lpetrich

The strange lynch mob is part of the story of Jesus Christ and Barabbas.
There's no independent documentation of such a custom, and if Philo and Josephus are correct about Pontius Pilate, it would be VERY out-of-character for him.

Barabbas meant "son of the father" in Aramaic, so Barabbas seems like some sort of double of JC. In fact, the story is likely a human version of the Leviticus scapegoat ritual:

Chili

Of course, but why do you not simply call it Jesus and Barabbas, as Christ was son of God (bar-abbas) and Jesus the lamb of God to be sacrificed.

Duvduv

So now we know what followers of Yeshu ben Pandera in around 60 BCE believed to be the "true" scenario of events compared with what is described in the Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin 43a around the year 300. See below:

There is a tradition (in a Barraitha): They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover[1]. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God[2]. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him." When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover[1].

Ulla[3] commented: "Do you think that he belongs among those for whom redeeming evidence is sought? Rather, he was a seducer [of whom] the All-merciful has said: 'Show them no pity... and do not shield them.' (Deut 13.8b NRSV)[4] In Yeshu's case, however, an exception was made because he was close to those who held [political/religious] authority."

andrewcriddle

The only ones on this list that might plausibly be before 100 CE are Chaireas and Callirhoe and The Ephesian Romance (There are surviving papyrus fragments of what seem to be earlier historical fiction.)

It is mostly held that the resemblances between these works are imitation of Chaireas and Callirhoe by the author of the Ephesian Romance.

The Ephesian Romance twice mentions an official called an eirenarch an office apparently created by Trajan or Hadrian. (The earliest inscriptions mentioning this office dates from 116 or 117) This in itself would indicate a date after 100 CE. Most scholars date it in the early 2nd century.

Many scholars would date Chaireas and Callirhoe well before 100 CE maybe around 50 CE. However Cueva in The Myths of Fiction presents a strong argument that this work was influenced by Plutarch's Life of Theseus. If so, this would almost certainly require a date after 100 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Chili

I am not familar with your stories but I think it was very common in those days and many had reached that same noble end before the story Jesus was elevated to become 'the example' to follow. . . and was done in retrospect to let skeletons die first. The 'agency' that enables that is 'the son' as it is presented in the 'iota argument' that so adds fire to religion itself.

There is nothing new about the Jesus story for the Jews of those days who knew that they had their own law by which Jesus had to die, . . . and cautionned Pilate about intricate details that if things go wrong the final imposter will be worse than the first.

The Jews (high priests) knew exactly what was going on in the Gospels and that is made very clear in Matthew and Mark where it goes wrong, as opposite to Luke and John where it goes right.

The 'drama' in the Gospels is created to draw our attention for us to enjoin as believers to foster justice for all, and only in the end learn that it was a comedy instead but not until we have done our fair share in the name of justice in the Church Millitant, as it is is called. The Innitiation Right into the Knights of Columbus is a display of such engagement, that really is presented well, . . . as if they all know what the comedy of life is all about but will not say so that you can learn it first hand by engagement in your own life instead.

sotto voce

Neither does this one, if lynch mob it is. These people are accepting responsibility for this killing, telling Pilate that he need not be concerned about responsibility. They are telling an over-scrupulous (in their eyes) Pilate, so that he cannot possibly get the wrong idea, "See if we care!"

Though it is quite wrong to suppose that lynch mobs believe that what they do is just. They would be prepared to accept a properly constituted trial if they did that. Lynch mobs say that what they do is just, which is another thing altogether.

It has been said by too many that divine punishment for the murder of Jesus was the destruction of Israel, but this is to take an eisegetic and inappropriate view. The irony that the author pointed out here was that Jesus' blood was paying for the sins of the Jews and their children- in the Christian narrative, of course. The responsibility for the death of Jesus, in that context, is that of all— Gentiles and Pilate included.

lpetrich

A very ingenious Just So Story. And completely unsupported by the behavior of better-documented lynch mobs. "May his blood be upon us" suggests acceptance of *guilt*, and saying that one's children will also be guilty only compounds the absurdity. All the better-documented lynchers and their supporters that I know about do NOT consider themselves guilty. Instead, they consider the fate of their victims well-deserved.

Consider "Warranted" Lynchings: Narratives of Mob Violence in Southern White Newspapers, 1889-1940, Susan Jean, American Nineteenth Century History, Vol. 6, No. 3, Sep 2005, pp 351-372.

Another absurdity. Look at some defenses of lynching some time. Some lynching defenders considered lynching to be completely just.

Tell that to someone who calls Jews "Christ-killers". For my part, I find this condemnation odd, because it is contrary to the the "Greater Good" theodicy.

There's another issue that I must address. sotto voce, what would make you accept that the Bible contains errors? You seem to be treating it as inerrant, incapable of containing errors.

sotto voce

Responsibility, not guilt.

In cases where justice has palpably broken down, or is yet established, in frontier regions, for instance, ad hoc groups acting in loco magister may well feel that, as well as say it. But they are less likely to be termed 'lynch mobs'.

Chili

But to convict Jesus to die is the best thing the Jews ever did, and did it often and knew exactly how it was to be done.

Just go to Galatians 4:29 where they are called the children of the spirit born from the promise, like Isaac, and must cast out the son born from the slave girl [to die] and religion must do that as nobody else can simple because they do not know it or Pilate would have seen it too.

lpetrich

What's the difference?

It's essentially saying "We and our children deserved to be punished for wanting Jesus Christ crucified." As I've posted here, I've never, never, never, never, never heard of a lynch mob that has claimed anything similar.
Pure hairsplitting. Look at some defenses of lynching some time. Like in How polite people defended lynching: