Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Cicero]

> Luke would know a technical eclipse was impossible at Passover, and he knew it was the Passover (Lk. 22.1). I don't have an explanation.

I did mean Luke, thanks for the correction. And I agree with this statement, but then the obvious conclusion is that Luke was thinking of a supernatural event (which makes the lack of external corroboration even more glaring).

> I don't get where the contradiction is that I'm supposed to explain.

The reason for the name Akeldama according to Acts is the fact of Judas’ messy death there: "he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood."

> according to Matthew it is the fact that they used blood money to buy it

The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

I find this particularly fascinating because it indicates yet again that a precise geographical setting is no guarantee of accuracy.

> This is an abductive case, and we are dealing with plausibilities based on the evidence we have.

No, we’re not. We’re dealing with likelihoods based on the evidence we have. That means choosing the most parsimonious explanation in any given case, and not unnecessarily multiplying assumptions.

> It would be odd to insert a totally allegorical section smack in the middle of a historical narrative.

Why? Remember, we don’t necessarily need to assume the Gospel writers themselves meant the story as allegory, just that it originated that way.

But they may well have. Matthew really emphasises the parallellism. "Whom do you choose, Jesus ho Barabbas or Jesus ho Christos?"

> Your theory doesn't hold because the theological angle is all wrong. Hopefully that helps.

Early Christians beg to differ. E.g. Origen:

Hear in the Gospels what Pilate said to the priests and the Jewish people: "Which of these two do you want me to send out to you, Jesus, who is called the Christ, or Barabbas?" Then all the people cried out to release Barabbas but to hand Jesus over to be killed. Behold, you have a he-goat who was sent "living into the wilderness," bearing with him the sins of the people who cried out and said, "Crucify, crucify." Therefore, the former is a he-goat sent "living into the wilderness" and the latter is the he-goat which was offered to God as an offering to atone for sins and he made a true atonement for those people who believe in him.

Jerome:

They have rejected Christ, but accept the Antichrist; we have recognized and acknowledged the humble Son of God, that afterwards we may have the triumphal Savior. In the end, our he-goat will be immolated before the altar of the Lord; their buck, the Antichrist, spit upon and cursed, will be cast into the wilderness. Our thief enters Paradise with the Lord; their thief, a homicide and blasphemer, dies in his sin. For them, Barabbas is released; for us, Christ is slain.

In short, one goat is released with the sins of the community. The other goat is killed for those sins. It works perfectly.

Other Christian texts have a slightly different perspective (e.g. Barnabas and Justin Martyr seem to identify Jesus with both goats) but clearly the interpretation required for the Barabbas story existed.

>He doesn't imply it but states it explicitly.

Okay, I thought you were disputing that.

>I don't see the problem towards which you seem to think you're pointing.

In brief: why did the Jewish leaders take Jesus’ words more seriously than the disciples themselves?

> we do know of isolated cases

Even leaving the “custom” aspect to one side, we really don’t, not comparable ones. Only one of your examples described dangerous prisoners being released in a rebellious province and that story involved the exchange of a hostage held by the sicarii, not a willing release.

[jimwalton]

> but then the obvious conclusion is that Luke was thinking of a supernatural event (which makes the lack of external corroboration even more glaring).

I can say with confidence that all of the Gospel writers intend to claim that the darkness was a super-natural phenomenon and not a circumstantial natural occurrence. I can't explain why Luke chose the term he did, but it would fit his thesis to be making the point that nature itself seems to die (literarily), or at least mourn, with 3 hours of darkness. It's not a solar eclipse (there's a full moon), but a catastrophe of light. Nature, so Luke seems to be saying, is mirroring what is happening spiritually: Light has expired. We also know that in literature, darkness is a figure of the perpetration of evil.

> Akeldama

We have been over this ground. The book of Acts is using a figure of speech for the death of an evil person, not that of a messy death. The name Akeldama refers, then, to the betrayal (purchased with blood-money, as in Mt. 27.7), not to the intestines. A Klosterman makes an interesting suggestion—that the original name in Aramaic was haqal demah: "field of sleep," i.e., a cemetery (Mt. 27.7). Who knows.

> No, we’re not. We’re dealing with likelihoods based on the evidence we have.

That's what abductive reasoning is: Doesn't give certainty or probability, but plausibility. Deriving an explanation: What explanation fits the facts the best? It can't be repeated or verified or falsified by observation or experimentation. This is the case for all historical events (Jesus's resurrection; the Kennedy assassination). Is it coherent? Does it avoid logical contradictions? Is it simple but not simplistic (Occam's razor—fits all the data; the simplest is the best)? Does it compete well against other theories? With abductive reasoning you are not trying to prove something. You are considering plausibilities and weighing evidences for the best explanatory power.

> Why? Remember, we don’t necessarily need to assume the Gospel writers themselves meant the story as allegory, just that it originated that way.

Allegory is minimal to totally absent from the Gospels. It's not a often-used technique in them. But then suddenly to assume there's this section about Barabbas that all the Gospel writers share that is totally allegorical is out of character with the nature of the Gospels.

> Matthew really emphasises the parallellism. "Whom do you choose, Jesus ho Barabbas or Jesus ho Christos?"

This reading is one with a considerable degree of doubt. None of the major manuscripts have it. You can't make your point on a questionable and unlikely rendering.

> In brief: why did the Jewish leaders take Jesus’ words more seriously than the disciples themselves?

Are you talking about Mt. 27.63? In Matthew 12.40, Jesus had said as much to them. It's also possible Judas had relayed it to them as part of his betrayal, though there is no record of such. Possibly the disciples were steeped in overwhelming grief and fear, and the leaders dreaded more trouble from Jesus dead than he had been alive. The two groups are in completely different mindsets.

There were about a half dozen times when Jesus told his disciples that he would be crucified and then rise again. It's tough to know what they thought of that. Jewish teaching in the 1st century was that all righteous people would rise again to a spirit life in eternity after a period of being dead. That's most likely how they heard his words (understandably, in their own cultural context and according to their worldview). There was no expectation in Jewish teaching of a physical resurrection back to life on this earth, so that's not likely what they understood him to be saying.

The question at hand, though, is where the chief priests and the Pharisees got this understanding to the point where they were afraid it might actually happen (or that someone might steal the body and claim it happened, exciting messianic fervor that could bring the Roman armies down upon them).

We don't know where they got this understanding. There's no record Jesus ever told them this (aside from the parabolic reference of Jonah), and the disciples (including Judas) most likely didn't understand it either, even though they had been clearly told. The Pharisees hadn't been in communication with the disciples, except for Judas. Judas had the possibility of hearing more than the Pharisees did. My guess? Judas mentioned it to them, they recalled Jesus's oblique statements, they were steeped in fear, and they decided to pursue all options to stop the Jesus movement.

[Big Clocks]

> that his bargaining with Barabbas

What bargaining with Barabbas?

> Pilate was a politician, and it wouldn't be a surprise that he tried to manipulate matters to make himself look good.

So he agreed to let a fractious Jewish mob who hated him and everything he stood for, at Passover when Jerusalem was a powder-keg, to have a choice between an insurrectionist and a messiah-claimant.

Neither result would "make him look good". This Pilate has set himself up for a public kicking, a riot and a humiliated return to Rome no matter what the outcome of the crowd's choice. Heads he loses tails he loses. It's patently nonsense.

If there was a custom of releasing a prisoner a crowd chooses why not let them choose between Moshe the goat-f***er and David the Peeping Tom or Benjamin the pickpocket and Miriam the prostitute? Why oh why choose two men with political agendas and potentially riotous followings?

It is obviously a literary device.

[jimwalton]

> What bargaining with Barabbas?

He's playing his odds. He picks a criminal that "they would 'never' vote to release" again a gentle man who he deems to be innocent.

> Neither result would "make him look good".

This is pretty tough for you to evaluate from your armchair. He had Jesus flogged to please the accusers, and then wanted to let him go to show his mercy. That way he could be both brutal and show how magnanimous was Rome.

> Heads he loses tails he loses. It's patently nonsense.

I obviously disagree. We are watching a chess game of politics play out right before our eyes these past few weeks in America (I don't know where you live). Politics is not a game of black and white, but of perception, nuance, and spin.

> If there was a custom of releasing a prisoner

Pilate was attempting to play his political hand to his advantage, but it backfired. The insurrectionist went free and the innocent man got crucified. Ah, well, it happens sometimes in politics: you win some and you lose some, but you still spin it to your advantage without giving up ground.

> It is obviously a literary device.

I obviously disagree. Watching the immigration battle in our country right now convinces me even more that we don't need to make this a literary device to see that it plausibly happened just as it's recorded.

[Big Clocks]

> He picks a criminal that "they would 'never' vote to release" again a gentle man who he deems to be innocent.

Mark and Luke both say Barabbas was involved in "στάσις" - a riot. That makes him political. John uses the word a "λῃστής" which Josephus uses to mean revolutionary.

"Freedom fighter" wouldn't be too far of the mark, given the situation in 1st Century Palestine.

> a gentle man who he deems to be innocent.

Jesus was a messiah-claimant. Pilate executed them without a thought.

> Pilate was attempting to play his political hand to his advantage, but it backfired.

Of course it backfired. It couldn't NOT have backfired. Whoever the crowd picked Pilate was screwed.
and the innocent man got crucified.

He was guilty of being a pain in Pilate's arse. That's all that was necessary. Messiah-claimants were a dime a dozen and Pilate didn't need that shit. He had them executed.

> I obviously disagree. Watching the immigration battle in our country right now convinces me even more that we don't need to make this a literary device to see that it plausibly happened just as it's recorded.

What has that got to do with it?

It's more like when America invaded Iraq. Imagine L Paul Bremer - America's political chief in Iraq, appointed by President Bush - insisting a fractious, potentially riotous mob in Baghdad gather and decide whether to execute a top member of Al-Qaeda or a radical Islamic Cleric and expecting President Bush to be just fine with that.

"You did WHAT???" Either terrorism or radical religion wins and the other claims victimhood. A disaster either way.
It's insane. Madness.

The imagery is of the sacrificial lamb. It's very obviously allegorical. It is simply impossible that it actually happened.

[jimwalton]

> Mark and Luke both say Barabbas was involved in "στάσις" - a riot. That makes him political. John uses the word a "λῃστής" which Josephus uses to mean revolutionary.

This is correct. I have no disagreement with this.

> Jesus was a messiah-claimant. Pilate executed them without a thought.

Most of the time Pilate couldn't give a rip about messianic claimants. He only got involved when it reflected on himself or might involved Rome.

> Whoever the crowd picked Pilate was screwed

Obviously I disagree with you, but it is tough to look back in history with clear vision, isn't it. We must be cautious about making crystal clear statements based on our own opinions. I think Pilate thought he could punish Jesus and release him and satisfy all parties. He doesn't seem to have much backstory on Jesus. Most historians date the beginning of Pilate's administration in Judea to AD 26, possibly just briefly before Jesus stands before him.

> He was guilty of being a pain in Pilate's arse.

Not by any record we know, except for this particular day (the day of Jesus's trial). If you have historical records to the contrary, I'd be pleased to read them.

> Imagine L Paul Bremer

You may not like my immigration analogy, but I don't like your Paul Bremer analogy. Rome conquered Palestine in 63 BC. By Jesus's time, Rome had been there for close to 100 years. In your analogy, both Al-Qaeda and radical Islamicism are violent insurgents. The decision in your analogy is between a murderer and a terrorist. In Jesus's (Pilate's) case, it was between an insurrectionist and a gentle, innocent man. Jesus had for three years posed no threat to Rome. He was teacher and a person who did miracles to help the people. There had been several attempts to recruit him to rise up against Rome and he never rose to the bait.

> The imagery is of the sacrificial lamb. It's very obviously allegorical. It is simply impossible that it actually happened.

Again, while I respect your opinion, I see it as just an opinion. The text doesn't support it. The text includes the Barabbas piece as part of its historiography, and there is no notion in it that any of the four authors expect us to take it allegorically. None.

[Big Clocks]

> In your analogy, both Al-Qaeda and radical Islamicism are violent insurgents.

From Rome's point of view so were Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Nazarene.

> In Jesus's (Pilate's) case, it was between an insurrectionist and a gentle, innocent man.

So, like a lamb led to the slaughter to carry our sins while another is released at Passover ? Yeah, sounds familiar. Really familiar.
Not only is it an obvious allegory it's a pretty heavy-handed one.

[jimwalton]

The problem with your Al-Qaeda and radical Islamicism analogy is that Jesus was a peace-maker, not a revolutionary. Jesus advocated no uprising, no revolution, no political movement at all. In your example both Al-Qaeda and racial Islamicism are political movements dedicated to militaristic strategies, and that's why it fails as an analogy.

> So, like a lamb led to the slaughter to carry our sins while another is released at Passover ? Yeah, sounds familiar. Really familiar.

Yes it does sound familiar. It is standard Christian theology that Jesus was an innocent man. The Passion narrative in the Bible goes to great pains to establish that fact. But that doesn't mean that his innocence and the story of Barabbas is an obvious allegory. Christian theology is that Jesus was both the lamb that was slain and the scapegoat released (Heb. 13.12). I stick to the points of my case:

* allegory was not a literary methodology common in the Gospels.
* Theologically Jesus was both the lamb slain and the scapegoat released
* It would be uncharacteristic of the Gospel writers to insert a large allegorical segment in the midst of a historical segment such as Jesus's trial before Pilate. It doesn't fit their style of writing or their means of presenting history.

The Barabbas pericope is just as much historical as the trial before Pilate. The narrative is constructed as historiography.

[Big Clocks]

> Yes it does sound familiar. It is standard Christian theology that Jesus was an innocent man. The Passion narrative in the Bible goes to great pains to establish that fact. But that doesn't mean that his innocence and the story of Barabbas is an obvious allegory.

During the period of Temple Judaism the sacrificial lamb was a very real sacrificial ceremony involving the killing of a baby sheep and the releasing of another.

Are you really claiming that to the 1st Century Jews the Gospels were largely aimed at no allegory was in any way meant to be inferred?

That this story was new, original and in no way reflected this ancient ceremony?

It is so obviously an allegory it hurts!

> allegory was not a literary methodology common in the Gospels.

Jesus' public utterances are loaded with allegories. The parable of the Olive Tree is an allegory. The NT is loaded with it.

> Theologically Jesus was both the lamb slain and the scapegoat released

Jesus Barabbas (son of God in Aramaic) and Jesus the carpenter from Nazareth are the allegory. 1st Century Christianity came in many forms and this was one of them that became so popular the proto-Orthodox Church in the late second and early third century couldn't bury it.

> a historical segment such as Jesus's trial before Pilate.

Witnessed by whom? Related to the writers how? There is no plausible way for the story to be historical.

[jimwalton]

> During the period of Temple Judaism the sacrificial lamb was a very real sacrificial ceremony involving the killing of a baby sheep and the releasing of another.

During the 2nd Temple period, you are right that a sacrificial lamb was a very real sacrificial ceremony. As to the releasing of the scapegoat, I don't know if that was still done in the 2nd Temple period or not. Do you have authentication of your assertion? (I'd be pleased to read it and add it to my notes if it's true.)

> Are you really claiming that to the 1st Century Jews the Gospels were largely aimed at no allegory was in any way meant to be inferred?

That's exactly what I'm claiming. The Gospels were written as historiography, in the form of Greco-Roman biography.

> That this story was new, original and in no way reflected this ancient ceremony?

That's correct. It was Jesus's death that was an expression of the ancient Passover ceremony (Mt. 26.26-29 and parallels). This story (Barabbas) was part of the historical surroundings of his trial, just like Annas, Herod, Simon of Cyrene, and all the other players during the event.

> The parable of the Olive Tree is an allegory.

The parable of the olive tree is a parable, not an allegory. There is a genre difference between parable and allegory. Jesus told parables. His parable that comes closest to an allegory is His Parable of the Sower. It's still truly a parable, however. Allegory is almost completely absent, if not totally absent, from the Gospels. Jesus's public utterances are loaded with parable, hyperbole, figurative language, simile, metaphor, etc., but he hardly ever uses allegory, if ever.

> Jesus Barabbas (son of God in Aramaic)

"Barabbas" means "son of a father" (bar abba) in Greek. I don't know what it means in Aramaic. "Abba" has also been found as a personal name in a burial inscription and frequently in the Talmud.

Jesus's trial before Pilate is substantiated by Tacitus, Josephus, and Ignatius.

> There is no plausible way for the story to be historical.

This claim is quite a leap, since you have no evidence that it's not. Of all the historical references in the Gospels that are confirmable, there are very few disputes about historical accuracy. Archaeology has repeatedly confirmed the record of the Gospels as historically, geographically, and culturally accurate. Of all the people mentioned in the Gospels that are confirmable, there are very few disputes about the historicity of these individuals. The evidence leans us in the direction that the story is also historical. You really have no substantiation for your claim. It's only an opinion of yours.