Pilate offered to spare a man: Barabbas or Jesus. The mob chose Barabbas. Given how the gospels have presented Jesus in Jerusalem (greeted by mobs who praised him as King of Israel and gave him a triumphal entry, and generally causing a commotion of sorts – enough to get someone’s attention), how the heck can it be resolved that the crowds chose Barabbas over Jesus?
Ship this off the GD if needed.
I am interested in how the gospels could present this as record If he (Jesus) was what has been presented thus far (even disregarding John’s gospel), how is anyone supposed to buy into the whole Barabbas over Jesus thing?
From being praised as the King and given a triumphal entry being cast aside and left for crucifixion.
You can approach this historically or rectify it from the point of view of any gospel writer. Something doesn’t jive. What I mean is that, even if we approach this from a mere issue with the gospels (not historically), what the heck? The gospel writers let this ride?
It is simple. The Bible states that all that occurs is God’s Will and all fits within God’s plans. In God’s plans, the Nation of Israel would reject the king provided to them by God and this rejection was the basis for God turning to the Gentiles rather than His chosen people.
The Bible presents it that the Pharisees stoked the crowd to choose Barabas because while he might have been a threat to Roman authority, he was not the threat to the religious leaderships authority as Jesus was.
Thirdly, anyone who has ever been around a mob or riot can tell you that there is nothing more malleable and less rational than a crowd. A few stokers in a crowd can cause amazingly stupid things to be done by the crowd.
It was written like this to make it clear the JEWS not the Romans were responsible, though as another poster pointed out, it was all part of God’s plan
I think it’s very reasonable that the crowd welcoming Jesus (this would be the crowd outside Jerusalem) were different from the one at the trial (the crowd inside Jerusalem). You can see the same thing with political rallies today - just because there’s a pro-Obama rally on Wedsnesday doesn’t mean there won’t be a Tea Party rally on Friday.
The Jewish authorities were very worried about the Romans seeing Jesus as a political threat. Pilate had a history of dealing with insurrection very harshly, and they didn’t want a bloodbath in Jerusalem. Plus, Jesus was a threat to the authority of the priests from a religious standpoint too. It’s likely they worked the crowd a little, to encourage the outcome they wanted.
The welcoming crowd almost certainly believed in Jesus as the type of Messiah who would kick some Roman butt. Peter drew his sword and nearly killed someone when the guards showed up to arrest Jesus. And yet, he went from being a die-hard supporter of Jesus that night, to denying him three times the next day. I think it’s safe to say that others felt the same way Peter did - a combination of disappointed and afraid.
I have heard that non-Biblical sources say Barabbas was not just any murderer, but a Zealot or other anti-Roman rebel. Whether that’s true or not, it is true that not all murderers are disliked by the public.
One or more of those are all plausible explanations for the change in attitude.
The gospels of course can’t be take as reliable historical records, but partisan accounts written long after the fact. Even today, estimates of crowds at events can be wildly different depending on the source. Also, even if Jesus was greeted enthusiastically by his own followers when he entered Jerusalem, that doesn’t mean they made up the majority of the population.
The Bible never says exactly who Barabbas killed, does it ? If what he did was bushwhack a couple Roman centurions, I could see how the Jewish crowd would cheer him up as a “doer”, as opposed to Jesus’ words of peace and non-violence. Mobs are always bloodthirsty, and occupation by foreign powers never sits right with the locals.
Besides (and this is purely my mind’s eye here, I don’t have actual cites or factual basis for it), I somehow picture Jesus and his followers as a whacky cult at the time, a sort of ancient day David Koresh or Fred Phelps. Sure, the people who followed him and wrote the book sing his praises, but I would wager the “mainstream” Palestine saw him in a different light.
Jesus was cheered and greeted as a conquring hero in the Triumphal Entry because people thought he was coming to Jerusalem to re-establish the throne of David and kick the Romans out. He was supposed to be the Messiah, a political savior who would restore the glory of Israel and free them from foreign tyranny.
Instead, he gets himself arrested, his followers scatter, and he refuses to defend himself. The people of Jerusalem realize he’s not the conqueror they thought he was. Freeing Barabbas, on the other hand, was an insult to the Romans, so he was the popular choice. Also, I seem to recall that the Gospels say that the Jewish leaders incited the crowd to choose Barabbas because they saw Jesus as more of a threat to themselves because of how he challenged their teaching.
*Bar-abbas, doesn’t that mean “son of daddy”? I just realized that.
As mentioned, if you don’t take the Gospels as Inspired Holy Writ, you’re liable to suspect that the events aren’t accurately recorded, and may be entirely made up.
The entire episode is a little odd. I believe I’ve read that there is no independent corroboration of the practice of freeing a prisoner during the Passover Week, so the entire episode is a little suspect.
Furthermore, some texts give Barabbas’ name as Jesus bar Abbas – that’s at least arguably “Jesus, Son of the Father”, since “Abbas” is “Father” in Aramaic (it could mean “Jesus son of someone named Abbas”). Of course, Jesus referred to himself in the Gospels in somewhat similar terms. This can lead to the suspicion that maybe, in the original, the crowd was asking for Jesus to be released, and maybe the wrong one was let out. Or maybe the names were similar for some ironic reason. Your guess goes here.*
My hunch is that a story originally about how Jesus almost got sprung (but didn’t because of this mistake) got turned into an excuse to write a story that came up with a reason to blame one group in Jerusalem for his death because they deliberately asked for the other guy to get released. But I admit there’s nothing yto back it up beyond what I give above.
It shows how manipulated the general population is. Jesus knew that He didn’t have a chance against Pilot, and chose to remain silent, because there was no point, He was fighting forces way too strong for Him at the time (due to the plan of the Father) and we see the spiritual reality that people are blindly and unknowingly following spiritual forces. It shows the authority granted dark powers over people who have no idea they are being manipulated (yes this goes on today just as strongly as then), we also see the authority granted Jesus and others at other times in scriptures to overcome such dark influence.
It was just as if Jesus was put in a kangaroo court where everyone made up their mind already, why would Jesus even respond if He knew that He didn’t have a chance with them (only the Father). The powers manipulated the population so that Jesus would have to die, and in doing so caused these powers to make their great mistake, condemning their entire power structure and their power to influence humanity:
It’s interesting to me that Bar-Abbas is one of the few stories to be found in all four Gospels and yet it’s one of the least credible. A Roman procurator fearing to execute a radical so he offers them a choice between Jesus and a zealot… all kinds of ways this is unlikely. In the first place Pilate didn’t have to justify his decision to anybody, most especially Jewish priests, and in the second what little is known of him implies he signed death warrants like they were so many invoices. The argument could be made that he feared trouble with Caesar, but in the first place what’s the likelihood that Caesar would have much cared less what a priest whose problem with a prisoner is clearly religious in origin (true the official crime was insurrection and treason but that’s pretty easily proven or disproven) and who’d already been spared by Herod Antipas (who had a pipeline to Rome- had in fact been educated there and was very good friends with the imperial family). Plus, if he’d released Jesus due to the custom and it turned out he was a dangerous insurrectionist he’d still have to defend himself to Caesar anyway, plus either way he releases somebody charged with insurrection (which for a Roman isn’t that likely to begin with- they were more of a “Why take chances?” bent when it came to that).
Why then does it appear in all four Gospels (more than mention the Virgin Birth even)? Odd.
