Ben C Smith

What would make this scenario (events surrounding Barabbas being misinterpreted or such by the tradents) more viable, IYO, than inventive accretion? IOW, why presume that Barabbas even existed rather than that some tradent invented him as a foil?

Ben.

Seitsuman

If the gospel accounts preserve basic elements of truth in the account of Passion Week then it may be seen as an attempted insurrection. First there is the ride into Jerusalem and riot in the Temple and there are a few days until the Last Supper when Jesus hands himself in to the Temple.

At the time there were Essenes known for their vegetarianism and refusal to sacrifice animals. The lack of Paschal Lamb suggests Jesus was similar if not actually one of them. This puts an entirely different light on 'cleansing the Temple' as implying more nest of bandits than den of thieves.

The ride into Jerusalem would have conveyed a specific message to 'Yahwists' of one interpretation (a minority one) of the Messiah. To the Romans it would mean nothing at all. I use the term 'Yahwist' in preference to 'Jew' because followers of Yahweh included Samaritans and probably others long extinct who may have shared almost nothing else with Temple 'Jews'. The post-Solomonic northern Kingdom of Israel (including Galilee) was infamous for 'heresies' treated as corruption by foreign influence but more likely older Yahwisms that had escaped the reformation (even creation) of normative Judaeism during the Babylonian exile and later Hasmonean purges. This Israel may be very important.

It's notable that NT references to 'scripture' are to the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic. Though the translation is later, the version is simpler and therefore probably older than the Hebrew collated in Babylon by 'elders' with no expectation of return. They were establishing an orthodoxy while the homeland continued with broader forms, some recorded as being put down by priestly orthodoxy (notably additional worship of Asherah, Ba`al and Tanith).

A literal reading of the Last Supper cannot take the religious interpretation placed on it. It quite clearly has Jesus saying somebody will liaise with the Temple, the Apostles all refusing and then Jesus saying whoever he gives dipped bread to. According to orthodox reading, having done this and told Judas Iscariot (Yehudah Skariot - the Jew who hands over?) nobody knows what Judas is doing. C'mon! Jesus has just told you buffoons!!

Is it too wild to guess that there wasn't just one piece of dipped bread, but one piece dipped among eleven that were not and because nobody wanted to Do the Deed they drew lots for it?

Why surrender to the Temple? Because these are believers that their time has come (there were a lot of 'magical' calculations that placed the End Days in their time - the Dead Sea Scrolls are full of them) and that Jesus is their Messiah, maybe not of ancient Israel-Judah but certainly of later Israel under the Arab Herod dynasty.

As believers they naturally expect the Temple to realise their Truth (and probably had sympathisers there - after all, Mary's cousin had married a senior priest though he was dead by then. At the very worst, as fellow Yahwists they might expect Temple custody to serve as protective custody. The image of Romans as stormtroopers keeping Jerusalem cowed is very wrong. It was crowded for Passover, the main garrison was in Caesarea a day's march away and that was small.Any spark would produce a massacre of Romans. For real trouble, Piate had to send to the Governor of Syria and admit that he had screwed up. When the land did go up in 65 it took Rome 7 years to subdue the Rising.

Did Jesus get it wrong! The Temple was on the Roman side. As so often in the Bible we get a detailed account of events held in secret. If there was a night-time investigation it was not a formal Sanhedrin trial. That could only meet in daylight. In any case, would they be sending all over Jerusalem to drag members from their beds?

Jesus was as guilty as hell of Blasphemy because Blasphemy (and note that the word is Anglicised Greek, not genuine translation) here does not mean crime against God. The charge presented to Pilate was the original Blasphemy here means the Latin Maiestas, literally the word is bad-mouthing and the subject of this bad-mouthing was not Jehovah but Tiberius. The moment Jesus admits any claim to any kind of kingdom, he is pre-empting the prerogative of Tiberius to appoint kings. In the orginal they are not even called 'kings', they are given their proper title of Ethnarch or Tetrarch, People-ruler or Quarter-ruler, Herod the Great having divided his kingdom between four great-nephews, having assassinate all closer claimants (the real massacre of children - grown up children as ready to do it to him as it happens). No matter that this kingdom is "not of this world ". Pilate would never have understood an answer like that, much less tolerated it.

Furthermore, if his kingdom is assumed to include Jerusalem then he is claiming the Roman province which in 6CE deposed its King Herod Archelaus and requested direct Roman rule. Luke's Nativity makes it likely that Jesus was born in this transitional year, which would mean that he was crucified in 36, when Pilate was awaiting the grain ships to take him to face charges with Tiberius and probably be executed for maladministration - a good reason for him to be very nervous and try to please all sides since he could not be sure which way Tiberius might jump.

Jesus is crucified as an insurrectionist between two other insurrectionists ('robber' is the propaganda equivalent of 'terrorist'). By legend, Barabbas was also called Jesus. Since Bar-Abbas only means 'son of the father', we have all the implications of Pilate asking "Do you want this Jesus or Jesus the son?"

When Pilate puts [I]REX IVDAEORVM/I] on the notice signifying what Jesus is crucified for, of course the Judeans are foaming mad. He may claim the kingdom of Israel but the notice says he is king of Judah/Judea. Outside the region, Iudaeus and its Greek equivalent mean 'Jew'. Inside it means Judean. (I once jokingly called an Alabaman a Yank). They are Judeans, Jesus is not.

Whether arrangements were made to allow Jesus to survive crucifixion, we shall never know but Pilate was just the man to take bribes from all sides and double-cross them as well.

andrewcriddle

I tend to regard Barabbas as having some historical basis because I think John is probably basically independent of the synoptics. (More exactly I think influence of the synoptics on John was limited to the final redaction of John and I do not think Barabbas was inserted into John's narrative at that stage.)

However that was not what I was arguing here. I was merely suggesting that the implausibilities with the Roman trial in Mark seem to mostly arise in the elaboration of the original tradition. This, at most, makes the original tradition plausible, and not necessarily historical.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Which parts of John do you regard as having been added during the final redaction?

Ben.

the_cave

FWIW Delburt Burkett has identified just such a source in his analysis of Mark, based on the idea that one can identify sources by comparing the sequence-order of verses in the overlapping, interlaced parallels among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. (I think his conclusions are only partly correct, but it is interesting nonetheless.) Michael Turton likewise has refered to Gerd Ludemann in showing that the Jewish and Roman trials can be seen as textual parallels of one another.

Solo

By Roman standards under Tiberius, IIUC, Jesus would have been found guilty of maiestas (treason) by merely suggesting there was any sort of sovereign power in Judea which was not bestowed by authority of the Roman emperor. The action of the Sanhedrin in handing the prisoner over would have stripped Jesus of the religious immunity he had on account of being a Jew. The idea that Barabbas, a violent insurrectionist against Rome would have been offered by Pilate to placate a mob, is hugely improbable - on what I have read - as it would have exposed Pilate to denouncement and would have almost certainly led to his being subject to a quaestio (inquest) himself.

Jiri

Sheshbazzar

In the trial before the Sanhedrin the charge is the blasphemy of claiming himself a religious king equal (or superior) YHWH.

In the trial before Pilate the charge is the blasphemy of making himself a governmental king equal (or superior) to Caesar.

I know the first paragraph will be hard for some to swallow, but resisting The Temple Priesthoods interpretation and decisions with regards to the application of The Mosaic Laws, (how Sabbath was to be observed, hand washing,etc.) not only over-ruling them, but over-ruling and voiding that authority that YHWH himself had instituted and reserved for the Levitical Priesthood.
Thus it would be viewed as a claim to be of such authority as to void the Law of YHWH, and that authority given by Moses, and so over-rule even the great King YHWH, making himself out to be a king greater in authority than even the God of the Jews.

This seems to be the idea that Marcion latter expanded upon, claiming Jesus was a new God, totally supplanting and replacing that evil old time Jewish God YHWH.

andrewcriddle

Tacitus gives the impression that Tiberius encouraged the over use of trials for maiestas but a/ this is partly Tacitus' bias against Tiberius b/ it seems to be confined to Rome. The other issue is that it is not clear how far Pilate is convinced that Jesus is really making political claims at all. He seems to regard the accusation that Jesus is claiming to be "King of the Jews" as a pretext masking the real concerns of Jesus' accusers.

Barabbas as insurrectionist is found in Mark but not John (which has now Barabbas was a robber (LH(i)STHS)). I'm doubtful whether this specific charge against Barabbas was part of the earliest tradition.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

The last chapter. 19:35 Some of the details in 12:1-8 and probably some of the references to future judgement ie to non-realized eschatology.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Well, yes, I figured that. I almost wrote except the last chapter, and of course 19.35 seems cut from the same cloth.

The nonrealized eschatology is no surprise to me. But which details in 12.1-8 (and why)?

Thanks, and sorry to keep coming on with the questions; I have long suspected (on the basis of the he wrote these things and the we know he wrote the truth statements in the epilogue) that John contains at least two layers, and I am just interested in how others go about sorting them out.

What do you think of the Bultmannian dislocations (summarized at least in part at the very bottom of my gospel of John page)?

Ben.