Barabbas and the passover pardon

  • Thread starter Thread starter vin_dedvukaj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vin_dedvukaj

Guest
I wanted the traditional view on this question, because I’ve asked this outside of this forum before I never get a clear answer. Is there any other evidence outside the Gospel of the “Passover Pardon” of Barabbas ? is that something the romans did when they ruled over a land ?

thanks
Vinny
 
Last edited:
I believe there is no outside evidence of this. Then again, we often don’t have other evidence…
 
I’m not sure what you mean by theme but often, some historical “fact” can not be verified with other writings. The Barabbas story is contested because no other writings confirm it and because it tends to go against what is known about Pilate. He wasn’t a very nice ruler. So, we can’t claim it never happened but it is a questionable claim. Various historians will have various opinions on the event.
 
I think the Mishna says that sometimes the authorities promised release of prison for someone for the purpose of celebrating the Passover with his fellow Jews. Also, an inscription in Ephesus describes the decision of the proconsul of Asia to release prisoners because of the outcries of the people. I don’t have the exact references but the custom would not have been unheard of in ancient times by either Jewish or Roman authorities.
You also have to consider the absence of ancient writings challenging this Bible verse. The gospels were written in the first century so if it had been something so obviously inconsistent with the time and place it would have been challenged immediately.
 
thats what I always thought, for me it was common sense. this more for people who ask me these kinda question lol
 
Revolutionaries like Barnabas is described were kind of dime-a-dozen in Palestine at the time. They were an ongoing problem for Rome . . .

Also, Rome was extremely pragmatic in ruling territories. If releasing a revolutionary would please the crowds enough undercut other revolutionaries, they’d do it in a heater. Or if executing an innocent man would do it . . .

[also, I moved this to Sacred Scripture]
 
Pattylt said:
because it tends to go against what is known about Pilate. He wasn’t a very nice ruler.
Click to expand...
While that appears to be supported by other evidence outside scripture, he also was accountable to higher authorities; and what appeared to be happening had the makings of some serious civil unrest. The passages make him look like a type of quisling, looking for an easy way out. And assuming he had a prisoner who was some sort of rebel, and likely not really understanding all of the currents flowing within Judaism, it is not particularly unlikely he might want to play one (who appeared innocent) against another (who appeared anything but).
 
Dan_Defender said:
The gospels were written in the first century so if it had been something so obviously inconsistent with the time and place it would have been challenged immediately.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming that people would have been paying attention?

The Siege and destruction of Jerusalem (including the Temple), mass killings, enslavement and/or exile of many might have been somewhat of a preoccupation for the population.
 
There is evidence that during celebrations in the Roman Empire that pardons were given.
 
I think though, that there were never any pardons for sedition or high crimes against Rome…only civil offenses.
 
Gorgias said:
Precisely. The people reject the ‘Son of God’ for a ‘son of a father’. 😉
Click to expand...
Well, then you’d have to start asking questions about who Jesus was talking about when he talked about ‘Father’. In your interpretation, it wouldn’t be ‘God’.

Meanwhile, those of us for whom the NT is just interesting ‘ancient literature’ are more concerned with questions as to “why this story? why here? why at this point?”

This isn’t something we’d agree about and that’s not important.
 
vin_dedvukaj said:
is that something the romans did when they ruled over a land ?
Click to expand...
Roman law did not permit governors to pardon anyone (or at least not of serious crimes).

Most likely what happened was not a pardoning of a condemned man, but rather that Barabbas was released without a trial (which would require the cooperation of his prosecutors, as implied in the Gospels).
This is supported by the fact that, unless Barabbas was a Roman citizen, the punishment for the crimes alleged against him was death, and the Romans did not usually delay between passing a sentence and delivering it.
 
whatistrue said:
I don’t think the Romans were known for subtlety in any situation.
Click to expand...
I grew up in what had been a Roman town and so could be said to have reached early cynicism about them (lot of ‘compulsory Romans’ at school can get you that way).

On the other hand, you can wander the excavated streets and buildings of Ostia (once the huge, working class, port city of Rome) and come to the conclusion that they were really quite human.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top