A Question about Barabbas

[michelle]

Originally posted 10/05:

Some people make the claim that Barabbas (the man said by the Gospels to have been released from prison instead of Jesus) and Jesus are actually the same person and that the stories in the Gospels are parables. What do you guys think?

Here are some tidbits to get you thinking:
*Barabbas' first name was Jesus
*Barabbas is Aramaic for "son of the father"
*Would Pontius Pilate really have released someone accused of murdering Roman soldiers?
*If Jesus and Barabbas were the same person, could the crowd have been demanding that Jesus be released?

The source for this argument can be found at www.wikipedia.org with a search for "barabbas". If you google "Barabbus" you can find it as well. Just know that you will also come across links for the movie. One article I found thought provoking was

www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/absurd.html.

See what you think!!

[Josh]

10/05:

Ok, first off the story of Barabbas is told in all four gospels, which is quite impressive considering how rare it is to have all four documents commenting on the same event. The relevant passages are: Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:13-25, and John 18:39-40.

The biggest question is perhaps whether we have any evidence of such a "custom". Although we do not have direct evidence that there was a "custom" in which the Roman authorities released a Jewish prisoner every Passover, we do have many accounts of parallel or similar customs in the Talmud, Josephus, some Roman writings, and other Ancient Near East legal codes.

But why would the Romans have allowed such a custom? Well, it makes perfect sense considering the political climate in Palestine in the first century. Revolution was in the air and the Roman authorities were constantly trying to stamp it out lest they lose their tenuous control over the region. As a way to release some tension, such a custom would have its benefits, but the timing is really indicative of this. Passover week would have been the most likely time for revolt- Jerusalem would be packed beyond capacity and very politically unstable. Such a gesture at the height of all the religious fervor could have quelled some of the anti-Roman sentiment at just the right time.

Would Pilate really have released a revolutionary and murderer such as Barabbas? Pilate was known for his cruelty and his harsh treatment of revolutionaries: crucifixions were commonplace at this time. Although Barabbas was considered a revolutionary, we are not told who he murdered. It is quite possible he murdered only another Jew, and thus it might be more understandable why Pilate was willing to barter with him. But this leads us into the question of Pilate's character and motivations.
Pilate was no friend of the Sandhedrin and would certainly not have enjoyed being pressured by them to execute Jesus if he indeed felt that Jesus was really no threat. Pilate was the hunter of revolutionaries- for the Sandhedrin to bring him one on a silver platter was unusual- and fishy. One can easily imagine him looking for a way to spite the Sandhedrin's wishes. It seems to me that Pilate may have figured that although the Jewish religious leaders wanted Jesus dead, the crowds would certainly want to set him free- seeing as how they had just a week prior welcomed Him into Jerusalem with open arms. So, in offering them Jesus or Barabbas he was just bluffing- banking that they would demand Jesus' release and Pilate would earn the approval of the mob and exact a certain amount of satisfaction at foiling the wishes of the pushy Sandhedrin. So it's not necessarily that Pilate all of the sudden got a soft spot- it was a power play in the middle of which Jesus was caught.

The bluff backfired on Pilate and he ended up being forced not only to crucify Jesus but set Barabbas free as well, at the threat of the mob turning against him.

But perhaps our best reason to believe these accounts represent actual events is the stories inclusion in the gospel of Luke. Luke can be persuasively argued to have been written (along with Acts) as a legal document in Paul's defense at his trial in Rome before Nero in the early 60's. ( For more on this, seek a book which I own entitled Paul on Trial). Luke certainly would have avoided a fictitious account involving Roman legal procedure if it had any chance of hurting Paul's legal case.

Interestingly, Luke doesn't include mention that this legal action was a "Jewish custom". (Note Luke 23:17, which mentions the custom, is missing from our bible because the earliest manuscripts we have of Luke don't include this verse) This makes sense because he wouldn't want to risk his credibility by mentioning a local Palestinian custom from 50 years ago that might not be remembered (especially considering how unfamiliar Roman authorities were with the minutae of Jewish law). But he doesn't hesitate to suggest that Pilate was offering amnesty of a criminal, because such the granting of such amnesty was under the authority of governors in the Roman world.

In short, if Luke wasn't afraid to mention the event to Roman authorities, then it withstands a pretty tough historical test.

As to the similarity of names: Jesus, Barabbas meaning Jesus, son of the Father, etc.. Abba was a common first name in the first century, and so was Jesus. For someone to be named Jesus Barabbas would not be implausible. Still, there is an irony here and a parable: Jesus, the Son of the Father Militant-Revolutionary Version vs. Jesus, the Son of the Father My-Kingdom-is-not-of-this-World version face to face. It was the ultimate last choice for the bulk of the Jewish people- political Messiah or spiritual Messiah. But a parable doesn't have to be fictitious. Think of all the other ironies in the life of Christ. Look at it as God's flair for the dramatic.

The notion that Jesus and Barabbas were one person comes from the idea that the Gospels are trying to make the Jews look like the culprits for Jesus death and to exonerate the Romans (so as to curry favor with Rome and distance themselves from the Jews). So, the theory goes that what really happened was that the Jewish crowds had been calling for "Jesus Bar Abbas!" (the son of the father) to be released, but the Romans had crucified him anyway. As the years rolled by, this memory of them calling out for Bar Abbas to be released was indelible, so when the Christians wanted to change the story to make the Jews look like the bad guys, they had to invent another person named BarAbbas that the crowds were really crying for.
But really this is quite doubtful because had the Jewish throng been crying out "Jesus, the son of the Father!" they would have been admitting to a much more exalted view of Jesus than most skeptical historians usually want to admit. Furthermore, such a radical reworking of the story so early after the actual events (Mark was written about 20-30 years later, Q even earlier) would indicate deliberate deception on the part of the disciples- deceptions their lifestyles and manner of deaths do not warrant. I could perhaps say more on this, but I'm not sure the Barabbas-Jesus are one person theory is worth too much more effort.

Hope that helps! Josh

[hume]

Originally posted 12/19/05:

Sharp stuff J. Just chiming in here:

"why would the Romans have allowed such a custom? Well, it makes perfect sense considering the political climate in Palestine in the first century."

As I understand it, this sort of thing was very much in the ruling style of the Romans. A major reason for their success in creating an empire was this willingness to tolerate local practices to a great degree -- always with strict boundaries (e.g., everyone must at least pay lip service to the divinity of the emperor, etc.). As long as you didn't challenge their rule, they would "meet you half-way," even if it meant honoring what they considered to be a distasteful custom.

[Josh]

True. Thanks for the comments. BTW, I cleared up some of the glitches that occurred when I transferred the text. You waded through it anyway?!

[yeshuafreak]

i dont think that barrabas and Jesus are the same people, although this is a theory that i have never seen before and i will look into it.

shalom - john