Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Turton 2: And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so." v2: The Gospel of Mark does not contain enough evidence to warrant any conclusion about the legality of Pilate's trial under Roman law and custom. As Brown (1994, p726) points out, the account of the trial of Jesus ben Ananus (see below) in Josephus would probably look fairly implausible if anyone cared to make a case like that brought against the trial of Jesus under Pilate, but no scholar has ever challenged it. v2: Pilate asks if Jesus is the King of the Jews, although that term has never been used in the Gospel, including during the Sanhedrin trial. Since the writer does not say that the Jewish leaders gave Pilate any information, why didn't Pilate start out with more basic questions of the "where are you from?/what is your name?" variety? v2: As with the Sanhedrin, the accuser asks after Jesus' true identity, but in the Trial before Pilate the order is reversed; Jesus' silence follows rather than precedes the question. v2: Historically, the first use of the title "King of the Jews" was by the Hasmonean high priests when they established an independent Jewish state in Palestine a century or so before this time. Herod the Great also styled himself "King of the Jews." (Brown 1994, p731). v2: in a rare instance of agreement, in all four canonical gospels the Greek of this line is exactly the same. v2: Recall that Greek had no punctuation. Hence, in Greek this exchange is marvelously ambiguous, as either figure speaking could be asking a question or making a statement. It could read as Pilate saying "You are the king of the Jews" and Jesus replying "Are you saying so?" The narrator has clarified this by defining Pilate's comment as a question, leaving the ostensible ambiguity in Jesus' answer.(Fowler 1996, p198) 5: But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered. v5: Jesus' silence recalls Isaiah 53:7: He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (NIV) Note also that in the discourse in Mark 13, Jesus told his followers not to be anxious about what to say, but that the Holy Spirit would speak for them. Another fulfillment of Mark 13 as a Passion prediction. v5: A. Y. Collins (1994) has also identified Psalm 38 in the background here: 11: My friends and companions stand aloof from my plague, and my kinsmen stand afar off. 12: Those who seek my life lay their snares, those who seek my hurt speak of ruin, and meditate treachery all the day long. 13: But I am like a deaf man, I do not hear, like a dumb man who does not open his mouth. 14: Yea, I am like a man who does not hear, and in whose mouth are no rebukes.(RSV) Psalm 38 has also been identified with 15:40-1, the watching women, as well. v5: Pilate functions as an effective double of King Herod in Mark 6:14-29) in the this scene. As Mary Ann Tolbert(1989) points out, Pilate: "...like King Herod before him, initially responds positively to the man in his custody. Pilate, indeed, as the narrator informs the audience, recognizes that the accusation against Jesus arises out of the envy of the chief priests (15:10) rather than out of any crime Jesus has committed and seeks to release him (15:9, 12, 14). However, also as with King Herod, Pilate's nobler instincts collapse under the press of expediency..."(p273) 6: Now at the feast he used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked. 7: And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barab'bas. v6-7: Barabbas, literally "son of the father" is a probable doublet for Jesus himself (the Son of the Father). Indeed, there are manuscripts of Matthew that have "Jesus Barabbas" in this passage, and this must have been the case in the early days of Christianity, for Origen defensively insists that many manuscripts of Matthew in his time did not contain the offensive "Jesus" before "Barabbas." As a consequence some scholars have argued that this was the original usage in Mark (which Matthew copied) although this is a minority view. "Abba" was also a personal name in ancient Judaism, so the name may simply mean "Son of Abba." The custom of releasing prisoners for feasts is not known anywhere in the Roman empire; occasionally prisoners were released on feast days as a specific act of clemency, but, as Crossan argues (1991, p390-1), Roman governors were more likely to postpone the execution or allow the family to bury the body, if they were inclined to clemency. Indeed, Origen, writing two hundred years later in the same part of the world, was surprised to find such a custom claimed in the Gospels. Pilate was not known for his mercy (see accounts in Philo or Josephus) but it is true that our only accounts of his governship come from his enemies. Pilate releasing Barabbas to a Jewish crowd is unlikely (Barabbas could hardly have been the only prisoner in Pilate's hands, so why release a bandit and murderer?), and further, it seems incredible that Pilate would release someone the crowd demanded, who is a known anti-Roman rebel and murderer. Finally, Barabbas himself appears to be fictional. The historical plausibility of this aspect of the scene is low. v6-7: Some exegetes have argued that this scene is based on Esther. Tim Callahan (2004) notes: "In a play given during Zagmuku, two actors portrayed characters who were the source of the roles of Mordecai and Haman in Esther, in that one expects royal honors but is put to death, while one seems destined for death but escapes with his life. This would also seem to be the source of Jesus called the Christ and Jesus Barabbas."