her messengers'. (T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke Arranged with Introduction and Commentary [London: SCM Press Ltd., 1937], 127)

 

 

Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς τροφήτας καὶ λιθοβολουσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν. Compare 21:35; also Neh 9:26; Jer 2:30. So also Luke and therefore Q. Note the (Semitic?) solecism and the catchword connexion with v. 34 (‘I send to you prophets’, ‘the prophets sent’). The double vocative here adds, as Clement of Alexandria, Paid. 1:9–7:9, saw, emphasis and pathos (cf. Acts 9:4), and the divine passive (‘sent’) distinguishes the speaker (Jesus) from the sender (God). For the killing of the prophets see on 23:31, and for stoning (see on 21:35) note Jn 8:59 (Jesus); Acts 7:59 (Stephen); Heb 11:37 (OT heroes); 4 Baruch 9 (Jeremiah); Josephus, Ant. 4:22 (Moses); b. Sanh. 43a (Jesus); Exod. Rab. on 6:13 (Moses). The Zechariah of 2 Chr 24:20–2 (cf. 5:35) was stoned, and this fact enhances narrative continuity. Manson, Sayings, pp. 126–7, rightly observing that Jewish tradition does not place many executions of prophets in Jerusalem, suggested that the present participles may mean ‘ever ready to slay and stone’. This is probably correct, although we observe that in our Gospel ‘all Jerusalem’ has been complicit in the slaughter of infants (2:1–12), has sent Pharisees to oppose Jesus, and has been predicted as the place of the Messiah’s execution (16:21; 20:17–18). (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [International Critical Commentary [London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 3:320)

 

 

Jesus speaks first of what the inhabitants of the city have done in the past. Jerusalem is the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers (the present participles point not to an occasional aberration, but to the continuing practice). (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992], 590-91)

 

 

Poured out has sometimes been rendered “shed” (for example, Brc). Whichever expression is used, the readers must understand that it refers to death. (Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1992], 805)

 

 

My blood: see Lv 17:11 for the concept that the blood is “the seat of life” and that when placed on the altar it “makes atonement.” Which will be shed: the present participle, “being shed” or “going to be shed,” is future in relation to the Last Supper. (Donald Senior, John J. Collins, and Mary Ann Getty, eds., The Catholic Study Bible, 2 vols. (2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 2:1391)

 

Joseph Symes (non-LDS) on the Book of Mormon in "The Best Attested of All Bibles"

  

THE BEST ATTESTED OF ALL BIBLES

 

[The Liberator is the title of a journal published in Melbourne, Australia, Joseph Symes being the editor. He is a skeptic in religious matters. The following occupied a page in recent issue of his paper.]

 

The Book of Mormon is the best attested of all holy books or Bibles. I may go further and say that it is the only Bible that is attested at all, except perhaps the Koran. I must explain. . . .

 

[Then follows the story of the first vision and the coming of Moroni]

 

The story told above is thoroughly consistent with itself, and in perfect keeping with the leading doctrines of the Bible. No Christian can consistently refuse to credit it.

 

2. It is quite likely that God should reveal himself on plates of metal as on tablets of stone; to Joseph Smith as to Moses; in America as in Western Asia. Here the plates are described; the stones Moses received are nowhere described. Here dates are given; in the Bible important and necessary dates are never given.

 

3. As no one knows what the Urim and Thummim was, no one can prove that Joseph Smith’s description and use of it are incorrect or improbable. To his positive and detailed statement, what can the Christian oppose?

 

4. It must be admitted that the world needed a divine revelation in Smith’s day quite as much as it ever did; and therefore a compassionate God was as likely to reveal himself to Mr. Smith as to Mr. Moses, Mr. Isaiah, etc. In the next place let us see what others relate to Mr. Smith’s book.

 

[Here follows the testimony of the three and the eight witnesses.]

 

I ask, what would the Jew or the Christian not give to have his Bible attested in the above manner?

 

Of course, the impartial skeptic attaches no importance whatsoever to religious testimony or to Spiritualistic testimony or to Theosophic testimony.

 

But here we find a number of men who produce and publish a wonderful book; the publication of which is followed by cruel persecution against Smith, and his friends, and the most astounding social and commercial development of our century. This is not a tale of past ages the records of which have gone through many vicissitudes, and were written we know not when or by whom; but a contemporary development. Men are yet living who were born before Joseph Smith; scores possibly still live who remember him. His work and that of his followers is in full life and vigor in Utah; and the Mormon missionaries are in many lands.

 

I am no friend to Mormonism — except in so far as it is a system of industry and progress. But I submit the Book of Mormon as the best attested Bible in the world, that the Jewish-Christian Bible has no evidence at all in comparison with it. (Joseph Symes, “The Best Attested of All Bibles,” repr. Deseret Weekly 53, no. 6 [July 25, 1896]: 20, comments in square brackets added for clarification)