Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Decypher · 08-14-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

John 18

[39] But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
[40] Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Is there any evidence of this custom outside of the Bible?

show_no_mercy · 08-14-2009, 01:14 PM

No. There's no record of Romans releasing convicted criminals who are a menace to the Empire just because it was a Jewish holiday.

No Robots · 08-14-2009, 01:49 PM

Interesting discussion here (Freethinker 85 (April 16, 1965, p. 127)):

Barabbas, however, seems to have been a historical person, though "Barabbas" is only part of his name. There exist Gospel codices which give the name in full as Jesus bar Abba. If two persons, both called Jesus, had been arrested instead of one, the Roman magistrate might have asked which of the two was to be tried. In that case, endeavouring to present Pilate as being favourably disposed towards Jesus, the writer of the Gospel might have fashioned the Barabbas episode as we now have it in his book, making it appear that the governor was not asking about the identity of the accused, but rather offering one of the two for pardon: "Which one of the two shall I release, Jesus who is called Bar Abba or Jesus who is called Messiah?"

Toto · 08-14-2009, 03:26 PM

There is no reason to think that Barabbas was historical. The whole scene is modeled on Leviticus, where one goat (the "scapegoat") is released into the wild, while its twin is sacrificed. The scene here shows the Jews' preference for a violent revolutionary over the pacifist Jesus, which has left blood on them for generations.

This is pure midrash/symbolism. Roman governors did not release convicted prisoners, especially insurrectionists like Barabbas.

John Kesler · 08-14-2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

Quote:

John 18

[39] But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
[40] Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Is there any evidence of this custom outside of the Bible?

Here is something that I wrote on another list in 2003:

Quote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Release Prisoner At Passover?
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 16:55:32 -0400
From: John Kesler <XXXXXXXXX>
Reply-To: ii_errancy@topica.com
To: errancy list <ii_errancy@topica.com>

KESLER
Here is a lesson about why references should always be checked. At his Web
site, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil0108.html, Glenn Miller says
the following in trying to validate the NT's claim, substantiated in no
other source, that it was a custom for Pilate to release a prisoner at

Passover:

MILLER
However, it is not out of line with what we know about the political climate
of the day. We know, for example, that political prisoners (like Barabbas)
WERE released for various reasons (Jos. Antiq. XX, ix.3; Livy, V.13; cf.
Deismann, "Light from the Ancient East", p 267), that Roman officials seem
to have granted mass amnesty at some other regular feasts (outside of
Palestine) and to have occasionally acquitted prisoners in responses to
crowds (BBC, p. 309).

Plus, this 'custom' (and its exercise on Barabbas) is one of the few gospel
events referred to in an independent manner by Luke, Mark-Matthew, and John
(judging by the presence/absence of details/structures in the narrative), as
well as the early reference in Act 3:14 as part of the sermon of Peter .
Their individual accounts argue for independent streams of information,
suggesting a stronger basis in history (since they all WITNESS TO the
'basics' of the event).

There is, in light of the data, no reason to make such an absolute statement
as 'there was never...'. Jim has simply overstepped the data (or not paid
attention to the wider data on Roman praxis).

KESLER
First, I think it is telling that the premier Jewish historian of his day,
Josephus, makes no explicit reference to a custom that was, according to the
Bible, a custom that existed prior to Jesus' execution (John 18:39; Mark
15:6; Matthew 27:15. Luke 23:17 even states that Pilate was obligated to
release a prisoner, not that it was a concession to keep the peace). So what
about Miller's Josephus citation? Here it is:

JOSEPHUS:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/B...t_20&chapter=9
3. But now the Sicarii went into the city by night, just before the
festival, which was now at hand, and took the scribe belonging to the
governor of the temple, whose name was Eleazar, who was the son of Ananus
[Ananias] the high priest, and bound him, and carried him away with them;
after which they sent to Ananias, and said that they would send the scribe
to him, if he would persuade Albinus to release ten of those prisoners which
he had caught of their party; so Ananias was plainly forced to persuade
Albinus, and gained his request of him. This was the beginning of greater
calamities; for the robbers perpetually contrived to catch some of Ananias's
servants; and when they had taken them alive, they would not let them go,
till they thereby recovered some of their own Sicarii. And as they were
again become no small number, they grew bold, and were a great affliction to
the whole country.

KESLER
Did you catch that? The best that Miller could come up with from Josephus to
support the claim that "political prisoners (like Barabbas) WERE released
for various reasons" is to report the release of Sicarii *BECAUSE THE
SICARII HAD TAKEN HOSTAGES AND DEMANDED THAT "ROBBERS" BE RELEASED IN
EXCHANGE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE HOSTAGES.* What does the Livy citation show?
The relevant sentences appear below:

LIVY:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy05.html
In consequence either of the unhealthy weather occasioned by the sudden
change from cold to heat, or from some other cause, the severe winter was
followed by a pestilential summer, which proved fatal to man and beast. As
neither a cause nor a cure could be found for its fatal ravages, the senate
ordered the Sibylline Books to be consulted. The priests who had charge of
them appointed for the first time in Rome a lectisternium. Apollo and
Latona, Diana and Hercules, Mercury and Neptune were for eight days
propitiated on three couches decked with the most magnificent coverlets that
could be obtained. Solemnities were conducted also in private houses. It is
stated that throughout the City the front gates of the houses were thrown
open and all sorts of things placed for general use in the open courts, all
comers, whether acquaintances or strangers, being brought in to share the
hospitality. Men who had been enemies held friendly and sociable
conversations with each other and abstained from all litigation, the
manacles even were removed from prisoners during this period, and afterwards
it seemed an act of impiety that men to whom the gods had brought such
relief should be put in chains again.

KESLER
In this case superstition prevailed when a "pestilential summer" occurred,
the people attempted to placate the gods by being nicer to each other which
included releasing manacles from prisoners. After the gods "brought relief,"
the superstitious Romans thought it wrong to chain those whom the gods had
freed. That this is one of Miller's proofs that on occasion prisoners were
released speaks to the paucity of supporting evidence for Miller's claim. I
was unable to check Miller's other two references online, and am not
inclined to do so.

The bottom line is that although it is possible that Pilate could have done something like this if he feared that not doing so would result in a possible uprising, there is no positive evidence that I'm aware of for such a custom.

Steven Carr · 08-15-2009, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

No. There's no record of Romans releasing convicted criminals who are a menace to the Empire just because it was a Jewish holiday.

No doubt the Romans usually held a vote among the Jews to see who would be released.

You have to admire the acumen of Pilate.

All of Jesus closest followers thought he was the Messiah who would lead up a violent revolt against the Romans, but which is what the Messiah was expected to do. Messiahs weren't expected to die.

Only Pilate realised that Jesus was innocent of any such intentions, a fact which had escaped the grasp of Jesus disciples.

Mark 15:14 'What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.

It is possible though , that mainstream Biblical scholarship is wrong either about 1st century Jewish Messianic expectations , or that this whole scene is preposterous.

08-14-2009, 01:49 PM	#3
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Interesting discussion here (Freethinker 85 (April 16, 1965, p. 127)): Barabbas, however, seems to have been a historical person, though "Barabbas" is only part of his name. There exist Gospel codices which give the name in full as Jesus bar Abba. If two persons, both called Jesus, had been arrested instead of one, the Roman magistrate might have asked which of the two was to be tried. In that case, endeavouring to present Pilate as being favourably disposed towards Jesus, the writer of the Gospel might have fashioned the Barabbas episode as we now have it in his book, making it appear that the governor was not asking about the identity of the accused, but rather offering one of the two for pardon: "Which one of the two shall I release, Jesus who is called Bar Abba or Jesus who is called Messiah?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2009, 01:14 PM	#2
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	No. There's no record of Romans releasing convicted criminals who are a menace to the Empire just because it was a Jewish holiday.

08-14-2009, 03:26 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There is no reason to think that Barabbas was historical. The whole scene is modeled on Leviticus, where one goat (the "scapegoat") is released into the wild, while its twin is sacrificed. The scene here shows the Jews' preference for a violent revolutionary over the pacifist Jesus, which has left blood on them for generations. This is pure midrash/symbolism. Roman governors did not release convicted prisoners, especially insurrectionists like Barabbas.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.