Poor guy never had a chance. For all his powers, he never could fly.
You don’t mess with the Jesus.
For the reasons already stated, the action of the crowd is not impossible. Different crowd. probably, or they changed their mind.
However, the idea that Romans would have freed someone to please the crowd is very suspect. It is extremely un-Roman to give the mob an idea that law is somehow not absolute and people who challenge their law can get away with it. They would have shunned at the concept of having to please non-citizen subjects. Real politics was not alien to them but they were serious about authority and would have chosen a much more subtle way to please Jews than letting them act as a supreme court.
The most likely reason why this was added is that it helped spread the new religion. It was enormously succesful. Romans cruxified Jesus. I don’t advocate putting the Italians in gas chambers, thou.
It is unlikely that Barabbas murdered Roman soldiers. There would be no way that the Romans would not crucify someone who did such a thing. I think that the story of Barabbas is a New Testament example of the people of Israel betraying God for a sinner much like all the idol worship and back sliding in the OT.
The common consensus among Bible scholars I heard is that when the Gospels were written - after the fall of Jerusalem 70 AD - the new Christians didn’t want to get on the wrong side of the Roman empire, because that would have hindered the spread of the gospel. So the whole Pilates episode was written afterwards to excuse how the Romans killed Jesus, but didn’t really want to and weren’t really to blame. The whole story doesn’t make any sense from a logical point of view - Petrus was on the outside of the courtyard, denying Jesus, but then crept away in shame after the cock crowed. None of the other apostels are said to be present, yet we have an account as from a witness as to the going-on between Jesus and Pilate, Jesus at the High Court etc. Who reported on that?
Jewish scholars also stress that a lot of the reported restrictions, e.g. that the High Court can’t issue a death penalty, are wrong for the time period of about 30 AD, they came into place after 70 AD uprising. So the writers of the gospels were making stuff up they had no first-hand knowledge about, confusing details of decades ago with current stuff, and trying to whitewash the Romans in order to cozy up to them. Plus, some of the later writers had issues with some of the current Jews (Paul) so the Pharisees et al were a convenient target for retroprojecting Jesus problems onto them, although during Jesus times the Pharisees were different than two generations and one uprising later.
From a Staff Report: Who Killed Jesus?
Although this doesn’t address the Barabbas story directly, it’s pretty clear that was also a later invention.
The basic message of the new testament is the completion of the old testament. God chose a people based on Abraham. Unfortunately, those people ended up choosing evil over good. The Jews of Jesus’ time had a notion of what the messiah was supposed to be that didn’t match up with God’s notion of the messiah. The rejection of Christ completed God’s justification for turning to the Gentiles. Choosing a murderer over their given messiah is just another proof that under the previous covenant, people would almost always choose evil.
We’re not drifting off point here, because I’ve not phrased the question looking for historicity around the actual Pilate/Mob thing.
The whole thing didn’t make sense, so it is important to have the insight about Jerusalem after 70 AD.
Jesus is an English double translation. His true name is Yeshua, a very Hebrew name.
When you whoooosh upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
When you whooosh upon a star, your dreams…come…true…
Check out Pär Lagerkvist’s 1950 Novel Prize winning novel Barabbas. It’s excellent reading.
‘‘Woosh’’ is an understatement, unless HowardRoark is being obtuse intentionally.
.
Was the Anthony Quinn movie based on that one?
As for the OP, there’s no clear explanation. The two theoretical ones are natural and supernatural:
Natural: the Jews wanted a militant opposition to Rome, not talk of an afterlife paradise.
Supernatural: The devil made 'em do it.
Although, assuming for argument sake that the account is true, it could have been a third argument: Jesus was too radical and militant for the majority of the Jews.
Assuming as real the story of Christ cleansing the Temple is true, and assuming it happened in the last days of his life as is generally accepted rather than at the beginning of his ministry as it did in some accounts, the Jerusalem Temple (aka Herod’s Temple) was an architectural marvel of a place. It would probably have been in Strabo’s Seven Wonders if he’d written a generation or two later than he did. It was enormous, there was nothing like it even in Rome: the Wailing Wall is not a wall of the temple complex but merely one of the retaining walls that supported it- to give an idea, this is a scaled model- note the size of the doors and then remember they’d have been 12 feet high or more.
In addition to being the religious center of Judaism it was the commercial capitol of Asia Minor. There would have been many thousands of people there on any day (there were in fact more than one thousand priests at any given time) and during Passover there would have been conservatively tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.
The moneychangers served a religious and political purpose: Greek and Roman coins were the most commonly used in Israel and they contained Latin and images of the emperor and sometimes of pagan deities; even some of the coins ordered struck by Herod and his heirs had pagan iconography on them. This was blasphemous to the Jews, it’d be like paying your church tithe today with a check that has a XXX porn pic on it, and as such they would not allow this type of coinage to be used for paying the tithes/taxes/sacrifices/offerings to the Temple. Those giving had to use coins specially minted by the Temple- coins that had a Hebrew inscription and nothing offensive- and what the money changers did was switch your “Tiberius on front/Jupiter and Juno on back” coins for the equivalent in Temple coins, minus of course their fee.
On a slow day there would have been probably dozens of moneychangers (highly competetive business after all- “He wants 5%?! Robbery! Come here I’ll change them for 3%!!”) and during holy days there’d have likely been hundreds in addition to literally thousands of merchants selling everything from sacrificial animals to souvenirs to gambling to olive oil to food/drink (tourism then was already huge business).
The point is that for Jesus to have “cleansed” the Temple of the merchants and the moneychangers, or even for him to have made much of a dent in the number who were there, would have taken little beyond an armed uprising. This is basically like saying somebody cleared the floor of the NYSE or caused an evacuation of part of the Mall of the Americas- something that would definitely be on CNN if it happened today and would have been huge news then. The Temple Guards would have been called out, the Romans would have been informed what was happening, and Israel was already a powder keg.
Assuming the “Jesus or Barabbas (or cake)” story is true, it’s possible that many Jews would have seen Barabbas, whose crimes we really don’t know- it’s unlikely they involved bloodshed as he’d probably already have been crucified- as the lesser of two evils. While there was a heavy zealot movement most Jews did NOT want war because they knew they were no match for the Roman legions, and add to this there was a very substantial non Jewish population in Jerusalem (Romans, Egyptians, Arabs, even a few Indians probably [there was a very large Indian population in Rome and Israel’s nearer]). So it could be that Jesus was too radical.
Or not radical enough.
Or that Satan cast a spell.
One of those- hope this clears it up.
So, there it is in the Gospels, yet it would have been an historically significant event. So placing it in the Gospels doesn’t make much sense, because it’s an event that others would know of, outside the Gospels. I would think it (Temple Ruckus) would be as prone to being passed down as anything. Ergo, it ruins the credibility of the Gospels. Maybe I give the Gospel writers too much credit, but how could they stick some of this stuff in there, when their audience should have other outside knowledge, or questioned these things. In other words, it’s not very convincing to read some of this stuff if it is both patently absurd for the times AND doesn’t exist anywhere else (because if did, it’d be recorded with other major events).
ETA: Although I overestimate people, because this whole Christianity thing has legs!
So THAT’S why they were out to get him. He was a Jew!
You know, Dan Brown could make a book out of all this . . .
It is. For what it’s worth:
Even if the Romans sometimes did this, it is unlikely they would have offered the people any prisoner whom they perceived as a threat to the state, and Jesus was (for complicated reasons) so perceived.
“Why did the crowd/mob in Jerusalem choose Barabbas over Jesus” (?) is, in effect, already skewed and/or incorrectly framed and stated…
In the 1st instance, “Jesus Barabbas”, written in the original Greek ‘Holy’ Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17) but, that His name [Jesus] was removed or omitted from the Latin ‘translation’ (around 384 c. e.) and most of the subsequent ‘translations’ thereafter, -leaving us later-day people with only Barabbas instead.
“Barabbas” is not a proper name or surname per se’ (any more so than is “Christ”), -it is, rather, an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in ‘the Father of us all’ or, ‘God’, if you will).
I presume, therefore, that the intended Thread Topic above might refer to (Jesus) Christ.
“Christ” first (and only) appeared in literature i.e. the ‘Holy’ Gospels and/or New Testaments. These ‘books’ were written no less than ten years (and re-written many times thereafter… up to their canonization in the 4th century) i.e. after the infamous crucifixion of ‘the descendant of David and the Jewish mashiach’. Therefore, it is obvious that no Jew, during the reign of Pontius Pilate, ever knew, or saw, or even heard of “Christ”.
“Christ”, -supposedly a Greek ‘translation’ of the Hebrew word ‘mashiach’, without etymological foundation or basis within the Greek language, customs or history and, with added meaning to with Jews do not subscribe.
So, in an answer to the Thread’s question above… I respectfully say: The Jews Did ‘choose’ Jesus [Barabbas] over ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’ (who’s name, by the way, was not “Jesus”. But, I am getting ahead of this explanation and full story.
Perhaps a more interesting question might be: Why is there so little known about Jesus Barabbas?
Portrayed and described in the ‘Holy’ Gospels as “a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist” (without evidence, much less proof), He seems to appear (as if from out of nowhere) upon the stage of ecclesiastical history’s most dramatic and celebrated hour, like a potted plant of poison ivy, saying nothing whatsoever to anybody, nobody said anything to Him, is incongruously “released” from prison nevertheless. Would Pilate actually risk having his head delivered to Tiberius on a platter for ‘releasing a notorious insurrectionist’???
Insurrection? What insurrection? (So much for Jesus Barabbas’ “notoriety”.)
In order to understand why the Jews demanded that ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’ be crucified and that Jesus Barabbas (the Son of God) be ‘released’ and unharmed… one must needs to know Jewish history…
Briefly, Saul, son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, became the first ‘anointed’ king of the Jews (altering their ancient custom of having ‘God’ as their only ruler over them). King Saul was eventually ‘replaced’ by the ‘anointment’ of David, son of Jesse, of the tribe of Judah. Some years later, in a battle against the Philistines, the former king (Saul) “fell upon his own sword”, -ostensibly to avoid captured and being made sport of by his enemy. This abominable and sinful act by Saul
brought everlasting dishonor and shame upon his heirs and descendants.
King David was succeeded by the ‘anointment’ of his son, Solomon.
King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam, -however, ten tribes revolted against or away from Rehoboam, as well as the heretofore theocratic from of governance of David and Solomon. The ten tribes thus established a parallel secular form of governance, -headed by Jeroboam instead. This ruckus schism among the Jews continued down through the centuries… indeed, into the days of Herod.
Shortly after the death of the Roman installed and supported Herod, one Judas the Galilean, -long marginalized descendant of David and Jewish mashiach, seized the opportunity to rise up an insurrection to overthrow the broken up secular government of the Herod’s sons. Judas the Galilean was killed in that battle, -but another rose up… and another… and another… until, at last, the wealthy and educated Jews scattered themselves abroad, the temple at Jerusalem was razed to the ground and the Jewish nation ceased to exist, -in 70 c. e.)
What, pray tell, do you think Saul of Tarsus, -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul, -the actual creator and founder of ‘Christianity’, was doing… (besides “persecuting Christians”, -at a time when there was no such thing as a ‘Christian’, -only ‘the descendant of David/Jewish mashiach’ and his zealous followers) during ‘those days’?
Saul of Tarsus, the namesake and descendant of the shamed and dishonored king Saul of the tribe of Benjamin (-see Romans 11:1), -a schizophrenic and flunk out Pharisaic student of Gamaliel, tent maker and hired temple thug (“persecuting ‘Christians’”…, -at a time when there were no ‘Christians’… yet).
Apparently, Saul had an ‘epiphany’ while on the road to Damascus, -in feverish pursuit of another ‘descendant of David and new Jewish mashiach’ and his zealous followers… not as the ‘Holy’ Gospels would cunningly and cleverly mislead naïve and unsuspecting souls into ‘believing’: “Jesus Christ” of his (Saul’s invention)… in stead of the ‘given’ facts on the matter. (A ‘fact’ that seems to be ‘forgotten’ by many here… is that Saul’s ‘epiphany’ occurred after ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’ was “crucified”… some years earlier. Given that publication of such ‘documentation’ occurred no earlier that ten years after the actual event. Therefore, Saul’s ‘epiphany’ was not of “Jesus Christ” yet… rather, it could only be of ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’… the very man Saul of Tarsus hated for his entire life-time and, plotted revenge against. It was Saul, who was responsible for the salacious capture, in the ‘Garden of Gethsemane’ (see Mark 14:51-52), arrest, trial and crucifixion of ‘the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach’, -not “Jesus Christ”. Judas the Galilean, became “Jesus Christ”… i.e. after he was de-Judaized and converted into a Greek philosophical notion and myth. (‘Scholars’ seem to never recognized and raise this point.)
In a stroke of sick or evil genius, Saul succeeded in obliterating the name of Judas the Galilean and office of the Jewish mashiach, as well as relegating Jesus Barabbas (the Son of God) into the un-searchable and everlasting obscurity… by simply, cunningly and cleverly combining the actual name and ‘holiness’ of Jesus [Barabbas] together with attributing the same to the otherwise unnamed and renamed Judas the Galilean into “Jesus Christ”.
I hope this answers your question… and is the “Straight Dope”… (it is for me… after the better part of nearly fifty years of research and deep contemplation…
Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.
I read somewhere (it might be in Hyam Maccoby’s Revolution in Judea–then again, it might not) an idea that may or may not be the case:
Barabbas may represent an aspect of the historical Yeshua detached from the hero of the Gospels as a device or trick of the writer. That is, both Jesus Christ & Jesus Barabbas would be pseudo-historical figures derived from the actual Yeshua of Natsareth. But one (the hero) is presented as an otherworldly being of peace (even a mystery-religion figure to be resurrected) & the other as a contemptible killer. This would serve to separate the mythic Christ from any historical memory of the real Yeshua as revolutionary.
I don’t know, it’s a story, & not the only ahistorical one in the Gospels.
“… device or trick”? To what end?
"… actual Yeshua of Natsareth (Nazareth ?)… There was no town named “Nazareth”… until the ‘Christian’ (Greek) Church Hierarchy discovered that they couldn’t find any such named town in the fourth century… so, they created one. That a person might be a “Nazarene” does not mean ‘one from Nazareth’ (as the Greeks supposed)… rather, it is a Jewish sect (they lived in many places throughout Palestine)… Samson, as an example, was a Nazarene.
“…contemptible killer”? Although ‘killing’ (a human) may be ‘contemptible’… in this case, killing seemed ‘righteous’ in the eyes of the party of the Theocrats as well as the Secularists… as each believed that their position was correct. So strong were their passions that neither side would concede to the other… until they destroyed their own nation… in that process, ‘Christianity’ was born.
I don’t know very much about “…otherworldly” stuff, but the ‘facts’ seem clear enough to me.
Yes, it is a ‘story’ and I’m sticking to mine, thank you.
Naamaste’.
Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.