Loading...This now is number eight of my favorite posts from the past. Often I deal with issues in the New Testament that in my judgment cannot be historically accurate. One of these, to the surprise of many readers, is the familiar story of what allegedly happened at the trial of Jesus according to the Gospels: Pilate is said to have offered to release him as a favor to the Jewish crowds gathered in Jerusalem for Passover; but instead they choose a Jewish insurrectionist and murderer, Barabbas – and so that was the one Pilate released. Could that have happened?
I addressed the issue in 2019, in response to a reader’s question:
******************************
QUESTION:
Pilate condemns Jesus to execution for treason against Rome. Pilate gives the Jewish crowds the option of releasing Jesus or a Jewish insurgent, Barabbas (15:6–15). I did a quick search to see if this was an attested practice in the Roman Empire and couldn’t’ find any relevant information. So, I have two questions: Do you think this detail is accurate? Is there any evidence that Roman officials actually freed condemned prisoners at certain local festival times?
RESPONSE:
This was an issue I worked on while writing my book Jesus Before the Gospels. After doing my research I came to a definite conclusion, that I state rather strongly (!). Here is what I say about the matter there:
********************************
Mark’s Gospel indicates that it was Pilate’s custom to release a prisoner guilty of a capital crime to the Jewish crowd in honor of the Passover festival. He asks if they would like him to release Jesus, but they urge him to release for them Barabbas instead, a man in prison for committing murder during an insurrection. Pilate appears to feel that his hand is forced, and so he sets Barabbas free but orders Jesus to be crucified (Mark 15:6-15).
This Barabbas episode was firmly set in the early Christian memory of Jesus’ trial – it is found, with variations, in all four of the Gospels (Matthew 27:15-23; Luke 23:17-23; John 18:39-40). I do not see how it can be historically right, however; it appears to be a distorted memory.
For starters, what evidence is there that Pilate ever …
Never heard this one before? If you’re not a member of the blog, you won’t be able to keep reading, and you may *never* hear it. Joining is inexpensive and easy; and every thin dime you pay goes to charity. So what’s to lose?
In other instances, it is stressed that Judaism in the Roman Empire was revered and coddled, because Judaism was, even then, an ancient religion. Unlike others, Jews got to keep their holidays and traditions. The analysis also overlooks a behemoth of a point: the New Testament documents are the best historical documents of the time. Scant evidence exists outside them for anything that happened in the time of Jesus of Nazareth. Most of the astonishing finds of the last century show that Jews and then Christians of the day did an extraordinary job of preserving the original content of their scriptures. There’s an additional point to be made that augers towards authenticity. Jews in Jesus’s time were looking for a violent messiah. That’s why the crowd might have preferred violent Barabbas over not-of-this-world Jesus. Some decades later, they apparently got their wish, and the Romans razed Jerusalem to where there was not a stone left standing upon a stone.
I”m sensing an anti-Jewish tone in your comments? Judaism was “coddled”? Jews wanted violence? I think the historical situation was far more complicated than that.
No anti-Jewishness or antisemitism. In fact, my impression of Judaism has increased favorably as a result of reading your blog and hearing your lectures.
Good! Thanks for letting me know.
Dr. Ehrman: I had to contemplate whether I should respond here for a bit. I feel it’s important to state that despite the simplified post from Matt2239, had he referred to Christians/Christianity the same way, you likely would not have responded with an insinuation. Would the conquering messiah be a non-violent one? “Violent” was a poor choice of words perhaps. And I think you’re picking on “coddled.” Your radar’s sensitivity appears maximized and calibrated for “Christ-killer” antisemitism which runs the risk of possibly seeing more than there actually is. More importantly, it encourages a “walking on eggshells” atmosphere on the blog. This is not the first instance of this, but it is the first time I’m commenting on it. My position is that no prejudices should be condoned one way or the other. But we all have to be fair with our assessments.
When you use the term “distorted memory” do you think they just made the whole thing up or do you think there was a similar event or tradition and the particulars are different. Love the new blog by the way
I would sharply differentiate between someone remembering something differently from what happened and someone intentionally fabricating a story (the “someone” in my sentence could be an individual person or a group)
You mention that there is no evidence that the person Barabbas existed. How about the name Barabbas? Was that a common name? Do we know of anyone else called Barabbas?
I’m not sure I’ve ever looked to see!
I think our experience with modern social media shows how a “distorted memory” develops into a complete story. Early Christians preached that Jesus was a crucified Messiah, while the Jews said that’s not what the prophecies predicted (see your previous post). Christians preached that the Jews wanted a conquering Messiah bringing insurrection and an earthly kingdom while Jesus was a self-sacrificing Messiah bringing a spiritual kingdom. As the idea was propagated people “heard” that the Jews quite literally chose an insurrectionist over a peace-loving Jesus, and so that story was developed and passed along. Just imagine what stories might have arisen if Caiaphas owned a laptop!
The only time I can remember that Romans were nice to insurrectionists was when Julius Caesar pardoned Romans who fought against him in the Civil War (the first time). But I’m no expert.
And lived to regret it
If the Barabbas story comes from a desire to show the Jews as wicked and foolish shouldn’t we expect the outrageousness of their choice to free him over Jesus to increase in the later gospels?
So for Matthew Barabbas is just a well-known prisoner, but for Mark and Luke he is an insurrectionist and murderer.
The desire of an author cannot be determined by how later readers and editors treat his account.
How does the Jesus/Jesus Barabbas narrative fit in with the idea of the “scapegoat” tradition on Yom Kippur?
I’ve heard it suggested (from sources not well liked in this forum) that the idea of “twin” Jesus’ in this story are meant to parallel the cleansing of sins via two identical goats. Jesus “son of the father” and Jesus, Son of Man are both facing execution before the “casting of lots” chooses the ultimate fate of both.
I guess the problem is that the goat that is released is the one that carries the sins, not the one that is sacrificed
You don’t understand the history of Judea. Keeping the peace was the primary need. Revolt would cost Rome revenue, resources and lives.
Early Roman mythology of Hannibal had the Carthaginian General employing the ‘pincer movement.’ Like Pilot’s custom, there is no record of ANY military leader using the pincer movement. I do not see how it can be historically right, however; it appears to be a distorted memory.
I’m always amazed at how many of the old Bible stories I believe. It’s not just that I believe them, but I never considered questioning them. It’s posts like these that help me think critically. Thank you.
It seems to me that another reason that Pilate is exonerated by the gospels is that revering a crucified criminal could create problems for Christians. It would be like trying to start a religion based on Charlie Manson. So it makes sense that the gospels would argue that Jesus was not guilty of sedition. Instead, he was railroaded by the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and a weak Pilate gave in to their demands for his execution.
I suppose absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence but after 40 years of reading books about Ancient Roman history I’ve never come across anything remotely like the Barabbas amnesty. Romans did occasionally show mercy, as in the case of the British chieftain Caratacus, under Claudius, but by Jesus’ time even Roman citizens were no longer guaranteed the right of not being summarily killed, especially under tyrannical emperors, such as Caligula and Nero. I think the more symbolic interpretation of two ‘sons of the father’ to choose from makes more sense to me.
I have read Theissen’s theory that there existed a pre-Markan passion narrative, presumably separate from the Q Sayings Gospel. What is your opinion of that possibility? If you think it likely, how does that change the emphasis of the early believers from Jesus’ life/ministry vs the passion?
I think it is highly possible and, at the same time, virtually beyond demonstration!
I recall (don’t have the reference offhand) that on occasion Roman officials would release a criminal or a few criminals (though never an insurrectionist) on some special occasion, such as the selection of a new emperor or for some holiday. There is no record that this was ever done in Judaea and certainly not the way the gospels would have it. But isn’t it possible that one or more of the evangelists co-opted this custom and used it to create the Barabbas legend?
I”m not quite sure what you’re referring to, I’m afraid! So if you track it down, let me know.
Merritt, Robert L. 1985. “Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon.” In JBL [Journal of Biblical Literature] 104/1, 57-68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260593 He discusses a number of references in Livy and elsewhere to the custom of releasing prisoners for Saturnalia and other occasions, and says:
“I propose the possibility that the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Greek (and seemingly also Roman and perhaps other) customs of releasing a prisoner or prisoners at the time of certain religious and other festivals and occasions were known in the world of the Gospel writers and provided a setting that paved the way for reciting the details of the trial of Jesus at the time of the Passover in a manner that fulfilled their apologetic need to exculpate the Romans and put responsibility for the crucifixion on the Jews.” (66, footnote omitted).
Ah, right. Yes, I see. He’s not saying that the Barabbas story is historical but that its origin can be explained on the basis of this other custom. I’d have to look at the examples, but I don’t believe I’ve never heard of one having to do with a person who had a death sentence (as opposed to some other kind of prisoner), especially among the Romans, and most especially on involving insurrection. I just don’t think that ever happeend.
Well, I suppose it could depend on how one interprets “lestes.” Though even if it did mean “robber,” there were those two lestai crucified along with Jesus in Luke, so either way being a lestes was a capital crime. But in any case I agree that it never happened, certainly not under Pilate and not in connection with Passover.
As you probably know, in Josephus it refers to guerilla soldiers. But in any event, the “King of the Jews” is put on offer as well, and that’s completely implausible.
Dr. Ehrman,
Which of the prominent (late or living) New Testament scholars share your view that the gospels were not written by those named today above their respective texts?
It’s the dominant view among critical scholars and has been for decades; the major exceptions, among biblical scholars, tend to be those who come out of conservative evangelical contexts.
Who are the critical scholars you refer to I’d like to read them. Also, the facelift on the blog looks really great. Fantastic work. Way better now.
You can see discussions of authorship in virtually any good critical commentary of the Gospels (i.e., written by scholars for scholars), for example Dale Allison on Matthew, Joel Marcus on Mark, Ray Brown on John, etc.
With reference to earlier comments, my understanding is that when the Romans did show mercy to the more dangerous type of prisoner, these were usually kept under some kind of surveillance, such as being made to live in Rome under the authorities’ watchful eye. In the case of Barabbas, the impression is given in the gospels that he was just being let go and therefore would theoretically be able to continue his terrorist activities. This would make no sense at all from the Romans’ perspective.
Do you know where that information is coming from (about Romans showing mercy to dangerous prisoners)?
I recently read Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s 2013 article “(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone?” In the article, he basically concludes that the two men crucified along with Jesus probably had some connection to him and that they may have even been apart of his following. I’m wondering what your thoughts are about that?
I kind of doubt it. At least the texts themselves indicate otherwise. Moreover, if Jesus’ followers were being crucified as well, then the other disciples would also have been rounded up. I would also say that we don’t know if there were in fact two others crucified with him.
Or five. Or none. THe idea of the other two is sometimes attributed to an attempt to show that Jesus fulfilled scripture that he was “surrounded by evildoers” (Psalm 22:16).