During the trial of Jesus, when Mark introduces Barabbas, he says “A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.” This is the first and only mention of “The uprising” as far as I know, and he uses the phrase in passing as if he’d just mentioned it, even though the narrative describes no overt uprising. Is there any information on this uprising in any other sources or intelligent speculation on what Mark is talking about and what relationship Jesus may have had to the insurrectionists? I know Bart has argued that Barabbas was an invented character, but it seems like an amazing coincidence to me that Jesus could have been arrested at the same time as uprising that he had nothing to do with. It also seems like this quote from Mark is taken out of context from a source that must have talked more about it.
There were many revolts according to Josephus. Even Luke writes of revolts. It would probably be impossible to determine if there was a real one that took place around the time of the crucifixion. To make a lot Mark’s story make sense Jesus needs a diametric counterpart and Barabbas serves that purpose. Remember the time frame that most scholars believe Mark was written: just after the Jewish-Roman War in the late 60s. Saying there was an insurrection would have made sense to Mark’s audience who had just lived through years of war and having a lead insurrectionist be found more favorable by the fickle Jerusalem mob probably fell upon believing, sympathetic ears in Mark’s community.
Barabbas is almost certainly made up. His name is literally bar-Abba, or “son of the father”. How convenient! Jesus is also the Son of the Father. The Jerusalem crowd chooses the “bad” son of the father and appeals to Pilate to crucify the “good” Son of the Father. Jesus tried to keep his true identity a secret in Mark so having him go to his death at the demand of the crowd is perverse justice.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert