"Now it was the governor's custom at the Festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, 'Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?'"
Matthew 27:15-17
(for the parallel stories in the canonical gospels see also Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:13-25, and John 18:38-19:16)
In this passage, there are (at least) three things that make me suspicious of a "literal" reading of this event of Jesus' Passion week. The first two are more historical, though they implications in the third which is more theological. First, nowhere other than the New Testament do we see any evidence that "it was the governor's custom at the Festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd." Second, historically (though little is known) Pontius Pilate was not considered a nice guy, as he is often portrayed in the canonical gospels. For example, according to Josephus, in approximately 36CE, Pilate attempted to suppress what appears to have been a Samaritan religious procession in arms that may have been interpreted as an uprising, by arresting and executing the Samaritans. Pilate's behavior was so offensive to the morals of the time that, after complaints to the Roman legate of Syria, Pilate was recalled to Rome, where he disappears from historic record. Third, and this is my big question, are Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Messiah one and the same? In most manuscripts, we just read the name of the prisoner as "Barabbas", however, in a few manuscripts and the discussion of this passage by Origen, Barabbas is refered to as "Jesus Barabbas". The name Jesus Barabbas means Jesus, Son of the Father. Jesus the Messiah was often called Son of the Father. Are these seemingly distinct men really the same man? It seems odd that the crowd that ushered Jesus into the city as a king at the beginning of the week, all of a sudden wants him crucified. Perhaps, there was only one man, Pilate was afraid of a riot, so he asked if they wanted Jesus (the son of the Father, the messiah) set free. They responded by saying set Jesus (the son of the Father, the messiah) free, Pilate agreed and the crowd dispersed. Then Pilate had Jesus crucified anyway for his crimes of sedition.
Maybe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Interesting idea, I like it. Another way to take this would be that the people wanted The Son of the Father instead of The Messiah. I'm not too sure what this might mean, but it might be some kind of 'selling-out' of the crowd or something. Maybe intending to show that the crowd weren't willing to go as far as justice/love asked/demanded. Just throwing it out there. :)
Here's what I don't understand: why, then, would Pilate give them an option--say, do you want Jesus, Son of the Father, or Jesus, the Messiah--if he meant the same person?
Chris, here I come (bearing shades of the Jesus Seminar) to your rescue.
According to J.D. Crossan, Mark (of course), was writing shortly after Jerusalem and its temple were completely destroyed, and chooses to express symbolically his interpretation of those catastrophic events by inventing a character 'Jesus Barabbas' against whom the masses were supposed to choose.
The Zealots who were major players in the uprising against Rome were in fact (peasant rebel bandits) as was Jesus Barrabas. In Crossan's own words "...Barabbas over Jesus, an armed rebel over an unarmed savior. The Barabbas story was a symbolic dramatization of Jerusalem's fate as Mark saw it. It tells us nothing about Jesus trial, but it tells us much about Mark's theological perspective on the (much later) fall of Jerusalem." (Crossan, Who Is Jesus 105-6)
The story of Barabbas shows that despite the message Jesus came to preach and embody and live out - that of an open table and free healings (Crossan) was ultimately going to be rejected for rebel uprisings, which leads to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Maybe
Evan,
Welcome to my blog. Have a look around, and I hope to see you post some more.
I find this very interesting. I think it goes to give very interesting perspectives on alot of the gospels and their connection to Revelation.
However, I have 2 questions.
1. Was Mark written after the fall of Jerusalem? If not, what would this do to such an interpretation?
2. How does this (what you and Crossan wrote) give a perspective on both their names being "Jesus"? And one being Jesus son of the Father and the other being Jesus the Messiah?
I hope to see more of you, Evan.
1) Crossan places the gospel of Mark just after the fall of Jerusalem
2) I don't know that it does address the similar names - but since i came accross that interpretation by accident (in my random scholarship) i just thought i'd post it here and see what stuck. I wasn't necessarily addressing your specific inquiry into the name Jesus.
Good stuff here my cousin-friend. it's nice to venture back into the blogging world every now and then :)
if you haven't already, read wikipedia on Barabbas - it has a good summary of what you are talking about, and some good scholarly (and not so scholarly) works that address your question. peace homes
I bet you dont no how old i am.I was looking for facts about Jesus but i didnt finish reading it all.
Hello.I was looking for facts about Jesus and this is what i found.T didnt read it all because now i have to come of the laptop.Well anyway i bet you dont no how old i am.
:P
oops didnt meen to send 2 :S
Post a Comment