Barabbas and the passover pardon

  • Thread starter Thread starter vin_dedvukaj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the most fascinating days I ever spent was walking around the ruins of Pompeii. I inadvertently got off the train from Naples one stop sooner than normal and came in the “back way”, so got a different look than the one I would have gotten going in by the main entrance with all the tourist info and such.
 
I love Naples, we were supposed to be going back there this year (we go to Italy every year).

Not so much for ‘Vesuvio’ and the Bay but just for the City itself.

Ah well, maybe next year.
 
I enjoyed my visits (my rich Uncle Samuel covered the trips, but of course I had no choice of destination or accommodations 😀) but I am not sure I would go back if I could. Of course my last visit was over 40 years ago and I suspect many parts have changed more than a bit, and my memory may be faulty as well.
 
Kaninchen said:
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?”
Click to expand...
I would argue that it was God’s plan. The destruction of the second Temple compared to the destruction of the first is much greater and with greater consequences but both were punishments. The question is punishment for what? but of course my opinion is biased.
 
Four decades would have been rather a lot of forward planning/waiting around for the Romans to get suitably annoyed. 🙂
 
The reason Pilate chose Barabbas was to make it easy for the people to choose Jesus.
 
vin_dedvukaj said:
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
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, no. It is not mentioned in any other document. This has sometimes been used as an accusation of inaccuracy at the Bible.

The problem with such an accusation is that while it may not be mentioned in the writings we have, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Whenever something isn’t mentioned, we have to ask whether there would be actual reason for it to be mentioned in the sources we have remaining (emphasis on “in the sources we have remaining”–remember, of the many, many writings that were made in the first century, only a handful are accessible to us in the present day). The tradition identified in the Bible was apparently a once-a-year thing limited to that area that probably lasted for only a few decades at the most and certainly ceased after the Jewish War broke out. Not exactly something you would bother to mention, even in a history book, unless you had specific reason to, like the Gospels did because Jesus was involved. Heck, even in the life of Jesus this was of relatively minor import because he wasn’t the one who got freed. So while one can’t exactly use another source to prove this happened, the lack of sources cannot be used to prove it didn’t.

This link also goes into a little detail on this (it’s part of a much larger writing), repeating some of the points above, but also notes some indirect evidence–that is, not specific confirmation of the Passover Pardon but evidence that things like it could be done:
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.php#barab
 
Last edited:
Kaninchen said:
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’.
Click to expand...
That’s certainly not the case. The wordplay here is that Jesus identified himself as the Son of God, and this insurrectionist is merely “the son of a father.”
Kaninchen said:
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?”
Click to expand...
The people of God were given the choice between the Incarnate Son of God and a criminal (the son of a father). They chose the latter. At this point in the story, that’s critical to see: we can’t merely slough off the crucifixion of Jesus as something that “those big, bad, evil Romans” did – it’s something that we all have a share in.
 
Gorgias said:
That’s certainly not the case. The wordplay here is that Jesus identified himself as the Son of God, and this insurrectionist is merely “the son of a father.”
Click to expand...
We’ll just have to differ.
Gorgias said:
The people of God were given the choice between the Incarnate Son of God and a criminal (the son of a father). They chose the latter. At this point in the story, that’s critical to see: we can’t merely slough off the crucifixion of Jesus as something that “those big, bad, evil Romans” did – it’s something that we all have a share in.
Click to expand...
For those of us for whom it’s ‘literature’, there may be much more to blame-shifting, of course.
 
Either that or God’s mercy was the same as in Exodus. Forty years in the desert parallel to forty years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
 
Kaninchen said:
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?”
Click to expand...
It happened at this point, during Passover, because we believe that Jesus fulfilled the Passover and became the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. Those who spiritually place themselves under the blood of the Lamb, just as under the Passover doorposts, will not be touched by eternal death when the Judgment of God comes to the world.

Jesus fulfilled both Passover and the Day of Atonement. In order to fulfill the Day of Atonement, it was God’s plan that The Barabbas episode would take place at that time also. During the Day of Atonement ceremony, as I’m sure you know, two goats were chosen. They were identical in appearance. Barabbas’ name means “Son of the Father” and we believe that Jesus was the Son of the Father; so in name sake, they were “identical” in that fashion, and that fulfilled that portion of the requirement.

The two goats were chosen by lots, one to be sacrificed and the other to be released–called the Scapegoat. The Scapegoat had the people’s sins placed upon it and it was released. The “innocent” goat was sacrificed to make atonement. Barabbas fulfills the guilty goat who was released and Y’shua fulfills the innocent goat that was sacrificed to make atonement.

We believe these things did not just “happen”…only God could have foreseen and planned these intricate details to show that Y’shua was the fullfilment. Pilate was God’s chosen instrument to bring these things into being.

The Hebrew scriptures use a phrase when it speaks about the Jewish people gathering to celebrate their feasts. It says that these are “Holy Convocations.” I’ve read that the closest meaning to “Convocations” is “Dress Rehearsals,” in other words, a practice for what is to come, and we believe it has come.
 
Last edited:
Kaninchen said:
40.png
Gorgias:
OK, then… how do you interpret that part of the narrative?
Click to expand...
Son of the Father/Son of the Father.
Click to expand...
Why the caps?

“son of [a] father” seems more appropriate for bar-abbas, no?
 
Kaninchen said:
Son of the Father/Son of the Father.
Click to expand...
This issue (Barrabas, and the history that does or does not surround him) is very interesting. Certainly one can not ignore the significant naming. It certainly seems the Gospel writers were pointing out that there were two paths being proposed for change - one son who is proposing violent upheaval as a path to justice, and one son who was proposing spiritual revolution to the same end. The populace choice the violent path, and 40ish years later that path leads to destruction.

So on the one hand, we have a name that seems just too perfect. We have actions by a known historical figure (Pilate) that are outside his character, inconsistent with what we understand about practices at the time, and not attested outside of Christian writings. On the other hand, it has four-fold attestation in the Gospels - which traditionally is considered an indicator of historicity.

Maybe the incident occured but the name was appended to the story later? Maybe the incident is an embellishment? Maybe the populace “chose” Barrabas in some other way or forum, but Pilate was edited into the scene? The fact that John picks up the story, despite dropping other elements of the Passion account found in the Synoptics at least means that the story of Barrabas was probably widely known and believed in the late first century, and that can’t be ignored either.

I don’t have answers, but its interesting to think about and discuss.
 
TMC said:
The fact that John picks up the story, despite dropping other elements
Click to expand...
John can often be counted upon to clear up problems of interpretation etc . . . 😉
TMC said:
I don’t have answers, but its interesting to think about and discuss.
Click to expand...
The whole “why this?/why here?/why now?” aspect of so much of the NT is often quite fascinating, even to this outsider.
 
Autumn-Smoke said:
It happened at this point, during Passover, because we believe . . .
Click to expand...
Do remember that you’re talking to somebody for whom the whole thing is neither scripture nor reportage. In in other words, it is a ‘construct’, Barabbas is “ex machina” in this particular drama.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top