The Pulling the Thread Podcast

The narrative of Barabbas in the Gospels, analyzed by scholars who present a perplexing and potentially fabricated account. The gospels describe a scenario where Pontius Pilate seemingly allowed the populace to choose between releasing Barabbas and Jesus, prompting doubt about its historical accuracy. This skepticism extends to Pontius Pilate’s portrayal, challenging the plausibility of yielding to a small unarmed crowd and the absence of the alleged custom of “privilegium Paschale.”

In his book “Appointment in Jerusalem,” Max Dimont challenges the credibility of the Barabbas story, raising doubts about its plausibility within both Roman and Jewish contexts. Dimont focuses on several aspects that contribute to his skepticism.

Firstly, he questions the portrayal of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, who, backed by military might, is depicted as yielding to a small unarmed crowd. This portrayal seems incongruent with the historical reality of Roman authority in that era. The Roman governors, especially in a volatile region like Judea, would typically have exercised firm control and not succumbed to the demands of a relatively small and unarmed group.

Secondly, Dimont highlights the absence of the alleged custom of “privilegium Paschale” outside the Gospels. This custom, as described in the biblical narrative, involves the governor releasing a prisoner during the Passover festival at the request of the people. Dimont questions the historical validity of such a custom, emphasizing that it lacks support or mention in other historical records beyond the Gospel accounts.

By scrutinizing these elements, Dimont suggests that the Barabbas story may be a literary or theological construct rather than an accurate historical account. The incongruity in depicting Pilate’s behavior and the absence of corroborating evidence for the purported custom raise doubts about the narrative’s authenticity and its alignment with the political and social realities of the time.

The examination of the Barabbas narrative by Lincoln, Leigh, and Baigent in “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” unveils a perplexing and enigmatic aspect of the Gospels. The authors contend that the narrative was crafted to shift culpability onto the Jews for the death of Jesus. In the Barabbas story, a choice is presented to the crowd between Jesus and Barabbas, a notorious criminal. This choice, they argue, creates a symbolic scenario where the Jewish crowd is seemingly complicit in choosing a criminal over Jesus, thus shouldering the blame for Jesus’s crucifixion.

Raymond E. Brown, a prominent biblical scholar, in his work “Death of the Messiah,” contributes to the skepticism surrounding the Barabbas story. Brown questions the historical authenticity of the narrative, casting doubt on its accuracy in reflecting the events of Jesus’s crucifixion.

Brown, while acknowledging the possibility of a prisoner named Barabbas being released during Jesus’s crucifixion, does not necessarily endorse the complete historical reliability. His skepticism stems from a critical analysis of the textual and historical aspects surrounding the Barabbas episode.

Biblical scholars like Brown engage in textual criticism, historical context analysis, and linguistic scrutiny to assess the reliability of biblical narratives. In the case of Barabbas, Brown may question elements such as the plausibility of Roman authorities allowing the crowd to choose a prisoner for release during a major festival, the absence of corroborating historical evidence, and potential theological motives behind the narrative construction.

The translation of Matthew 27:15 introduces a layer of complexity to the Barabbas narrative, as it frames Pilate’s choice as between “Jesus Barabbas” or “Jesus who is called the Messiah.” The deliberate use of language, with “Barabbas” meaning ‘son of the father,’ adds a nuanced and intriguing dimension to the decision-making process.

The intentional ambiguity in presenting both figures with the name Jesus introduces the possibility of a symbolic choice between Jesus the Messiah and Jesus, the son of the father—potentially suggesting a metaphorical decision between different aspects or roles of Jesus himself.

Scholars explore the intriguing possibility that Barabbas, designated as ‘son of the rabbi,’ could be Jesus’ son. This speculation delves into the realm of symbolic interpretation, considering whether the choice presented to the crowd represents more than a mere selection between two individuals but rather a theological or allegorical decision. The notion that Barabbas might be Jesus’ son introduces a speculative element into the narrative, prompting scholars to delve into symbolic interpretations and explore the potential implications of such a reading.

Scholarly inquiry into the Barabbas narrative reveals a debate regarding its authenticity, with some scholars suggesting potential fabrication. There is an argument that the Barabbas episode has been treated with insufficient consideration, potentially diminishing its significance in the broader narrative.

By scrutinizing the narrative in the Barabbas story, highlighting the unsettling statement attributed to the crowd in Matthew 27:23, where they proclaim, “His blood shall be on us and on our children.” Scholars who acknowledge the likely historicity of Jesus’s baptism and crucifixion, nevertheless, contend that Barabbas was added as an element with antisemitic undertones. This perspective suggests that the inclusion of Barabbas in the narrative contributed to historical antisemitism by framing Jews as responsible for Jesus’s crucifixion—a concept known as Jewish deicide.

The argument revolves around the idea that the Barabbas story, with its portrayal of the crowd choosing a criminal over Jesus, could reinforce negative stereotypes and contribute to an unjust blame placed on the Jewish community for the crucifixion. Scholars exploring this angle often emphasize the need for a careful examination of biblical texts to discern elements that might perpetuate harmful stereotypes or prejudices.

A minority of scholars, including Benjamin Urrutia, Stevan Davies “Who is called Bar Abbas,” Hyam Maccoby “Jesus and Barabbas” / “Revolution in Judea,” and Horace Abram Rigg “Barabbas,” propose an unconventional perspective – suggesting that Barabbas and Jesus might be the same person. This dissenting view challenges the conventional understanding of the Barabbas narrative, offering an intriguing dimension to scholarly discourse.

In John 18:40, the label ‘robber’ is applied to Barabbas using the Greek term ‘lestai.’ This term, ‘lestai,’ carries historical and political connotations, associating Barabbas with the zealots led by Judas the Galilean. The zealots were a faction known for their resistance against Roman rule and were often involved in acts of rebellion.

By using ‘lestai,’ the Gospel implies that Barabbas was not just a common criminal but likely a political insurgent or revolutionary, aligning him with the fervent anti-Roman sentiments of the zealots. This choice of terminology deepens the intrigue surrounding Barabbas, making his role in the narrative more than that of a mere criminal, but rather a figure entangled in the complex socio-political landscape of the time.

Contrary views propose that Barabbas and Jesus might be the same person. Scholars like Benjamin Urrutia challenge the conventional narrative, suggesting Rabbi Yeshua Bar Abba as the historical Jesus leading a successful nonviolent resistance against Pontius Pilate’s attempt to install Roman eagles on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Urrutia draws on Josephus’s account, linking the resistance leader to Jesus’s subsequent crucifixion, though acknowledging potential alterations to Josephus’s text over time.

According to the authors of “Holy Blood,” the Barabbas story effectively achieved its deceptive purpose by obscuring the switch between Judas and Jesus, unfairly blaming the Jews, and weaving a narrative fraught with confusion and profound theological consequences.

Urrutia challenges the common narrative of Jesus’s baptism, insisting that the Gospel of the Hebrews portrays a more authentic version where Jesus reluctantly agrees to the suggestion from his mother and brothers. This version, he argues, aligns with the Criterion of Embarrassment and is likely rooted in authentic family traditions within the community producing the Gospel.

A Talmudic legend, cited by Urrutia, he envisions the King Messiah binding his wounds among the homeless poor at the gates of Rome, challenging the expectation of a future coming by emphasizing the Messiah’s presence among the marginalized.

In analyzing Chapter 8 of the Gospel of John, Urrutia questions the authenticity of a segment where “the Jews who believed in Jesus” claim never to have been slaves, pointing out discrepancies with mainstream rabbinic traditions. He suggests this portion may be a fictional creation by an editor unfamiliar with Jewish culture, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of the text’s context and potential redaction.

Barabbas, as per the New Testament, was a prisoner chosen over Jesus for release by the crowd during the Passover feast under Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Matthew notes his full name as Jesus Barabbas, meaning “Jesus, son of the father.” A violent rebel inciting insurrection against Roman occupation, Barabbas was depicted as a popular figure. In the trial scene, Jesus may have been presented before Pilate twice, first as “Jesus Barabbas” and later as “Jesus Christ.”

The name Barabbas could derive from the Aramaic “bar abba,” meaning “son of the father.” It is possible Jesus sought to take the place of his son who was a rebel leader. Scholars like Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino suggest Aramaic inscriptions in the “Tomb of Jesus” connect Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and their son Judah. The Jesus Seminar, couldn’t confirm a marital relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene due to insufficient evidence. They viewed Mary Magdalene not as a repentant prostitute but as a significant disciple and authority in the early Christian community.

The notion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene fleeing to France echoes legends of disciples traveling to distant lands, akin to Joseph of Arimathea’s supposed journey to England. In 2014, Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson proposed that the characters in a 6th-century tale, “Joseph and Aseneth,” symbolize Jesus and Mary Magdalene, interpreting it as an allegory of their marriage. This view, suggesting Jesus’s marriage and offspring, is deemed serious-minded and thought-provoking by Israeli Biblical scholar Rivka Nir.

In conclusion, scholarly inquiry into the Barabbas narrative suggests a potential invention post-Marcion, with debates over its significance and its potential contribution to antisemitism. Skepticism regarding its historical authenticity and credibility, particularly emphasized by scholars like Max Dimont and Raymond E. Brown, challenges the conventional understanding of this biblical account. The unconventional proposal that Barabbas and Jesus might be the same person, put forth by a minority of scholars including Benjamin Urrutia, adds an intriguing dimension to the discourse. Urrutia’s unique perspective posits Rabbi Yeshua Bar Abba as the historical Jesus, leading a nonviolent resistance against Pontius Pilate. Additionally, Urrutia’s examination of the Gospel of John and the Talmudic legend challenges certain aspects of the traditional narrative. The complexities surrounding the Barabbas story extend to broader discussions on Jesus’s baptism, potential marital relationships, and allegorical interpretations, generating ongoing scholarly scrutiny and debate within the academic community.