Johann_Kaspar

Anyone can answer this one? It is most interesting about the way Jewish people are thinking when writing stories.

Chili

Because the liberation of bar-abbas made the crucifixion of Jesus possible under Jewish law. Barabbas was the son of man in whom Pilate saw no fault and handed the Jewish identity over to the Jews who convicted him by their own law in Jn.19:7.

Notice that Pilate looked at the man called Jesus (3 times in Luke and John)while the Jews looked at the Jew called Jesus.

douglas

From everything I know about Roman history (ie. not very much) it is practically unthinkable that Pilate would have set ANYONE free, especially an insurrectionist.

I subscribe to the belief that this event never happened, and the story was added to buy favor with the Romans.

Mesa Mike

It was the custom that a prisoner would be released at Passover.
Pilate wanted to release Jesus, because he didn't see any reason to keep him.
So Pilate gave the people a choice, release Jesus, in whom he saw no fault, or release Barabbas, who was a notorious criminal. Pilate thought that would be a no-brainer.
But the Jewish people were whipped up into a frenzy over Jesus, and demanded Barabbas be released instead...

Read the story at Matt 27:11-26

Toto

Mesa Mike - there was no such "custom". No one outside the gospels every heard of it. It doesn't make any sense. It's all fictional.

Mesa Mike

Fine. Have it your way.
It's still an answer to the question, even if the whole affair is fictional.

Chili

Of course there was, the Jewish Chief Priests knew exactly what they were doing and actually wanted Jesus to be in the tomb for 3 days lest his body be stolen before 3 days and become the final impostor who would be worse than the first (Mt.27:63-64). What they are saying here is that a premature resurrection would convert a potential divine comedy into a senecan tragedy wherein there is no actual resurrection but merely an empowerment of the old human nature by the angel of light. They are quite popular in N America where the evangelists do not know 'what' they are doing but only know 'that' they are doing.

Roland

The too-clever-by-half symbolism of the name Barabbas is a dead giveaway that the story is most likely fictional.

The name means "son of the father," so, essentially, Pilate released the "son of the father" over the "Son of the Father."

Notsri

I'm a bit skeptical of that explanation. It seems to me rather unlikely that the name in question served as a mere literary device. Take the gospel of Mark for instance. While its author generally takes the opportunity to explain the meaning of Aramaic terms he never once does so when Barabbas is mentioned (15:7,11,15). In other words, that lack of an explanatory gloss suggests the insignificance of the name Barabbas to the gospel's plot, that its meaning was both unimportant to Mark's author and remained obscure to the first Christian readers (and listeners). Of course, it goes without saying that, on the other hand, true puns in a given literature are usually intended by their author, and thus are significant to him or her, and are also perceived by the intended reader. Those facts just do not square with at least Mark's, if not all of the NT gospels' references to Barabbas.

For what it's worth, it might be mentioned that the name Barabbas is attested even outside the Christian Bible, in both Jewish epigraphy and literature.

lpetrich

There is not a speck of evidence for that custom outside of the Gospels.

And the ancient Romans were rather hardassed toward troublemakers -- and Pontius Pilate was hardassed even by Roman standards, at least if we are to believe historians Philo and Josephus.

I think that it's a way of presenting Jesus Christ as participating in a human version of the Old Testament scapegoat ritual:
Thus,
Jesus Christ = sacrificed goat
Barabbas = goat released into the wilderness