JonA

According to Mark 15:6–15, the prisoner Barabbas, released in Jesus' stead, committed murder in 'the insurrection':

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Mark 15:7 (NRSV):

Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

Neither Matthew nor Luke retain this definite reference to 'the insurrection', with Matthew removing the reference to Barabbas' crime entirely and Luke replacing the definite article with an indefinite reference:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Luke 23:18–19 (NRSV):

Then they all shouted out together, 'Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!' (This was a man who had been put in prison for an insurrection that had taken place in the city, and for murder.)

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

This definite reference was clearly problematic for Matthew and Luke who both independently worked to remove it. The two-part question is:

• Why was Mark's definite reference problematic? and
• What insurrection was he referring to?

Was Mark's 'insurrection' perhaps an anachronistic reference to the first revolt? Did Matthew and Luke deal with this passage as they did precisely because they recognized the anachronism?

If this isn't such a reference, what other insurrections were occurring during the time of Jesus that would still be spoken of with a definite article several decades later? Was there some other insurrection prior to the first revolt that would have been referred to as 'the' insurrection until after the end of the first revolt, which superseded all other insurrections (similar to, perhaps, the way references to WWI changed with WWII)?

What was on Mark's mind?

How can we settle this unsettling reference?

Jon

Diogenes the Cynic

You're quoting a bad translation for Mark. Here is the Greek for Mark 15:7:

ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν συστασιαστῶν δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν

"and there was [one] named Barabbas bound with fellow rioters/insurrectionists who had in the riot/insurrection committed murder."

The definite article in the second instance is merely a reference back to the first instance.

The Luke 23 passage is an interpolation not found in the earliest manuscripts

Mark doesn't specify what riot he was referring to, but it need not have been anything significant. The Barabbas story is probably made up anyway. No corroboration exists outside the Gospels for a tradition of releasing a prisoner at passover.

Just for the record, though, Josephus lists several "tumolts" in Antiquities which occurred under Pilate.

avi

Hi JonA,

Well done, interesting thread. Thanks.

While I like your thinking process, I would sound a note of caution on a couple of points.

a. I don't think we will ever know "what was on Mark's mind".

b. I think that it could well be a simple misunderstanding either by us, or by Luke/Matthew, or all of us.

In other words, Mark may not have meant "insurrection", but rather, the author(s) of Mark may have intended "civil strife", which is sufficiently vague, that the act of violence need not have been directed against the occupying Roman army, at all (i.e. sedition/insurrection). The episode of conflict could have been, for example, some Jews fighting with some non-Jews, merchants, for example, from the East, or North, or from Egypt. Alternatively, it could have been a bloody exchange between different factions of Jews themselves.

Either way, the Romans could easily have been acting merely as police, rather than as combatants, in a widespread revolt against Roman rule. Question 1: Would Pilate have been so generous to Barabbas, had he killed a Roman soldier?
Question 2: If related to the first Roman Jewish Revolt, circa 70 CE, would Pilate have been asking the townspeople if they didn't prefer to release Jesus of Capernaum, in view of his having not committed murder? In times of threat to the Roman army, do the Governors go about exhorting the local townsfolk to ask for the release of one falsely imprisoned, or, do the soldiers declare martial law, and cease all this touchy feely good guy interaction with the rebels, in the process, emptying the prisons, and filling the cemetaries?

Here's the Greek original, and some of the interpretations of stasei:

avi

avi

It is found in Hort and Westcott:

and in Codex Sinaiticus:

18 ανεκραγον δε παν πληθει λεγοντεϲ αιρε τουτον απο λυϲον δε ημιν το
19 βαραββαν οϲτιϲ η δια ϲταϲιν τινα γε νομενην εν τη πολει και φονον ┬
εν τη φυλακη
20 παλιν δε ο πιλατοϲ προϲεφωνηϲεν αυτοιϲ θελων α πολυϲαι τον ιν

avi

Diogenes the Cynic

Oops, faulty memory on my part. It's actually Luke 23:17 that's interpolated (the bit about Pilate needing to releasing a prisoner at passover). For some reason I remembered it as Luke excising the entire Barabbas story, but he only excised the alleged custom of releasing a prisoner. Thank you for the correction.

aa5874

Come on Jona.

You should know that around here it is NOT considered that "Mark" wrote any gospel. The author of gMark is unknown and the versions that we have Canonised are DERIVED from 4th century Codices that are likely to be copies of copies of copies.

It is virtually impossible to know what was on "Mark's" mind when we don't even know if the unknown author of gMark was writing history in the first place or what was the original version.

And from writings atttributed to Origen, and the Codex Sinaticus there were MORE than one version of gMark. .

Examine "Against Celsus" 1..

It is not realistic at all or practicably possible to know what was on "Mark's" mind.

Even Scholars claimed it is likely that "Mark" wrote NOTHING in the NT.

Diogenes the Cynic

"Mark" (as is the case with the other Gospels) is simply a name of convenience used to refer to the unknown author. The use of this convention does not have to imply a literal belief in those traditions.

aa5874

Convenience or not, once it is understood that the author of gMark is UNKNOWN, that there are many versions of gMark, that the authors made NO claim that they were writing history, and we only have copies of copies of copies............of copies, then it is NOT practicably possibly to know what is was on the mind of an UNKNOWN who was NOT known to write anything in the NT and did NOT make it known he was writing history.

Diogenes the Cynic

Just because you don't know who the author is doesn't mean you can't infer some things about their beliefs and intentions.

aa5874

Let us NOT waste time. You ought to know that we are likely to be dealing with copies of copies of copies.......of copies.

Once there were MULTIPLE versions of any Jesus story then it is virtually impossible 1800 years later to even attempt to know what was on "Mark's" mind when we don't even know if "history" was ON the Mind of the original author.

It is almost certain that we have AT LEAST 2 authors of gMark based on Extant Codices.