# Were Barabbas & Jesus the same person? Your take- **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651 "2004-03-26T23:29:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/1 "2004-03-26T23:29:06Z")
(This could be considered a “GQ” but due to the subject matter I’m going to place it here.) Ever since I was a kid I’ve been fascinated by the name “Barabbas”, which, I’m guessing most Dopers already know, is the Latinization of the Hebrew ‘bar Abba’, meaning literally “son of [a] father”. It’s such an incredibly vague name that I once thought indicated must mean he was illegitimate, but certainly there’s no evidence of this.\* While he is mentioned [in](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=mark+15&search=&version=NIV&language=english&optional.x=0&optional.y=0) [all](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=matthew+27&search=&version=NIV&language=english&optional.x=0&optional.y=0) [four](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=luke+23&search=&version=NIV&language=english&optional.x=0&optional.y=0) [Gospels](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=john+18&search=&version=NIV&language=english&optional.x=0&optional.y=0), the most information given on him (and it isn’t much) is that he was in prison for participation in an insurrection (which would seem to make him the _last_ prisoner Pilate would even consider pardoning, not that pardoning criminals was a tradition anyway and not that Pilate was known for his leniency). There is one school of thought that bar-Abba was another name for Jesus himself: that, in essence, “bar Abba” was the mortal aspect of Christ (the son of Man) and that Jesus was the divine (the son of God) and that essentially Pilate was asking the crowds to choose how they chose to see Him- as messiah or man. The only real support I can find for this is that Jesus _was_ guilty of insurrection (the “cleansing” of the Temple, which would have required an organized revolt since there were thousands of merchants and pilgrims on its grounds on any given day and far moreso during Passover week) and the lack otherwise of a first name for who would seem to be a very important person. A question for both Christians and non-Christians: do you subscribe to this theory? Do you believe the name “bar Abba” has any real significance? Do you believe this part of the Passion story to be symbolic or literal? Thanks in advance for any thoughts. \*Does anybody know **how** illegitimate sons were addressed in patronymic Hebrew? Did they assume the name of their maternal grandfather or some other male relative? I’m familiar with the ancient rumors concerning the illegitimacy of Christ (including the associations with [Yeshu ben Pantera](http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak/articles/dalman.htm) of the Talmud [changed into an anagram for Yeshu ben Parthena by some writers and, by Robert Graves, into Yeshu bar Antipater [the eldest son of Herod the Great]), but how would a bastard (in the technical sense) have been addressed as far as surname? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/2 "2004-03-26T23:56:48Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > (Ever since I was a kid I’ve been fascinated by the name “Barabbas”, which, I’m guessing most Dopers already know, is the Latinization of the Hebrew ‘bar Abba’, meaning literally “son of [a] father”. It’s such an incredibly vague name that I once thought indicated must mean he was illegitimate, but certainly there’s no evidence of this. I’ll just point out that Yasser Arafat goes by the name Abu Ammar, Sabri al-Banna went by the name Abu Nidal, Mahmud Abbas goes by the name Abu Mazen, and almost all of the leaders of Palestinian terrorist groups took pseudonyms like that for themselves (abu is Arabic for father.)). If a real Barabbas existed and he was a anti-Roman bandit and terrorist leader, it’s not impossible that Barabbas might have just been the name he was known by and not his real name. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/3 "2004-03-27T00:33:37Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > If a real Barabbas existed and he was a anti-Roman bandit and terrorist leader, it’s not impossible that Barabbas might have just been the name he was known by and not his real name. That’s a \*very[/] good theory I hadn’t thought of; in addition to the nom-de-guerre factors it would have served two other functions: 1- it would have protected his family by concealing his identity 2- its sarcastic, so it would have been a “screw you” to the Romans ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2004, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/4 "2004-03-27T07:00:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Pilate was asking the crowds to choose how they chose to see Him- as messiah or man. There wouldn’t have been a difference. The Jewish expection of the Messiah is not a divine one. The Jewish Messiah was (and is) a human king, not a god. It’s highly unlikely that anyone would have seen Jesus as being divine while he was alive. it would have been extremely unJewish, not to mention contradictory to any messianic presumptions. The Barabbas story is intriguing but probably not historical. Contrary to the claims of the gospels there was no such tradition of releasing a prisoner at Passover. John Crossan argues that the Barabbas story was a creation of Mark’s and that it was designed to show the people of Jerusalem brought about their own ultimate defeat in 70 CE by choosing to embrace an armed insurgent rather than an unarmed teacher…ie. they chose violence rather than peace. Mark was written in the immediate aftermath of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and pretty much all of it has to be read with that in mind. My guess about the name “Barabbas” is that it’s a deliberate contrast to Jesus as the “Son of God.” It was Mark’s way of saying that Jerusalem had a choice between sons of human fathers or the “Son of God.” That’s just a WAG on my part, though. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/5 "2004-03-28T06:48:49Z")
Of course just to make it more intriguing, many sources refer to Barabbas as “Yeshua bar Abba”, further to counterpoint ‘Yeshua bar Yosef’ perhaps. There is of course no historical record of him, and again Pontius Pilatus would have been far more likely to redefine ex_cruci_ation for such a man than to set him free. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/6 "2004-03-28T22:20:33Z")
One of the better theories is that Barabbas was the son of Jesus. JC gave himself up in a prisoner exchange to save his son’s life. ---
**Author:** ![Splanky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b2d939/32.png) [@Splanky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Splanky)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/7 "2004-03-28T22:35:50Z")
Jesus was executed in his 30’s, right? How could Barabbas have been his son if Jesus himself was so young? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/8 "2004-03-28T22:55:03Z")
I can’t remember where, but I once read a theory that the story of the release of Barabbas was a veiled way of saying that Jesus did not die on the cross – either he survived, or another victim (possibly Simon of Cyrene) was substituted for him. We discussed this idea at length in a recent GD thread: “Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Were Gospels omitted from New Testament?” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=241541](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=241541) ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/9 "2004-03-29T13:24:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There wouldn’t have been a difference. The Jewish expection of the Messiah is not a divine one. The Jewish Messiah was (and is) a human king, not a god. That grossly understates the complexity of first century Judaism, implying it was a definitive movement, with a single belief system. One must be careful not to retroject later developments. What of the Messiah in 4Q521? “The heavens and earth shall listen to his messiah. . .for he shall heal the sick, revive the dead, and bring glad tidings to the poor. . .”(4Q521, frag 2 & 7, G. Vermes’ translation) Or 4Q246 “Son of God he shall be called, and son of the most high they shall call him. . .”(Vermes again) Or 11QMelchizedek, where the role of Messiah is played by the heavenly Melchizedek, who assumes roles usually ascribed to God himself. Or what of the Messiah in Psalms of Solomon 17, who “shall not rely on horse and rider and bow. . .”(17.33) What of the “Son of Man” in 1Enoch’s “Book of Similitudes?” And so on. There were certainly those who expected a divine redeemer. As it became increasingly apparent that no single man was going to end the Roman empire, Messiah or not, the role of the Messiah changed drastically. > [@](#): > > It’s highly unlikely that anyone would have seen Jesus as being divine while he was alive. it would have been extremely unJewish, not to mention contradictory to any messianic presumptions. The Qumranic Teacher of Righteousness deified _himself_, never mind being deified by his followers. Yet the sectarians were undeniably Jewish. How can that be equated with what you’ve said regarding the “unJewishness” of such beliefs? Jesus’ self-conception is a difficult subject, we do well not to understate the complexities of it with generalities of what would be “unJewish.” > [@](#): > > The Barabbas story is intriguing but probably not historical. Contrary to the claims of the gospels there was no such tradition of releasing a prisoner at Passover. Philo, forgive me for not having the exact reference, observes in his Embassy to Gaius that “just rulers” grant stays of execution until after festivals ended. He couldn’t even fathom releasing one. Tellingly, Philo was condemning Pontius Pilate as unjust, because he had no compunctions about executing during festivals. The gospel stories of Barabbas are pro-Roman apologetics. > [@](#): > > John Crossan argues that the Barabbas story was a creation of Mark’s and that it was designed to show the people of Jerusalem brought about their own ultimate defeat in 70 CE by choosing to embrace an armed insurgent rather than an unarmed teacher…ie. they chose violence rather than peace. Mark was written in the immediate aftermath of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and pretty much all of it has to be read with that in mind. And I must disagree with Crossan on this point (and pretty well every other he makes, but that’s another story. Great scholar, incredibly readable, and I invariably reccommend his work, but I disagree with almost everything he concludes). Matthew is explaining the war–hence the addition of “and our children” or “and to the next generation” throughout his gospel. Mark is simply trying to alleviate the Romans of guilt in the execution. For what my two cents is worth, I’m not entirely pesuaded that the war was over when Mark wrote–I’d suggest the destruction of the temple was imminent, but not yet a foregone conclusion. If it was already destroyed, why is Mark wrong about how it fell? > [@](#): > > My guess about the name “Barabbas” is that it’s a deliberate contrast to Jesus as the “Son of God.” It was Mark’s way of saying that Jerusalem had a choice between sons of human fathers or the “Son of God.” I’d suggest that’s exactly what it is. Except he’s not saying “Jerusalem” he’s saying the Jews in particular. Gentiles chose the son of God, at least in Mark’s mind–hence the whitewashing of Pilate, or the Centurion of Mark 15.39. It’s a theme Matthew expands on greatly even at the outset of his gospel–with the Gentile Magi. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/10 "2004-03-29T13:45:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I can’t remember where, but I once read a theory that the story of the release of Barabbas was a veiled way of saying that Jesus did not die on the cross – either he survived, or another victim (possibly Simon of Cyrene) was substituted for him. We discussed this idea at length in a recent GD thread: “Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Were Gospels omitted from New Testament?” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=241541](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=241541) Scholarship, thankfully, progresses oblivious to such fringe theories. More traditional for such sensationalistic theories would be to place Thomas, or if you’re feeling extra-marginal Judas Iscariot (whom you’d identify with Judas Thomas), on the cross in Jesus’ stead. This reflects a late Gnostic belief that Jesus and Judas Thomas were twins. The DaVinci Code, discussed on the thread you linked, is utter garbage, incidentally. The source used for his book–Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh’s work–is written by journalists, not scholars, and endorsed by absolutely no scholar to my knowledge. The New York Times Book Review recently issued a scathing review of Baigent et al… My only concern is that the NYT was too generous. It’s a horrid book, rife with pseudoscholarship and sensationalist claims that are backed up by none of the evidence. Perhaps most offensive is the utter whitewashing they give John Allegro, a topic I’ve written on at length. I’ll see if I can dig up one of my essays on the matter. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/11 "2004-03-29T13:53:31Z")
> [@Iscariot](#): > > That grossly understates the complexity of first century Judaism, implying it was a definitive movement, with a single belief system. One must be careful not to retroject later developments. There was no part of Judaism which believed that the Messiah was God. > [@](#): > > What of the Messiah in 4Q521? “The heavens and earth shall listen to his messiah. . .for he shall heal the sick, revive the dead, and bring glad tidings to the poor. . .”(4Q521, frag 2 & 7, G. Vermes’ translation) > > Or 4Q246 “Son of God he shall be called, and son of the most high they shall call him. . .”(Vermes again) “Son of God” did not mean divinity, it was just a designation for a king. > [@](#): > > Or 11QMelchizedek, where the role of Messiah is played by the heavenly Melchizedek, who assumes roles usually ascribed to God himself. What about it? > [@](#): > > Or what of the Messiah in Psalms of Solomon 17, who “shall not rely on horse and rider and bow. . .”(17.33) because God would help him, not because the Messiah was God. > [@](#): > > What of the “Son of Man” in 1Enoch’s “Book of Similitudes?” And so on. 'Son of Man" means human being. > [@](#): > > There were certainly those who expected a divine redeemer. As it became increasingly apparent that no single man was going to end the Roman empire, Messiah or not, the role of the Messiah changed drastically. Wrong. No one expected a divine Messiah and they definitely didn’t expect a redeemer of sins. You are misunderstanding some phrases. > [@](#): > > The Qumranic Teacher of Righteousness deified _himself_, never mind being deified by his followers. Yet the sectarians were undeniably Jewish. How can that be equated with what you’ve said regarding the “unJewishness” of such beliefs? The “Teacher of Righteosness” in the Dead Sea Scrolls was just a prophet. He did not deify himself and neither did the Qumran community. The Jews did not believe in divine incarnation. To call any man God was sacrilege. > [@](#): > > Jesus’ self-conception is a difficult subject, we do well not to understate the complexities of it with generalities of what would be “unJewish.” Sure we do. We understand that no Jew would have called himself God. > [@](#): > > Philo, forgive me for not having the exact reference, observes in his Embassy to Gaius that “just rulers” grant stays of execution until after festivals ended. He couldn’t even fathom releasing one. > > Tellingly, Philo was condemning Pontius Pilate as unjust, because he had no compunctions about executing during festivals. The gospel stories of Barabbas are pro-Roman apologetics. True and true. Philo said that a governor could delay an execution until after the fesival or grant permission to bury a victim but there is no documentation of anyone releasing a condemned person, especially not an insurgent and especially not Pilate. > [@](#): > > And I must disagree with Crossan on this point (and pretty well every other he makes, but that’s another story. Great scholar, incredibly readable, and I invariably reccommend his work, but I disagree with almost everything he concludes). Based on what scholarship? I have to wonder since you don’t understand some basic phrases like “Son of God” or the expectations of the Messiah. > [@](#): > > Matthew is explaining the war–hence the addition of “and our children” or “and to the next generation” throughout his gospel. Mark is simply trying to alleviate the Romans of guilt in the execution. Yes. > [@](#): > > For what my two cents is worth, I’m not entirely pesuaded that the war was over when Mark wrote–I’d suggest the destruction of the temple was imminent, but not yet a foregone conclusion. > > If it was already destroyed, why is Mark wrong about how it fell? Some scholars put Mark in the late 60’s, during the War but still before the ultimate destruction of the Temple. This is not an unreasonable position. > [@](#): > > I’d suggest that’s exactly what it is. Except he’s not saying “Jerusalem” he’s saying the Jews in particular. Gentiles chose the son of God, at least in Mark’s mind–hence the whitewashing of Pilate, or the Centurion of Mark 15.39. It’s a theme Matthew expands on greatly even at the outset of his gospel–with the Gentile Magi. > > Regards. Perhaps, but Christianity had a life as a Jewish sect before it became a separate religion so it’s hard to think that Mark would blame all Jews, only a specific community of them. ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/12 "2004-03-29T14:28:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There was no part of Judaism which believed that the Messiah was God. I didn’t say they expected him to be God incarnate, i said they expected him to be divine. The angel Michael was not God. He wasn’t a man either. Same idea. > [@](#): > > “Son of God” did not mean divinity, it was just a designation for a king. The term actually underwent an remarkable evolution–an evolution that culminated with Christianity and the pre-eminent Logos. See Marcus J. Borg, _Jesus at 2000_, ch.11 and Hershel Shanks _Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls_, ch. 5. It’s a complicated phrase that had many different meanings, at many different times. For example, in Exodus (4.22), all Israel is God’s child. Yet later, only David is–it became more specific, evidencing a more specific relationship. Incidentally, 4Q246 is quoted by Luke in the anunciation–it’s the source he uses to support the virgin birth. Clearly all Jews didn’t share your understanding. > [@](#): > > because God would help him, not because the Messiah was God. No. That’s the belief evidenced in, for example, the War Scroll, where the war is won by the hand of God himself. It’s not the belief in the psalms of Solomon, it’s not the belief in 4Q521, it’s not the belief in 11QMelch. > [@](#): > > 'Son of Man" means human being. No, Son of Man as used in Ezekiel refers to a human being. The Son of Man in 1Enoch is a divine being, drawing from the Son of Man depicted in Daniel. Read Enoch, don’t just tell me I’m wrong. It’s a fascinating text that I promise will heighten your understanding of Christianity. Incidentally, the book of Simillitudes may be a later interpolation, and thus not terribly useful for assessing the millieu Christianity came from, as it would then be as much of a product of that millieu as Christianity is. Tough call–Milik argues, based on its absence in the version found at Qumran, that the Book of Simillitudes did not originally exist in Enoch. Charlesworth argues quite the contrary. I haven’t decided which I favor just yet. > [@](#): > > Wrong. No one expected a divine Messiah and they definitely didn’t expect a redeemer of sins. You are misunderstanding some phrases. Read 11QMelchizedek. He’s 1) definitely a heavenly figure, 2) Definitely equated with the Messiah and 3) Definitely a redeemer. Nobody said anything about redeemers of sins. To further your understanding of the Melchizedekian Messiah–probably the most complex of the Messianic expectations, I’d suggest following 11QMelch up with the Gnostic text “Melchizedek,” and then–after you see the varying interpretations of Melchizedek, re-read the Epistle to the Hebrews. The epistle makes a lot more sense when it’s read with that background. > [@](#): > > The “Teacher of Righteosness” in the Dead Sea Scrolls was just a prophet. He did not deify himself and neither did the Qumran community. The Jews did not believe in divine incarnation. To call any man God was sacrilege. They did not call him God, they called him divine–he became like an angel when the new covenant was revealed to him. It’s a theme expanded on numerous times throughout the Hoyadot. You obviously haven’t read the scrolls, so I’m gonna head this one off early–I don’t have the time to provide you with a good introduction to them. I’d suggest Vermes’ translation and commentary, as well as that of Wise, Abegg and Cook. For probably the best, though a little too conservative at times, introduction to the issues raised, see the the Shanks book I referenced above. I wrote a review of it somewhere or other, which was supposed to be published on [www.bookreviews.org](http://www.bookreviews.org), except that bastard Evans published his review before me. Take a look at the Evans review, anyway, which says more or less the same thing I did, and if you’d like I can find mine as well. I was a little more critical, and apparently found an error that Evans had missed. > [@](#): > > Sure we do. We understand that no Jew would have called himself God. There’s a diference between calling yourself God and calling yourself divine. You’re moving the goalposts. > [@](#): > > Based on what scholarship? I have to wonder since you don’t understand some basic phrases like “Son of God” or the expectations of the Messiah. I disagree with Crossan based on the scholarship of Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, E P Sanders, John P Meier, Raymond E Brown, Dale C. Allison, Twelftree, Gibson, Vermes, Charlesworth. . .the list goes on. Pick any you feel comfortable debating, I’m good with any of them, though I don’t agree with all of them on every point either. Crossan advocates a non-apocalyptic Jesus. The majority of scholarship, in fact, disagrees, though it’s a marginal majority at best. It’s among the most hotly debated subjects in the field. If you’d like to discuss whether or not Crossan and the Jesus Seminar’s conclusions from the “Common Sayings Tradition” (their primary argument for the non-apocalyptic Jesus) are correct, feel free to start another thread, I’ll certainly participate. If you’d like to tell me what I do or do not understand, I’ll probably just pack this one in. I’ve got considerable academic weight behind my arguments–Flint and Evans, for example, have discussed what I’ve said regarding Messianism at Qumran at length–so have Vanderkaam, Murphy-O’Connor, Davilla, Eshel and Vermes, to name but a few. I’ve already provided you two sources regarding the term “son of God” and the evolution of that phrase. That you haven’t heard it before doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about. Such presumptions will cost us both the benefit of discussion. A thinly guised ad hominem is still an ad hominem. > [@](#): > > Some scholars put Mark in the late 60’s, during the War but still before the ultimate destruction of the Temple. This is not an unreasonable position. I’m aware of that. They do so based primarily on the argument I suggested. Raymond E. Brown, in his _Introduction to the New Testament_, in fact claims that the _majority_ of scholars date it to the late sixties–67 seems to be the most common date taken. I’m not sure that it’s a majority, but there are bunches. > [@](#): > > Perhaps, but Christianity had a life as a Jewish sect before it became a separate religion so it’s hard to think that Mark would blame all Jews, only a specific community of them. Christianity never took off among the Jews–it’s the reason Mark has the “Messianic Secret.” People were wondering why the Jews didn’t recognize jesus was the Messiah, Mark decided that they didn’t recognize him, because he wouldn’t let them see–“Tell no one what you have seen” being something of a mantra. Besides, I’ve always been something of a Renan sort of guy, perhaps “Essenism that survived” overstates it a little, but “from the same vein of thought” is pretty secure ground. The Essenes had no problem condemning “all Israel,” despite the fact that they were, from any perspective but their own, a part of “all Israel.” Marks’ treatment of the Jews isn’t much different–he already views his group as distinct from them. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/13 "2004-03-29T15:02:53Z")
> [@Iscariot](#): > > The term actually underwent an remarkable evolution–an evolution that culminated with Christianity and the pre-eminent Logos. See Marcus J. Borg, _Jesus at 2000_, ch.11 and Hershel Shanks _Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls_, ch. 5. It’s a complicated phrase that had many different meanings, at many different times. I apologize, I should have been more careful–trying to operate from memory rather than getting up and checking. The Shanks reference is correct. The Borg reference should be to Chapter 1 (Borg wrote two essays in the book, I mixed them up, and remembered 11 chapters when there are only 8), specifically to pg. 13-14. If you check the reference, you may also be interested in Segal’s essay in the same book (ch.4). Segal offers the following criticism of Crossan et al., that I think is often an apt description of their findings: > [@](#): > > One thing is sure: I would be very suspicious of my own method if I came up with a Jesus who was not particularly Jewish but looked a lot like a professor of religion of the late twentieth century?even if I could put a name such as Cynic philosopher upon that portrait. (p. 69) Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/14 "2004-03-29T16:22:53Z")
> [@](#): > > didn’t say they expected him to be God incarnate, i said they expected him to be divine. You’re going to have to explain this because you keep repeating it. I fail to see the distinction. You seem to agree that no Jew believed that the Messiah would be God incarnate nor did they beleive he would be a redeemer of sins but you are operating ona different definition of “divinity” than I am. If you mean that the Messiah was an agent of God or a divine creation, well so what? The same can be said of any prophet or king. > [@](#): > > No, Son of Man as used in Ezekiel refers to a human being. The Son of Man in 1Enoch is a divine being, drawing from the Son of Man depicted in Daniel. > > Read Enoch, don’t just tell me I’m wrong. It’s a fascinating text that I promise will heighten your understanding of Christianity. Enoch doesn’t say the Messiah is God and it doesn’t really use “Son of Man” as a title for the Messiah, it just refers to “this son of Adam” who would _be_ the “Righteous One” (Messiah). It’s taken from Daniel and is used to emphasize that the Messiah would be human. A human was going to be righteous. “Son of Adam” is a descriptor not a title. > [@](#): > > I disagree with Crossan based on the scholarship of Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, E P Sanders, John P Meier, Raymond E Brown, Dale C. Allison, Twelftree, Gibson, Vermes, Charlesworth. . I’m familiar with some of these but not all of them. I know that Sanders. Meier and Brown are fairly conservative (not fundamentalist but somewhat protective of traditional Christianity). > [@](#): > > Crossan advocates a non-apocalyptic Jesus. The majority of scholarship, in fact, disagrees, though it’s a marginal majority at best. It’s among the most hotly debated subjects in the field. > > If you’d like to discuss whether or not Crossan and the Jesus Seminar’s conclusions from the “Common Sayings Tradition” (their primary argument for the non-apocalyptic Jesus) are correct, feel free to start another thread, I’ll certainly participate. Is this your main objection? That Crossan and the JS reject an eschtological view of Jesus’ mission? I suppose it depends on how you define your eschatology. I don’t think Jesus was teaching anything like a traditional "endtimes’ scenario as much as he was suggesting that a “Kingdom of God” on earth could be brought about by human effort. You might say he was a utopian. Personally, I don’t even think he believed himself to be the Messiah but I admit that point is debatable (as well as his personal eschatological views). I don’t feel like starting a separate thread on the Jesus Seminar (we’ve had them before) but I’m sure you won’t be surprised that I buy into their case for common sayings…at least as to it pertains to authenticity. What they _mean_ is a different argument but I think it’s just about impossible to conclude that Jesus thought he was God (or that anybody else did). I will await your clarification of what you mean by “divine.” To me the qualities of “divinity” and “godhood” are synonomous so maybe we just have a semantic separation here. We at least seem to agree that no one thought the Messiah was God, regardless of variant interpretations among different sects. > [@](#): > > Christianity never took off among the Jews–it’s the reason Mark has the “Messianic Secret.” People were wondering why the Jews didn’t recognize jesus was the Messiah, Mark decided that they didn’t recognize him, because he wouldn’t let them see–“Tell no one what you have seen” being something of a mantra. > > Besides, I’ve always been something of a Renan sort of guy, perhaps “Essenism that survived” overstates it a little, but “from the same vein of thought” is pretty secure ground. The Essenes had no problem condemning “all Israel,” despite the fact that they were, from any perspective but their own, a part of “all Israel.” Marks’ treatment of the Jews isn’t much different–he already views his group as distinct from them. Maybe “Christian” is too strong of a word but even the gospels say that there was a community of Jews in pre-war Jerusalem who were followers of Jesus. They self-identified as Jews, not as a separate religion. The separation came after the diaspora. The Essene influence on Christianity is hard to determine. There are some pretty good arguments for it but no smoking gun. I think it’s possible that Jesus came out of an Essene tradition (Nazarites, perhaps?) but there are elements of his ministry and teachings which run counter to some Essene teachings (the drinking of wine, for instance). This makes me wonder if Jesus had a break with the Essenes at some point and abandoned ideas of ritual purity for a law based more on compassion and spirit than on codified modes of behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/15 "2004-03-29T17:05:13Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You’re going to have to explain this because you keep repeating it. I fail to see the distinction. You seem to agree that no Jew believed that the Messiah would be God incarnate nor did they beleive he would be a redeemer of sins but you are operating ona different definition of “divinity” than I am. If you mean that the Messiah was an agent of God or a divine creation, well so what? The same can be said of any prophet or king. No, I don’t mean a human agent, I mean non-human. I provided the example of the angel Michael–Michael, Gabriel, Azrael et al. were divine beings, they weren’t God. There’s a very clear progression, as the Messiah moved from just a king, a mighty warrior, to the miracle working prophet of PS. Sol, to the messiah of 4Q521, to the cosmic Melchizedek, to the synoptic Jesus, to the pre-eminent Logos of John, and beyond to the Gnostic conceptions. > [@](#): > > Enoch doesn’t say the Messiah is God and it doesn’t really use “Son of Man” as a title for the Messiah, it just refers to “this son of Adam” who would _be_ the “Righteous One” (Messiah). It’s taken from Daniel and is used to emphasize that the Messiah would be human. A human was going to be righteous. “Son of Adam” is a descriptor not a title. No. The “Son of Man” in 1 Enoch is most definitely no longer human. His pre-eminence is made clear more than once, such as “For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might, And revealed him to the elect.”(1 Enoch 62.7) The son of man is, in later texts, identified with Enoch. Enoch (who is renamed Metatron) is later promoted all the way up to the “Lesser YHWH.”(3 Enoch) > [@](#): > > I’m familiar with some of these but not all of them. I know that Sanders. Meier and Brown are fairly conservative (not fundamentalist but somewhat protective of traditional Christianity). Someone (I seem to think Mahlon Smith, but don’t quote me on that) stated on the XTalk E-list some time ago that he felt it was impossible to get a handle on Sanders, because his faith, if he had any, never colored his scholarship. He suggested he was most likely secular. Smith was incorrect–Meier described Sanders as a “liberal protestant” and Sanders himself observed in a lecture what he did while he prayed. Such autobiographical notes are rare for Sanders, however. He’s certainly not “protective” of traditional Christianity, he just thinks–as Schweitzer did so long ago–that if Jesus was not the apocalyptic prophet evidenced most clearly by the gospels we’re wasting our time. I’m inclined to agree. Meier and Brown are both Catholic, and a far cry from Fundamentalist. Their Catholicism colors their handling of the virgin birth, which is the only area noticeably affected by it. Both refuse (or refused, in the case of the late Raymond Brown) to discuss the historicity of the resurrection, or to handle miracle traditions at large with anything but the gloves of an historian. See Meier’s second volume of the _A Marginal Jew_ series for probably the best treatment of miracles in contemporary scholarship. > [@](#): > > Is this your main objection? That Crossan and the JS reject an eschtological view of Jesus’ mission? It’s what Crossan’s entire reconstruction is based on. It would be difficult for me to claim disagreement with the vast majority of Crossan’s work if I didn’t object to the non-apocalyptic Jesus. > [@](#): > > I suppose it depends on how you define your eschatology. I don’t think Jesus was teaching anything like a traditional "endtimes’ scenario as much as he was suggesting that a “Kingdom of God” on earth could be brought about by human effort. You might say he was a utopian. I already defined eschatology for purposes of my criticism of Crossan–apocalyptic eschatology. I do not think Jesus’ message was sapiental. > [@](#): > > I don’t feel like starting a separate thread on the Jesus Seminar (we’ve had them before) but I’m sure you won’t be surprised that I buy into their case for common sayings…at least as to it pertains to authenticity. Find a hundred English majors, and ask them to provide 15 citations of Shakespeare. A lot of the citations will overlap. A lot won’t. They’re all using the same plays. The methodology behind using the common sayings tradition as the primary measure is inherently flawed for exactly that reason–different communities, hell even different individuals, will remember different sayings. Some will overlap. Some won’t. > [@](#): > > Maybe “Christian” is too strong of a word but even the gospels say that there was a community of Jews in pre-war Jerusalem who were followers of Jesus. They self-identified as Jews, not as a separate religion. The separation came after the diaspora. But that can hardly be considered analogous to the explosion of the movement among Gentiles. Perhaps even more importantly, Mark’s audience is almost certainly not Jewish. > [@](#): > > The Essene influence on Christianity is hard to determine. There are some pretty good arguments for it but no smoking gun. I think it’s possible that Jesus came out of an Essene tradition (Nazarites, perhaps?) but there are elements of his ministry and teachings which run counter to some Essene teachings (the drinking of wine, for instance). This makes me wonder if Jesus had a break with the Essenes at some point and abandoned ideas of ritual purity for a law based more on compassion and spirit than on codified modes of behavior. I’d suggest taking a look at Martinez et al. and the “Groningen hypothesis” of scroll origins. Essentially their hypothesis argues that Qumran does not represent mainstream Essenism, which makes sense, given their rabid isolationism–it’s rather puzzling attempting to equate that (and other difficulties) with what we know from classical sources. If Qumran was one splinter sect from mainstream Essenism, then it’s not hard to imagine that Christianity was another, or even a splinter of another. I’d suggest that it’s hard to determine “how much” influence there was. That there was influence is, as near as I can see, unassailably true. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/16 "2004-03-29T17:56:32Z")
> [@Iscariot](#): > > No, I don’t mean a human agent, I mean non-human. I provided the example of the angel Michael–Michael, Gabriel, Azrael et al. were divine beings, they weren’t God. > > There’s a very clear progression, as the Messiah moved from just a king, a mighty warrior, to the miracle working prophet of PS. Sol, to the messiah of 4Q521, to the cosmic Melchizedek, to the synoptic Jesus, to the pre-eminent Logos of John, and beyond to the Gnostic conceptions. Ok, so it sounds like what you’re claiming is that some splinter sects may have viewd the Messiah as superhuman or as a kind of supernatural entity. (I discount the gospels as evidence for any Jewish interpretation of the Messiah, btw. They are not Jewish writings). I would quibble over whether supernatural = “divine” but I understand where you’re coming from now. I think you’re just taking some hyperbolic writings and running with them, though. > [@](#): > > No. The “Son of Man” in 1 Enoch is most definitely no longer human. His pre-eminence is made clear more than once, such as > > “For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, > And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might, > And revealed him to the elect.”(1 Enoch 62.7) > > The son of man is, in later texts, identified with Enoch. Enoch (who is renamed Metatron) is later promoted all the way up to the “Lesser YHWH.”(3 Enoch) You can change “son of man” to “man” all the way through Enoch and it still makes sense. To be sure, it’s an elliptical reference to the Messiah by way of Daniel but it does not elevate the descriptor itself to a level above “human being.” > [@](#): > > Someone (I seem to think Mahlon Smith, but don’t quote me on that) stated on the XTalk E-list some time ago that he felt it was impossible to get a handle on Sanders, because his faith, if he had any, never colored his scholarship. He suggested he was most likely secular. Smith was incorrect–Meier described Sanders as a “liberal protestant” and Sanders himself observed in a lecture what he did while he prayed. Such autobiographical notes are rare for Sanders, however. He’s certainly not “protective” of traditional Christianity, he just thinks–as Schweitzer did so long ago–that if Jesus was not the apocalyptic prophet evidenced most clearly by the gospels we’re wasting our time. I’m inclined to agree. Sanders is wishy-washy on miracles and the resurrection. When i say he’s “protective” of traditional Christianity, what I mean is that he still tries to protect the supernatural claims of Christianity as being spiritually valid rather than just admitting that they’re myths. I disagree with the assertion that a non-apocalyptic Jesus is a “waste of time” for historical scholarship. Considering the significance of Jesus in world history I think that absolutely anything which can be learned about him is significant and worthwhile, regardless of personal expectations or desires. > [@](#): > > Meier and Brown are both Catholic, and a far cry from Fundamentalist. I said they were _not_ fundamentalist. > [@](#): > > Their Catholicism colors their handling of the virgin birth, which is the only area noticeably affected by it. Both refuse (or refused, in the case of the late Raymond Brown) to discuss the historicity of the resurrection, or to handle miracle traditions at large with anything but the gloves of an historian. See Meier’s second volume of the _A Marginal Jew_ series for probably the best treatment of miracles in contemporary scholarship. And, again, this fear of calling a myth a myth is what I mean by “protective.” > [@](#): > > It’s what Crossan’s entire reconstruction is based on. It would be difficult for me to claim disagreement with the vast majority of Crossan’s work if I didn’t object to the non-apocalyptic Jesus. > > I already defined eschatology for purposes of my criticism of Crossan–apocalyptic eschatology. I do not think Jesus’ message was sapiental. Now this is a fair point of disagreement. I _do_ think Jesus’ message was sapiential but that’s not something we’re going to prove either way. > [@](#): > > Find a hundred English majors, and ask them to provide 15 citations of Shakespeare. A lot of the citations will overlap. A lot won’t. They’re all using the same plays. > > The methodology behind using the common sayings tradition as the primary measure is inherently flawed for exactly that reason–different communities, hell even different individuals, will remember different sayings. Some will overlap. Some won’t. If you found several random samples of Shakespeare in different sources it would still be possible to determine that it was the same author. A lot of the JS conclusions are based on internally consistent theology and rhetoric which strongly suggest a common author. many, many other saings do _not_ fit this style. The apocalyptic and messianic stuff does not match either rhetorically or theologically with the earliest core of sayings. This is another fair point of disagreement but iyt’s not as arbitrary as you make it sound. ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/17 "2004-03-29T18:18:50Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Ok, so it sounds like what you’re claiming is that some splinter sects may have viewd the Messiah as superhuman or as a kind of supernatural entity. (I discount the gospels as evidence for any Jewish interpretation of the Messiah, btw. They are not Jewish writings). I would quibble over whether supernatural = “divine” but I understand where you’re coming from now. I think you’re just taking some hyperbolic writings and running with them, though. You might have a case in the instance of 4Q246. 11QMelch has definitely replaced Go with Melchizedek, and definitely characterizes much of Qumranic theology. > [@](#): > > You can change “son of man” to “man” all the way through Enoch and it still makes sense. To be sure, it’s an elliptical reference to the Messiah by way of Daniel but it does not elevate the descriptor itself to a level above “human being.” You can change “One like a son of man” to “man” in Daniel and it still makes sense too. It’s not what Daniel means–it’s why he calls it “one like” rather than simply a son of man. > [@](#): > > Sanders is wishy-washy on miracles and the resurrection. When i say he’s “protective” of traditional Christianity, what I mean is that he still tries to protect the supernatural claims of Christianity as being spiritually valid rather than just admitting that they’re myths. Sanders emphatically states that miracles do not happen, citing Cicero on the matter. See Chapter 10 of _The Historical Figure of Jesus_, which is devoted to the discussion of miracles. If you haven’t read him, you haven’t read him, there’s no need to condemn what you’re not familiar with. What you’re evidencing is a theology far more reminiscient of Crossan’s, actually. Though it’s even more in keeping with Marcus J. Borg, or John Shelby Spong. All three of these men are fellows of the Jesus Seminar. He states with regards to the resurrection that he simply doesn’t know what the resurrection experiences were. I agree with that synopsis. Nobody rose from the dead. I’m not sure what convinced people that Jesus did. > [@](#): > > I disagree with the assertion that a non-apocalyptic Jesus is a “waste of time” for historical scholarship. Considering the significance of Jesus in world history I think that absolutely anything which can be learned about him is significant and worthwhile, regardless of personal expectations or desires. I don’t think a non-apocalyptic Jesus teaches us anything, I think it’s a theological construct. It’s important to Crossan, Funk et al. that Jesus didn’t believe in a vengeful God. it’s incredibly serendipitous that in their reconstruction he is the only Jew in Galilee who didn’t. > [@](#): > > And, again, this fear of calling a myth a myth is what I mean by “protective.” You obviously haven’t read Brown or Meier. I’d strongly reccommend both–though you might want to skip Brown’s _Birth of the Messiah_–I was rather unimpressed. Meier’s _A Marginal Jew_ series is almost requisite reading for the field. Brown’s _An Introduction to the New Testament_ is also excellent. You won’t find anything controversial in the latter, which makes it all the more valuable for building a strong basis for further inquiry. > [@](#): > > Now this is a fair point of disagreement. I _do_ think Jesus’ message was sapiential but that’s not something we’re going to prove either way. As opposed to what? It’s the only point of disagreement I’ve presented, thus far. > [@](#): > > This is another fair point of disagreement but iyt’s not as arbitrary as you make it sound. I’m aware that I understated the analogy. Again, if you’d like a separate thread on it, then by all means, let’s do so. I’d suggest we begin with a look at the Farrer-Till hypothesis, as I still think it’s up for grabs as to whether or not Q existed for there to be a common sayings source in the first place. I understated intentionally, because you expressed reservations about perusing the topic further. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/18 "2004-03-29T18:53:07Z")
> [@Iscariot](#): > > You can change “One like a son of man” to “man” in Daniel and it still makes sense too. It’s not what Daniel means–it’s why he calls it “one like” rather than simply a son of man. I think you’d have a hard time convincing a rabbi of that. > [@](#): > > What you’re evidencing is a theology far more reminiscient of Crossan’s, actually. Though it’s even more in keeping with Marcus J. Borg, or John Shelby Spong. All three of these men are fellows of the Jesus Seminar. I have no theology, I’m an agnostic. I just see Jesus’ message as evinced in the parables as wisdom teachings rather than apocalyptic warnings. > [@](#): > > I don’t think a non-apocalyptic Jesus teaches us anything, I think it’s a theological construct. I don’t know what you mean by “teach us.” I still think that any knowledge we can uncover about historical Jesus is useful and interesting no matter what his message was. > [@](#): > > It’s important to Crossan, Funk et al. that Jesus didn’t believe in a vengeful God. it’s incredibly serendipitous that in their reconstruction he is the only Jew in Galilee who didn’t. Which is precisely what would make him compelling and attractive, is it not? The very fact that he broke conventions by healing lepers and associating with spiritually “impure” people is already a break with the notion of a vengeful God. > [@](#): > > You obviously haven’t read Brown or Meier. I’d strongly reccommend both–though you might want to skip Brown’s _Birth of the Messiah_–I was rather unimpressed. Meier’s _A Marginal Jew_ series is almost requisite reading for the field. Brown’s _An Introduction to the New Testament_ is also excellent. You won’t find anything controversial in the latter, which makes it all the more valuable for building a strong basis for further inquiry. I’ve read Brown’s _Death of the Messiah_ and was not impressed with his conclusions. I think he takes far too much as being historical. > [@](#): > > I’m aware that I understated the analogy. Again, if you’d like a separate thread on it, then by all means, let’s do so. I’d suggest we begin with a look at the Farrer-Till hypothesis, as I still think it’s up for grabs as to whether or not Q existed for there to be a common sayings source in the first place. > > I understated intentionally, because you expressed reservations about perusing the topic further. Let’s just pursue Q in this thread. What alternative explantion would you advance for the commonalities in Matthew and Luke? ---
**Author:** ![Iscariot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@Iscariot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iscariot)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/19 "2004-03-29T22:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I think you’d have a hard time convincing a rabbi of that. I’d have considerably less trouble convincing a Biblical scholar of that, which is what’s relevant to the current discussion. > [@](#): > > I have no theology, I’m an agnostic. I just see Jesus’ message as evinced in the parables as wisdom teachings rather than apocalyptic warnings. Perhaps I stated it poorly. I meant that the theology you had ascribed to Sanders was far more reminiscient of John Crossan’s theology. Or, for that matter, the theology of Borg or Spong. It certainly doesn’t echo anything Sanders has ever written. _Jesus and Judaism_ was awarded the best Religious book of the 80s–Sanders is definitely worth the read, though I have to give the nod to Fredriksen regarding their disparate portraits of why Jesus died. _Paul and Palestinian Judaism_ is another excellent work by Sanders–something of a benchmark, really, and requisite reading for any discussion of Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you mean by “teach us.” I still think that any knowledge we can uncover about historical Jesus is useful and interesting no matter what his message was. I mean that I’m not convinced the “Jewish Cynic” gives us any knowledge about the historical Jesus. I think the “Jewish Cynic” is what Funk et al. would like Jesus to be, not what the evidence indicates. > [@](#): > > Which is precisely what would make him compelling and attractive, is it not? The very fact that he broke conventions by healing lepers and associating with spiritually “impure” people is already a break with the notion of a vengeful God. It’s remarkably serendipitous–suspiciously so, even–that Jesus so perfectly conforms to Crossan’s Christianity in Crossan’s reconstruction. If such serendipity were occurring in a more conservative interpretaion, he would doubtlessly be condemned as an apologist. I’m not entirely convinced that he’s not sometimes guilty of presenting “liberal apologetics” for wont of a better term. Again, this isn’t to detract from Crossan–_The Historical Jesus_ invariably appears on my reccommended reading list. I just think he’s wrong. I think lots of people are wrong, that doesn’t mean I think they’re poor scholars. > [@](#): > > 've read Brown’s Death of the Messiah and was not impressed with his conclusions. I think he takes far too much as being historical. _Death. . ._ was intended to be a commentary, with historical-criticism being secondary to that, which Brown notes in his introduction. He’s definitely conservative, and I don’t endorse many of his conclusions myself, but he’s certainly not out of touch with mainstream academia–again, a solid base is better built out of non-controversial presentations. > [@](#): > > Let’s just pursue Q in this thread. What alternative explantion would you advance for the commonalities in Matthew and Luke? Essentially that Luke was originally crafted without a birth narrative, and simply used Matthew and Mark. If you’re not familiar with the Farrer-Till hypothesis, it’s probably best if we stay this one until you familiarize yourself a bit. Depending on your skill level, you may want to give Farrer, Till and the like a miss, as their arguments are, for the most part, rather academic, very technical, and often dependent on a reasonable grasp of Greek–I’ve only recently been able to really appreciate such arguments myself, hence my current skepticism about Q. A much more readable source, to my understanding (I haven’t read it yet, so only offer the opinions of others), is Mark Goodacre’s _The Case Against Q_. You may be familiar with Goodacre from the NT Gateway [www.ntgateway.com](http://www.ntgateway.com) . Linked from the NT Gateway is Goodacre’s page on the case against Q. Well worth the read. For what it’s worth, I generally treat Q as my working hypothesis. However, in analyzing the Common Sayings Tradition, I’m not persuaded that we should simply accept Q _a priori_, as it’s entirely too integral to the argument. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651/20 "2004-03-30T00:08:17Z")
Having read the page on Q I find a number of logical problems with it (as well as some theological bias) but it’s pretty far off topic for this thread. Maybe I’ll start another thread if I find the energy to dig up the resources. (Don’t worry about my “skill level,” btw. It just so happens that I do know Greek and that I do have a basic academic foundation in Biblical criticism) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-barabbas-jesus-the-same-person-your-take/236651.md?page=2)