Did St Paul use Barabbas to shift blame from the Romans?
Apr 08, 2007
PONTIOUS Pilate asked the Jerusalem crowd: “Whom do you want me to release?†“Barabbas! Barabbas!†they answered. “How about Jesus who is called the Christ?†“Crucify him! Crucify him!â€
By Hilary Bainemigisha
PONTIOUS Pilate asked the Jerusalem crowd: “Whom do you want me to release?†“Barabbas! Barabbas!†they answered. “How about Jesus who is called the Christ?†“Crucify him! Crucify him!â€
So, who is this man who won a referendum against Jesus, the wonderful teacher, who impressed many (with lots of miracles, fed them, wined them, healed them and taught them the way) to the very people baying to crucify him?
In what we have been taught and in certain portraits and films, Barabbas is often presented as a notorious murderer and an almost mad ruffian with unkempt hair, who had been thrown into prison for a series of murders.
But all these have no textual evidence whatsoever.
Who was he?
The real Barabbas, whose other name was Jesus, can only be valued depending on which camp you belong.
For the Jews, he was a popular patriot and revolutionary who participated in (perhaps led) a revolt in Jerusalem calling for the downfall of the imperialist Romans.
He may have been a Zealot, a fierce and uncompromising Jewish patriot who was strongly opposed to Roman rule.
Scholars say Jesus Barabbas was a member of the sicarii, a militant Jewish movement that sought to overthrow the Roman occupiers of their land by force.
To the Romans, he was a senseless terrorist who was a danger to peace. He was captured by the Romans, tried and found guilty of insurrection and murder and sentenced to die on a Roman cross, as a condemned criminal.
Finally, the morning of his death arrived. As the soldiers approached the place of his confinement, he must have said his last prayer.
What a surprise it must have been to discover that instead, he was to walk to freedom and another person was to die in his place!
His real name
In Aramaic, Bar Abba means ‘son of the Father’. All original Aramaic versions of the passion narrative called him Iesous/Yeshua (Jesus) Bar Abbas.
The Greek versions of the Gospels dropped the name Jesus (except Matthew in one instance). Jesus Christ was also referred to as the ‘Son of the Father’ and some scholars believe that Mark’s parallels between the two men, each a “Jesus, son of the Father,†was an attempt to construct a parable.
The other Gospel writers, who copied extensively from Mark, could have got the narrative and made it historical.
The parable,/b>
Benjamin Urrutia, co-author with Guy Davenport of The Logia of Yeshua: The Sayings of Jesus, claims that Yeshua Bar Abba (Jesus Barabbas) must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth and that the choice between two prisoners is fiction.
That, the two Yeshua Bar Abbas presented a choice between the ‘violent messiah’(Barabbas) who wanted a violent insurrection, against another (Christ) who was a strong advocate for “turning the other cheek†— which does not mean submission, but strong and courageous, non-violent, defiance and resistance.
Analysts say that Mark created a literary contrast to the true “son of the father†in order to set up an edifying contest between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus Christ which would draw the reader (or hearer) of the gospel, into choosing whose revolution (the violent insurgency of Barabbas or the challenging gospel of Jesus), is truly from the Father.
Believers of this school of thought argue that no petition for the release of Barabbas need ever have happened and that there are no records of what is called an annual tradition in Rome of letting civilians choose between criminals.
The freeing of Barabbas was an allegory for humanity representing the redemption of humanity from the original sin of Adam, who was also known as “Son of the Father,†through the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Later, when people who did not understand Aramaic retold the story, they still included the petition for freedom, but Bar-Abbas became a separate person, thus making the Romans less culpable, and the Jews more so.
Jews vs Gentiles
Other scholars argue that anti-Jewish elements in the Christian church altered the narrative to make it appear that it was the Jews who demanded for the freedom of a brigand or insurrectionist named “Barabbas†and condemned the Christ.
This was an attempt to shift the blame for the crucifixion towards the Jews and away from the gentiles (Romans). According to Revolution in Judea, by Hyam Maccoby, St Paul is to blame for this.
In his self-appointed proselytising role of Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul absolved Rome of any blame for the crucifixion so that new Roman converts could more easily accept the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection.
For a Roman convert to accept that Jesus was the messiah, he would also be accepting that Rome killed God’s only son — so Paul shifted the blame on to the Jews, and the Barabbas/Pilate story was used as a blame-shifting tactic, to get new recruits to Paul’s newly formed religion.
The Barabbas/Pilate story was used as a blame-shifting tactic to get new recruits to Paul’s newly formed religion
PONTIOUS Pilate asked the Jerusalem crowd: “Whom do you want me to release?†“Barabbas! Barabbas!†they answered. “How about Jesus who is called the Christ?†“Crucify him! Crucify him!â€
So, who is this man who won a referendum against Jesus, the wonderful teacher, who impressed many (with lots of miracles, fed them, wined them, healed them and taught them the way) to the very people baying to crucify him?
In what we have been taught and in certain portraits and films, Barabbas is often presented as a notorious murderer and an almost mad ruffian with unkempt hair, who had been thrown into prison for a series of murders.
But all these have no textual evidence whatsoever.
Who was he?
The real Barabbas, whose other name was Jesus, can only be valued depending on which camp you belong.
For the Jews, he was a popular patriot and revolutionary who participated in (perhaps led) a revolt in Jerusalem calling for the downfall of the imperialist Romans.
He may have been a Zealot, a fierce and uncompromising Jewish patriot who was strongly opposed to Roman rule.
Scholars say Jesus Barabbas was a member of the sicarii, a militant Jewish movement that sought to overthrow the Roman occupiers of their land by force.
To the Romans, he was a senseless terrorist who was a danger to peace. He was captured by the Romans, tried and found guilty of insurrection and murder and sentenced to die on a Roman cross, as a condemned criminal.
Finally, the morning of his death arrived. As the soldiers approached the place of his confinement, he must have said his last prayer.
What a surprise it must have been to discover that instead, he was to walk to freedom and another person was to die in his place!
His real name
In Aramaic, Bar Abba means ‘son of the Father’. All original Aramaic versions of the passion narrative called him Iesous/Yeshua (Jesus) Bar Abbas.
The Greek versions of the Gospels dropped the name Jesus (except Matthew in one instance). Jesus Christ was also referred to as the ‘Son of the Father’ and some scholars believe that Mark’s parallels between the two men, each a “Jesus, son of the Father,†was an attempt to construct a parable.
The other Gospel writers, who copied extensively from Mark, could have got the narrative and made it historical.
The parable,/b>
Benjamin Urrutia, co-author with Guy Davenport of The Logia of Yeshua: The Sayings of Jesus, claims that Yeshua Bar Abba (Jesus Barabbas) must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth and that the choice between two prisoners is fiction.
That, the two Yeshua Bar Abbas presented a choice between the ‘violent messiah’(Barabbas) who wanted a violent insurrection, against another (Christ) who was a strong advocate for “turning the other cheek†— which does not mean submission, but strong and courageous, non-violent, defiance and resistance.
Analysts say that Mark created a literary contrast to the true “son of the father†in order to set up an edifying contest between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus Christ which would draw the reader (or hearer) of the gospel, into choosing whose revolution (the violent insurgency of Barabbas or the challenging gospel of Jesus), is truly from the Father.
Believers of this school of thought argue that no petition for the release of Barabbas need ever have happened and that there are no records of what is called an annual tradition in Rome of letting civilians choose between criminals.
The freeing of Barabbas was an allegory for humanity representing the redemption of humanity from the original sin of Adam, who was also known as “Son of the Father,†through the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Later, when people who did not understand Aramaic retold the story, they still included the petition for freedom, but Bar-Abbas became a separate person, thus making the Romans less culpable, and the Jews more so.
Jews vs Gentiles
Other scholars argue that anti-Jewish elements in the Christian church altered the narrative to make it appear that it was the Jews who demanded for the freedom of a brigand or insurrectionist named “Barabbas†and condemned the Christ.
This was an attempt to shift the blame for the crucifixion towards the Jews and away from the gentiles (Romans). According to Revolution in Judea, by Hyam Maccoby, St Paul is to blame for this.
In his self-appointed proselytising role of Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul absolved Rome of any blame for the crucifixion so that new Roman converts could more easily accept the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection.
For a Roman convert to accept that Jesus was the messiah, he would also be accepting that Rome killed God’s only son — so Paul shifted the blame on to the Jews, and the Barabbas/Pilate story was used as a blame-shifting tactic, to get new recruits to Paul’s newly formed religion.
The Barabbas/Pilate story was used as a blame-shifting tactic to get new recruits to Paul’s newly formed religion