Talk:Barabbas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Historicity

I have modified this paragraph:

However, no other such release is recorded, even as a passing mention, nor does such a Passover custom appear in the Old Testament. However, the Roman occupation of Jerusalem significantly postdates the majority of the Old Testament. Additionally, Pontius Pilate's historic disregard for Jewish sensibilities and Jewish custom is well documented. From an imperial perspective, such a practice makes little sense; releasing a prisoner accused of murdering soldiers would certainly undercut morale. However, no account in the Gospels states that Barabbas murdered soldiers, and his release might be seen as a safety valve to prevent further riots.

1. I removed the reference to Barabas killing soldiers. As the text itself said, there is no account that this accusation was made against Barabas. So, why is the accusation mentioned here, if no one made it?
2. I added a possible explaination to why Pilate would want to release Jesus.

- sounds like original research to me - --JimWae 00:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Preparation for submission to Featured Article status

I intend to submit the article to peer review, in preparation to submitting it to Feature Article status. These are the tasks I will get started with, hopefully with the wonderful aqssistance of previous collaborating editors.

1. Adding some woodcuts and paitings depicting the trial
2. Removing redline wikilinks by creating stub articles or finding alternative articles for these subjects
3. Creating a Sources section adn moving there all sources, using the {{ref|refname}} and {{note|refname}} footnote notation rather than the Harvard notation for easier reading.
4. Copyedit to remove some dups (e.g. meaning of Abba)

Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. While you're at it, there seems to be an inordinate amount of space given to unprovable theories--like Jesus and Barabbas being the same person. Is there a way to contextualize these fringe theories?

Jbull 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well... that is why this subject is so interesting! Sources for these alternative views are plentiful, some of which are already in the article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because a theory is "sourced" doesn't mean that it is credible. I don't think that the baseline, scholarly consensus on Barabbas should be swamped by conspiracy theories. Jbull 18:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors we need to be concerned with the three basic principles of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability , Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. From Wikipedia:Five Pillars:

Wikipedia uses the "neutral point-of-view", which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

The value judgement if these theories are credible or not, need to be left to the reader.

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t •

I agree. Please review my reworking of the section.

Jbull 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of material from Wikipedia articles without discussion is frowned upon. There is no reason to delete that material. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)@ 19:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted largely redundant material. Revert it if you like, and we can discuss acceptable improvements to a messy article.

Jbull 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the material you deleted is redundant. The sections need copyedit, sure, but we should not lose sources and attributions contributed by other editors in the process. Why don't you give it another try, this time withour losing sources? That would be great. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

removed section has no historical basis

I have removed

One possible explanation has been put forward to account for Pilate's otherwise inconsistent move. Historians note that, in approximately AD 36 (roughly the year estimated for Jesus' crucifixion), Pilate used arrests and executions to quash a Samaritan religious uprising. The ruthlessness with which he acted caused the Roman legate of Syria to complain about him, and Pilate to be recalled to Rome. It is possible that, after such disciplinary measures were taken against him, Pilate was reticent to execute people (especially someone with the popular following of Jesus, whose execution could spark further riots), and appealed to a popular vote to condemn Jesus in order to deflect any future blame from himself. It is worth noting that this would make Pilate's actions a singular event, and not a yearly tradition as the Bible states

Pilate did not return to Judea after he was recalled to Rome in 36 CE, (and 36 CE is usually considered too late for the crucifixion also) --JimWae 10:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree.

Jbull 15:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Pilate's being recalled by Vitellius (Roman legate of Syria) because complaints is a fact, isnt' it? There is a passage about this on the Oxford History of the Biblical World by Nichael Coogan (p.363). He was replaaced by Marcellus, so this must have happened after Jesus trial and crucifixtion. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for JimWae, but I think he was saying that Pilate's quashing of the Samaritan uprising and his subsequent removal took place after Jesus' execution, and he did not return to Judea. Therefore, his treatment of Jesus could not have been influenced by his removal by Rome. -- Jbull 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. Whoever wrote that passage got it wrong. Jesus recalling was done after the execution. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Deflect blame from Imperial Rome?

Can anyone expand on this from the secondary sources used as to why Pagan Rome would care who killed Jesus? Otherwise this section makes no sense. pookster11 08:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Era of the Jewish Revolt and its Aftermath

The situation was different and special during the years of the Jewish War (66-73 AD/CE) and the years following after. During this period, Christians were fearful of being considered Jews and being treated accordingly. The Gospel authors, who probably worked during this period, tried very hard to prove they were not Jews and were not part of any revolutionary movement against Rome. Thus, they had to show that when a Jewish multitude demanded the freedom of Yeshua Bar Abba / Jesus Barabbas / Jesus Son of the Father / they were talking about another Jesus Barabbas, not Jesus of Nazareth. Wedges had to be driven between Jesus and his people. After a few decades, this was no longer an issue or a problem. During the Patristic age, the Gospels were accepted as unquestionable authority and their viewpoint the only one that counted among Christians. Das Baz April 6, 2006, 10:56 AM.

I'm familiar with this analysis, and I will say that it is considered to have some validity within the historical community, but the main problem that most have with the theory is that there is little to base the analysis on, and most scholars will argue the same, that while the theory makes logical sense there is no evidence of it from the sources; thus we are left in our usual quandry in the ancient world where we all throw up our hands and all together say "we don't know" and then get research grants to go into the field and state "we don't know." The problem is that there doesn't seem to be evidence of a tremendous backlash against the Jewish community within Rome. The Jews had been powerful as populares and publicani since the time of Caesar, but once Augustus comes to power they, along with the other political factions, seem to simply drop off the political map, except for a mention during Caligula's reign and of course the Jewish revolts. While the theory makes complete and logical sense, the bottom line is we don't know, we don't have evidence for a backlash against Jews in Rome, and the assumption that Jews and Christians were lumped together comes from a few spotty sources, like Tacitus as I mentioned above, where we assume that certain aspects of the Jewish community that are described are actually aspects of the young Christian community. What we do see from the Christian and Roman sources that do directly address each other is, once again, ambivalence and neutrality. Strong ties still exist between the Christian and Jewish community, and it is debatable here at this point whether or not the Ebionites should even be considered a sepparate sect or are still part of the greater Judeo-Christian identity. So the question here is what sources do you trust? Do you trust sources that are vague and from which conclusions have been drawn based on complicated analysis? Or, do you trust sources that are explicit about who and what they are talking about? Do you assume that Christians attempted to placate Rome despite a lack of grounded evidence and based solely on logic? Or do you assume based on the available evidence that neither cared about the other? Do you believe sources in the original Greek, or sources a century later that had been translated into Syriac? pookster11 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Slaves we were in Egypt

Well, it seems to me that saying "Children of Abraham are we; we were never enslaved" implies that no children of Abraham were enslaved. And you you yourself tell us that the koine Greek used by most NT writers is very ungrammatical, so deriving conclusions from fine points of grammar is rather pointless in this case.

Yes, Pilate backed down in Caesarea on the matter of the Standards in Jerusalem, though only after he had threatened to massacre a multitude of thousands who had gathered to petition their removal. Apparently some first-century Rabbi who was very much into "turning the other cheek" (Nonviolent Resistance) had persuaded his fellow Israelis to offer their own lives without offering violence. Who could that leader be? Josephus does not say, but he does mention that Pilate later crucified Jesus - the only Rabbi executed by Pilate.

We learn about the incident from Josephus, but not a word of it in any of the Four Gospels, even though the incident took place at the beginning of Pontius Pilate's administration? Why such silence? You see, comparing Josephus and the Gospels is the best evidence that Rome is being whitewashed and appeased in the Gospels.

Pilate was better prepared the next time there was a popular manifestation against him. He had many of his agents disguised among the crowd, which they attacked physically at a point in time. He had changed, but only in becoming more clever and more ruthless, not more pliable.

During the lifetime of Jesus, Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas, but the Romans did collect taxes on merchandise going in and out of Galilee. During the same time, Judea was under Roman Procurators. Matthew, Mark and Luke contain plenty of references to Publicans - but not a single one in John - even though John, in comparison to the Synoptics, spends more time in Jerusalem and less in Galilee. He should have more references to Publicans, not fewer. But John is not historical, but polemical. Ungrammatical, too, as you say. Garry Wills says the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the only NT writer who writes Good Greek. Das Baz, 13 April 2006, 10:33 AM.

As I said in that specific verse the difference is between the translation of the perfect and the aorist tense. In the perfect tense, the individuals are only referring to themselves, literaly "we have never been in a state of being slaves", referring specifically to the speakers themselves. Douleo appears in that verse in the perfect tense. Now, the problem is that in later texts the aorist drops off considerably and is replaced by the perfect; it may be that John is indicative of this change in the grammar of the language, and that this is simply the common usage, in which case your reading is correct. However, John has no problems in other areas as far as using the aorist and perfect tenses correctly, so is unlikely that John's usage of the perfect in this verse is suddenly indicative of a vulgar grammatical change when he has no problem elsewhere. As far as the story of the Syrian "rebels" I'm well aware of this story and frankly trying to tie this to Christ is a bit of a stretch. The "rebels" were not specifically lead by a rabbi, and the event seem unrelated and is never mentioned again by either the Romans identifying who Christ or Chrestus was nor by the Jews as a reference. The Josephus reference seems to stand on its own. Once again though, there are some that feel the incident is related to Christ's ministry, and I will leave it at that. As a nitpick, Judea at that time was under Praefects; Procurator did not become a title for an Imperial governor until the reign of Claudius, by which time Praefect had become a separate title with its own powers and position, hence there is clear corruption of the original texts in order to clarify what position Pilate held, as he is listed as the Procurator of Judea. As far as the references to Publicani in the other gospels, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Once again, Augustus had abolished tax-farming as part of his reform of the provincial system, and they formed part of the backbone of his support, as well as Caesar's before him. The provinces had suffered a kind of economic recession during the First Triumvirate and could not pay the amount they had bid. That and publicani would have nothing to do with collecting taxes on imports and exports. It may be that you're reading the Latin texts and seeing publicani there as a general reference for tax collectors; please know that, once again, publican and publicani are terms for a specific type of tax collector and not simply tax collectors in general; I would have to check, but it may be that Jerome simply translated the Greek term into an accessible and highly generalized Latin term that had long since lost its true meaning in Jerome's time. I would check myself but Perseus appears to be down right now, or at least running slow as hell. pookster11 09:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All these points are very interesting and worthy of study and thought, but these points also remain: Jews remind themselves every year "Slaves were we in Egypt," and no real Jews would ever say: "We are children of Abraham and we were never enslaved." The Synoptics contain several references to tax collectors and John not a single one. Josephus indeed does not say who was the leader of the great Jewish protest in Caesarea, and rather gives the impression that it was spontaneous and acephalous, but this is rather hard to believe. A brief mention of the Crucifixion of Jesus by Pilate follows, which may or may not be a useful hint.

Besides the tax collectors, John also omits the Baptism of Jesus, the Temptation, the Transfiguration, the Kiss of Judas, the Tears of Peter, the institution of the Eucharist, etc.

Roman historians are just as bad as the Gospel writers when it comes to confusing Procurators and Prefects. The archaeological evidence says that Pilate was a Prefect, but both Tacitus and the Gospels call him a Procurator, just to confuse us, perhaps. Das Baz, 18 April 2006, 10:51 AM.

I completely agree with you on the point of slavery, but what I'm saying is that the sentence means something different in greek than it does prima facia in English. As for the omissions, I encourage you yourself to do a comparison of Revelation and the Gospel of John. Note what events John focuses the Gospel account on, and then parallel this with an examination of the structure of Revelation. This may help you as far as understanding why John includes certain events and omits certain events that the gospels leave out. As far as the references to tax-collectors, once again I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue. At face value it seems that you are arguing there is a problem in John simply because he does not mention tax-collectors, which is a bit of a ridiculous argument, as there are any number of things not mentioned that in no way impact the narrative or structure of John, so I'm sure thats not your point. Something to keep in mind additionally is that with the parallels with Revelation its entirely likely that the Gospel of John is in no way meant to be a complete re-elling of Christ's ministry and life, ala Matthew or especially Luke, but rather falls into a type of grey area between the Pauline Christians and Gnostics; while obstensibly Pauline in its message, both books are very "mystical" in their nature. The Procurator/Praefect thing is basically an issue of clarity; under Claudius the governors are titled Procurators, and the Praefect becomes a type of "pseudo-mayor" for the major cities within the empire. Pilate was a Praefect, however calling him Praefect would only confuse the heck out of a late 1st and early 2nd century audience. pookster11 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

John versus the Synoptics

The point is that the tax-collectors are very prominent in the Synoptics but omitted in John. Together with all the other strange omissions in John, this gives the definite impression that John omits important details because of his tendentiousness. Some of his omissions are rather mysterious. For example, John, as you say, has an "obstensibly Pauline message" - and yet, he is the only one of the 4 Gospels that has no mention of the eucharist - the blessing of the bread and wine - at the Last Supper. Why is this, do you think? Paul certainly taught that the Last Supper was the occasion of the first eucharist. - Das Baz, 21 April 2006, 10:27 AM.

Hence the word "obstensibly" and why I described John before as being somewhat mystical. John seems to reach somewhat into the "mystery" aspects of the Christian religion that at that time were mainly suppoted by the Gnostics as an extension of Greek mystery religions. Many point to this as evidence that John is written by someone else outside of the Pauline community, is a Gentile, etc (I'm surprised you yourself haven't brough this up yet). There is a degree to which the similiarities with the mystery concept of Christianity are divergent in John though, and in many ways fundamentally disagree with Gnostic cryptotheology. In this respect its hard to say what precisely is going on, but because of the subject matter (and John's location at Ephesus) I tend to see John and Revelation as an attempt to incorporate aspect of cryptotheology into Pauline Christianity as well as a response to Gnostic cryptotheology, pulling it back into a Jewish rather than Greek perspective. The allusions in Revelation (symbology, etc) are all drawn exclusively from the OT, something very odd for a Gentile to do or a Gnostic (who largely ignored the OT writings). As far as his omissions, once again I would encourage you to study the parallels between John and Revelation, especially in structure (For example, seven seals, trumpets, bowls, etc in Revelation, and in John seven miracles, parables, etc). Rather than asking why certain things are omitted, ask why they would have been included in the first place? What would the narrator gain by their mention? And rather than assuming the writer doesn't know what he's doing (which is an idea that only seems to be prevalent here when questioning the Gospels...), ask if something is omitted why would he be expected to include such information and what relevance such information would have. LOL consider this a crash course in ancient historicity. pookster11 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I did bring up John being a Gentile. Pointed out that "Children of Abraham are we; we never were slaves" had to be a Gentile invention, since Jews remind themselves every year "Slaves we were in Egypt." When three of the four canonic Gospels have a lot to say about tax collectors, and about the eucharist, then it makes more sense to ask why the fourth Gospel omits any mention of either than why do the other three talk about an important fact of life in the first century Roman Empire and about the center Mystery of Christian worship. Yes, John is very much into Mystery - so why does he skip the eucharist? That is itself a mystery. Das Baz 26 April 2006, 10:04 AM.

Were Jesus and Barabbas the Same Person?

I have several suggestions to improve this section.

1. Hyam Maccoby's theory

a. The reference to Hyam Maccoby's theory should be attributed to him alone, unless other cites are found in which other scholars support him.

b. All elements of Maccoby's theory should be clearly labeled as Maccoby's ideas.

Agree. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Benjamin Urritia's Theory

a. Does Urritia explicitly cite Maccoby? If not, his theory should not invoke Maccoby.

Agree. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

b. The "turn the other cheek" interpretation should be labeled as Urritia's.

Agree. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

c. The Josephus digression can be substantially trimmed.

d. The reference to Josephus assumes that the Jerusalem riot had a leader.

Trim to include just facts from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

Agree, with the proviso that a notation indicates that no source identifies Jesus as being present at or participating in the Jerusalem riots mentioned by Josephus.

Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

3. The Crowd Calling for Jesus Theory

a. Bar-abba etymology discussion is redundant. It should be eliminated.

Disagree. It is highly relevant. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

I think we have a misunderstanding. I think that the bar-Abba etymology is important, but it is covered early in the article. Maybe it could be repeated briefly?

Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

b. Speculation about Pilate's motives is unsupportable and irrelevant and should be eliminated.

Agree ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

c. Alleged anti-Semitic effect of misinterpretation is irrelevant to the "confusion" theory. It should be eliminated.

I would prefer to find sources for these as they are very relevant as context for these interpretations. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The alleged anti-Semitic cause and/or effect of the Barabbas story is important, but it is covered earlier in the article, isn't it?

Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Jesus as Revolutionary Paragraph

a. This paragraph has nothing to do with Barabbas and Jesus being the same person. It should be eliminated or made relevant by moving it to another section and making an explicit comparison between Jesus' behavior and Barabbas'.

The only concern I have on that paragraph is the use of "said by some analysts". Either we find a source for that, or it has to go. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

I think that commentary comparing Jesus' potentially revolutionary actions in the temple with Barabbas' alleged participation in an insurrection might be appropriate somewhere in the article, but not here.

Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

5. The Andew Drew Theory

a. It is impossible to tell from this paragraph, as it is currently written, what Drew's theory was. Is he alleging that first-century Jerusalem saw an annual human sacrifice? This section should be substantially clarified.

Agree. It needs clarification. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

Jbull 20:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In regard to the anti-semitic effect, I refer you to Jesus Framed (1996) by George Aichele, (p.17-18 and p.23). We can use that as a source. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Does Aichele's book include Christian invocation of the Barabbas story as justification for anti-Semitism? Such a cite would add to the article.

Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. There is also a book called "Anti-Semitism in America" in which this specific issue is discussed. Quinley, Harold E. and Glock, Charles Anti-Semitism in America (Chapter: Christian sources of Anti-Semitism) ISBN 0-878-55940-x ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning your other responses to my comments, they are very sensible. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The reference of Luke 22:36 is, uh.. off. Rather, Jesus was working in parables again, its not to be taken literally. -"I told you not to take a purse, not to take any script, not to take extra shoes, did you lack anything? And they said, Nothing, Lord. And he said unto them, But now, if you have a purse, take it, and likewise script: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end (Luk 22:35-37).

Jesus is saying, "Look, I sent you out before. I provided for you. But you're going to be going out soon again. I'm not going to be there this time. And things are going to be different; it's going to be tough. Before you were received, you're going to be rejected, you're going to be imprisoned, you're going to be hailed before the courts, you're going to have persecution. It's going to be hard."

And they said, Lord, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough (Luk 22:38). In other words, "You don't really understand, but you will." Jesus is not telling them to go out and make war against the world with swords, but He's just indicating the difficulty of that ministry that they are going to face after He has been taken away from them." #REDIRECT [[1]] Lebeke1 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Have I missed something - or is that Jesus quote completely irrelevent? Breed3011 10:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

mergefrom|Bar abba

There is stuff at Bar abba that is a bit off-the-wall, but may be useful here. It will need a thorough edit. An anonymous user is interested in this, but has been posting on the article pages. I'll move the comment to below. The comment is POV and will make more sense when the merge is completed. --Gareth Hughes 22:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See entry Bar Abba, in which the theory is presented that the name originally referred to Jesus himself, who was the prisoner whose freedom was demanded by the Jewish crowd before Pilate. A separate "Barabbas" was invented, according to this theory, as part of the tendency to shift the blame for the crucifixion away from the Romans and to the Jewish people.

The move of material from Bar Abba, discussed above, was effected; since some material, including scholars' names, was omitted, readers may be interested in seeing the last independent Bar Abba text: click here. --Wetman 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protect

I've requested a semi-protect on this page for the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection The current high level of vandalism stems from a British podcast, where comedian Richard Herring suggested altering this article. Never done that before, so apologies if I've done it wrong! Millichip (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Millichip - I can understand your requirement to protect the article from un-necessary edits, but where's the proof that Barabbas wasn't a bummer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.136.55 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness there is growing evidence that he was. I'm looking for a citation. 86.142.152.175 (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a further semi-protect, as the vandalism is ongoing. Millichip (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic

According to National Geographic, May 2006: "As Christianity distanced itself from its origins as a Jewish sect, Christian thinkers found it increasingly convenient to blame the Jews as a people for the arrest and execution of Christ, and to cast Judas as the archetypal Jew." ("The Judas Gospel.") National Geographic is not proposing any new or controversial theory here, but simply reflecting the consensus of New Testament scholars. Das Baz 21:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

They are "proposing" not only a controversial theory, but a blasphemous one, as well. What they are saying is there is no basis for that faith, that it was invented as they went along, that Jesus was not the Risen Lord, and that the early writers wrote fiction in order to achieve some political end. It's an old calumny, and often disproved by the fact that they went to martrydom so far distant from one another, that at least one might have said - we made it up, and gone on his way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.7 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ebionites, Syriac, etc.

I quite agree that at this point in time the Ebionites were not a "sect" but indeed the mainstream Judeo-Christian community. The Jewish Revolt forced them to flee to Arabia (where eventually they were forced to convert to Islam, or be exterminated), to become a small persecuted sect (persecuted from both sides, Judaism and Christianity), to join either mainstream Judaism or Gentile Christianity, or to die out. Anyway, since Jesus and his apostles were native speakers of Aramaic, of which Syriac is a dialect, Syriac texts are far more likely to be authentic than Greek ones.

There is very good textual evidence that the Gospel writers were trying to whitewash and appease the Romans: The Gospels themselves. Note for example that the Gospel of "John" does not contain the word "Publican" (Tax Collector) even once, though this class of people is so prominent in the Synoptic Gospels. Why? Because "John" wanted to avoid saying anything negative about Roman rule. Notice that in John, Pilate says "you have a custom" of releasing a prisoner at Passover. He, the poor puppet, has no option but to go along with this custom imposed on him by the Jews. This is of course total nonsense. No Roman administrator was so subservient to the people he ruled.

John, a hardcore Gentile, is abysmally ignorant about Jewish culture. He has the proud Jews declare "Children of Abraham are we, and we were never slaves." (Capter 8). Real Jews remind themselves every year, at this time of year, "Slaves we were in Egypt." Das Baz 11 April 2006, 10:33 AM.

Its an interesting theory, but once again there's no evidence and in fact quite the contrary, evidence that the universal language amoung early Christians was koine Greek. Everything Christian we have of that time is Greek, even grafitti mocking Christians has them speaking in Greek words and letters. You have many interesting ideas that make 100% sense on their own, but you need to do some research and back these ideas up with what we know to be true. As for the Gospels themselves, Publican is a Latin word and would not appear in the Greek text, nor were publicani used extensively after Augustus, nor would they have appeared in Judea, a series of client-kingdoms under the Herodian dynasty. Further, a publican is not a general word for "tax collector", it refers specifically to citizens who have been drafted as tax-farmers, a practice that was abandoned under Augustus and Tiberius. While you present an interesting read of the Pilate incident, there is ample evidence to show that Pilate was, essentially, very subservient and compliant to the Jewish poulation of Judea. Around the same time of Christ there is a minor revolt that he manages to put down by acquiescing to the conspirators, he removes Roman standards from the Antonian fortress because of public complaint, etc. Realize that Pilate is conscious of the fact that he is in one of the most volatile areas of the Empire, and manages to succesfully and effectively rule the area throughout the reign of Tiberius until his removal just before Tiberius's death, and if you study Pilate's life he mainly does so through cooperating and compromising with the Jewish community. As far as John, there is a degree to which the particular verse you pick out has a number of textual debates, and its interesting that you should choose this verse as it was presented to me as an example of the koine concept of the perfect tense; what exactly is meant here by "douleo"? Does the perfect here imply that the speakers are referring solely to themselves, or all of the "sperma" of Abraham? If its all inclusive, why was the perfect used and not the aorist, which would make more grammatical sense? This is partially why John and Revelaion suck, and a lot of koine greek at this time sucks as well; the language itself is in a kind of transition that it won't really figure out until Constantine. But anyway, all of this seems like one big sidetrack; I have not yet seen any evidence that there was an attempt to whitewash of project a "happier relation" between the Christians and the Romans, though this has certainly been a fun conversation. I have never seen the relationship between Rome and the Christians painted as anything other than ambivalence; this of course does not make it true, but it does place a heavy burden of proof on those who wish to say otherwise. pookster11 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"John, a hardcore Gentile, is abysmally ignorant about Jewish culture." The baseless speculation one finds here, from Wills to others, is stunning. All would have known as second nature about Egypt, Babylon, and other cases of physical, temporal captivity of the chosen people. The reply is meant to show that those replying a) lied in their pride, or their wounded pride rather, b) were thinking only of temporal bondage, and c) were shown to deny temporal slavery just as they did spiritual slavery. And it was spiritual slavery that was the issue, and what Christ was talking about - coming to set the captive free. It's showing that those replying to him were wrong on all counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.7 (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be speculating either here or in the article, as that's original research and not for Wikipedia. Nor is this an appropriate place for discussing what is right or what is wrong, only about building an article from reliable, verifiable sources. Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bible condemns human sacrifice?

I'm puzzled by the following claim: "Of course, in the Hebrew Bible and in Judaism in general, human sacrifice is strongly condemned." This appears to at least require some references. Apart from the well-known story of Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son (which does not exactly suggest human sacrifice would be unthinkable), there's also the story of Jepthah who did sacrifice his daughter in return for God giving him success in war. Especially in the absence of references to the contrary, it certainly appears that the Hebrew (and Christian, for that matter) Bible is at least ambivalent with regards to human sacrifice. Of course I am not saying that there would be any ambivalence in modern day Judaism (or in Judaism for several thousand years probably), but I'm puzzled by the statement that the Bible would be so clear about this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.246.169 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is a terrible mess, a lot of unsourced stuff which may be OR, some bad sources, etc. I've cleared a bit up, but there is a lot of work to do. dougweller (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. There is the odd exception, but the general very strong association in the OT with human sacrifice in general is paganism (Baal, Asher, Moloc, esp. Canaanite, Philistine worship). This is a consistent theme, and one in which the Jews set themselves apart. In normal sacrifice, it was always animals. The prophets around the exilic period are particularly strong on this (cf. Jer's. condemnation of human sacrifice, and the various interpretations put on other passages sometimes rendered "making their children pass over coals"). The situations in which a human could be sacrificed are extremely small: either God himself commands it (Abraham), or because doing so would require breaking a regular law (like Jephthah's vow). It can be safely taken as standard that the OT is extremely unambivalent to non-exceptional human sacrifice.— Kan8eDie (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Barabbas in the Gospels

This paragraph is speculative and does not make sense:

An alternate reading of the events involving Barabbas can also be made, however. Given that Barabbas was described by some to be a revolutionary or a terrorist, it stands to reason that his acts of terror and revolt would have been directed against the Romans. In this case, it would be logical to assume that Barabbas might have been viewed by the people as something of a folk hero, in modern terms a freedom fighter or insurgent taking the fight to the Roman occupiers. When Barabbas is seen through this lens, it appears that Pilate's choice to the people was not much of a choice at all. If Pilate were to offer a local hero to the people as an alternative to Jesus, they would most certainly choose to free the hero. Thus, Pilate could bring about the execution of a dangerous man of God without seeming to actually be responsible for his death.

Under what logic would Pilate free a popular anti-Roman hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.203.61 (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Read Josephus. Pilate was a shrewd politician in a virtually impossible situation. He was stuck appeasing (some very resistant) Jews and the Roman Empire to maintain power. The signet incident should prove illuminating. A lot of Jews were looking for a redeemer of this world. For a variety of reasons, Jesus didn't fit the bill. The whole claiming you're God bit was not very popular with Jews. For them, it's blaphemy. Read Cohen's "Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition" for more on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

Opening up a big can of worms:

This article appears to be written in a tone that already accepts the divinity of Jesus, as well as a factual nature of other Christian doctrine. To me this is not maintaining a NPOV.

Example:

This event, along with the "vote" between Barrabbas and Jesus, and taken with the fact that it was the Jewish Sanhedrin who had brought Jesus before Pilate in the first place, would seem to illustrate that Jesus was something of a political hot potato whom everyone from the leaders of the Temple hierarchy, to the Romans, to the Hebrew aristocracy would just as soon be rid of, but whom no one wanted to take the actual responsibility for killing. When seen in this light, it appears that everyone involved, and therefore no one group or person in particular, is responsible for the crucifiction of Jesus. Thus, all "sons of God", are responsible for the death of this actual Son of God.

The last sentance here explicitly refers to JC as "this actual Son of God". This is far too strong wording on contentious issue.

Large parts of this article are also unattributed.

This style makes the article read more like a persuasive (attempting to push a point), or dichtomous (attempted to display opposed points, while not persuasive, creates a possible false dichotomy of opinions) essay.

/can of worms. *don't hate me* --ZayZayEM 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)1

Okay.... your first sentance caught my eye

This article appears to be written in a tone that already accepts the divinity of Jesus, as well as a factual nature of other Christian doctrine. To me this is not maintaining a NPOV..

First, please look at the scientology article, the budhist article and other religious articles, and you'll note that all are given an equal place in this encyclopedia. Second, a lot of the events in the Bible can be / are documented by secondary sources (Josephus, A.N.E.T, Eusibius (sp?) Archeological finds..etc... therefore, they're accepted as actually occuring. It's not POV, in fact, this article is pretty NPOV. It's not here to evangelize, nor state anything else except statements that can be referenced elsewhere.

We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that other articles violate NPOV is not a valid argument. I agree that most of the people who have any knowledge of this issue have SOME religious background, almost certainly Christian, and that a slight opinion will be inherent and almost unavoidable. I also fully agree that this article is highly unbiased (relative to many other religious articles). That being said, OP is absolutely correct; that line makes a claim of fact. Add quotation marks to the second mention and it will be completely fine. OP also made a mistake: "...factual nature of other Christian doctrine." You can't claim it is fact and you cant claim that it is not a fact if you want to maintain NPOV in a religious article.Gordonliu420 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is expressly NPOV, too much so in my opinion. It's written from the POV of textual criticism when the primary interest in the subject is religious. Really, "the Christian narrative"?. It's a religion, it should read "In the Christian tradition". The goal of the encyclopedia is to define events and their significance. People's belief systems should be accorded appropriate levels of respect. Defining Barabbas' in a historical context is expressly defining it in terms of his role in the Christian tradition as it is otherwise neglible. His religious significance is that of a minor figure in the Christian tradition, however and the article should lean that way in discussing his value to the religion's orthodoxy, rather than extremely speculative theories based on scant evidence (there wasn't much - Barabbas isn't important historically apart from religion). Guinness4life (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the deleted sections

At first glance, it looks like quite a bit of original research is in those sections. And I don't know which is worse, also based on this website [2] which is definitely not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms and anything based on it should be removed. Doug Weller (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this page is terrible. I think it's outlandish it's so skewed towards textual criticism and away from any scolarly research. It should read: Barabbas is a minor figure in the Christian tradition mentioned in Chapter:Verse because of his presence at the crucifixtion. His influence on Christian soteriology has had some significace. X theologians cited the incident. Little is known about him historically, though there are several prominent (non-original research) theories that have been drawn from (reputable historians). In the political climate of the time, it is likely he was agitating against Rome. Several popular films, books and movies have drawn upon this concept. They are.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to Barabbas

I removed this text, because it has nothing to do with the subject, Barabbas:

"It needs to be pointed out that only John mentions the lash. It is absent from all other Gospel accounts. Again, it is only John who names Peter as the wielder of a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. The other Gospels say it was a disciple, who is unnamed. Since John is not very reliable as a surce of historical data, the points unique to him need to be taken with a grain of salt.". ---Wetman 20:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to tack on a question, but why is the GOSPEL OF PETER mentioned, *twice*, in the current intro paragraph? As far as I can tell, GPet neither names nor alludes to the Barabbas affair in any way. Delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.20.27 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Barabbas?

I'm looking at the OCT text of the gospels, and nowhere am I finding any name preceding Barabbas, or the grammatical form of Barabbas changing to indicate that its an epigraph and not someone's proper name. Why does the article state that the original Greek text has "Jesus" inserted as a part of Barabbas's name when I'm looking at it right now and it doesn't? pookster11 06:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm not sure what OCT means but you can read Jesus Barabba's name in the old versions of the gospels including those found at the Qumran caves or the dead sea scrolls.

According to Wikipedia's Dead Sea Scrolls article, the only scroll that might be a gospel is a highly contested highly reconstructed one. It seems a bit thin evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Message, Contemporary English Version and Today's New International Version has the phrase "Jesus Barabbas".

MSG: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=15&version=65&context=verse

CEV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=16&version=46&context=verse

TNIV: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=16&version=72&context=verse

Last two also denotes many manuscripts do not have the word "Jesus" which means that some do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.154.24 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether the translation will read Barabbas or Jesus Barabbas depends on which source(s) it uses. For example, the KJV, NIV, NASB, AMP, YLT, ASV, ESV, NCV & NKJV all render it as Barabbas. According to the footnote in the NKJV version for Matthew 27:16, "NU-Text reads Jesus Barabbas". According to the preface to the NKJV:

The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present the facts without such tendentious remarks as "the best manuscripts omit" or "the most reliable manuscripts read." Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text. By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions.

Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

1. NU-Text. These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in "The New Testament Text." They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ third edition (U), hence the acronym, "NU-Text."

2. M-Text. This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in "The New Testament Text." It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.

The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament.[3]

Whether any of this background information should/could be inserted into the article is another question.Earthsound (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

2010.3.27 Yeshua, Christ's name, means G is salvation in Aramaic. Yeshua with an english accent is pronounced Joshua. The gesus-jesus is the protestant nickname for christ; neither his mother nor his desciples never ever called Christ "jesus"!

From latin IESVS from greek IHSOUS transliterated from Aramaic Yehoshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ btw ge is greek for earth, sus is latin for pig.

transliteration: converting a text from one writing system to another, a mapping from one writing into another letter by letter; transcription maps sounds of one language to the best matching sounds of another language; translation: change in language while preserving meaning; so, the transliteration of Aramaic through greek and then through latin alphabets is how Christ's name changed from Yeshua to jesus... they are NOT the same. Bhug (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC).

Roman leaders

The last paragraph in the Barabbas#Historical_record section presently reads as follows: Roman leaders would likely deal with such problems with regard to Roman law and there's no record of a Roman law to allow revolutionaries go free. Many of the events surrounding Barabbas not only lack sound historical basis but go contrary to what historical understanding.

This is ungrammatical and unsourced. I vote that it be deleted.Jarhed (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant to introduction on Barabbas

I remove the following line from the introduction: "The story of Barabbas has special social significances, partly because it has frequently been used to lay the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews and justify anti-Semitism, forming the basis for allegations of Jewish deicide." Reason: It has no basis in Biblical history or Biblical theology. Also, the anti-Semitism is mentioned later in the article where it is more appropriate. Placing it in the introduction creates a false impression of its importance, and suggests bias on the part of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.16.43 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. While the crucifixion story as a whole was used historically to attempt to justify anti-semitism (... even though Roman soldiers killed Jesus), the section was unsourced and a bit unbalanced. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence needs sourcing, but it is not irrelevant. Here are 2 sources http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2974 http://mcdonaldroad.org/sermons/00/0506.htm indocating that the Barabbas story is strongly tied to anti-Semitism. More can be found.--JimWae (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

and http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/popepointsfinger.html and http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/jesus-of-nazareth/excerpts.htm --JimWae (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ochlos

In no way does this text support the claim, so it is being deleted. The citation discusses what "Ochlos" means.

"In Mark's Gospel, the circle of accusers is broadened in the context of the Passover amnesty (Barabbas or Jesus): the "ochlos" enters the scene and opts for the release of Barabbas. "Ochlos" in the first instance simply means a crowd of people, the "masses". The word frequently has a pejorative connotation, meaning "mob". In any event, it does not refer to the Jewish people as such. In the case of the Passover amnesty (which admittedly is not attested in other sources, but even so need not be doubted), the people, as so often with such amnesties, have a right to put forward a proposal, expressed by way of "acclamation". Popular acclamation in this case has juridical character (cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium II, p. 466). Effectively this "crowd" is made up of the followers of Barabbas who have been mobilized to secure the amnesty for him: as a rebel against Roman power he could naturally count on a good number of supporters. So the Barabbas party, the "crowd", was conspicuous, while the followers of Jesus remained hidden out of fear; this meant that the vox populi, on which Roman law was built, was represented one-sidedly. In Mark's account, then, in addition to "the Jews", that is to say the dominant priestly circle, the ochlos comes into play, the circle of Barabbas' supporters, but not the Jewish people as such." 67.166.155.223 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Christians worried about offending Rome

The Pagan Romans did not care, but the Christian Romans certainly cared. As Christianity spread through the Roman empire, persecutions occurred from time to time. Seeking to prevent such persecutions, Christian writers bent over backwards to show that there was no real conflict between Christianity and Roman rule, and that Pilate only executed Jesus because of Priestly pressure, not because Jesus had ever acted against the interests of the Empire. These writers then had to explain why had the Jewish multitude demanded "Free Yeshua Bar Abba!" (Free Jesus, Son of the Father!). Then they were forced to invent a different, separate Yeshua Bar Abba, one who was not Jesus. For the same reason the Gospel authors and other Christian writers were careful to suppress all mention of the major nonviolent protest in Caesarea. - Das Baz, 03/28/2006, 1:13 PM.

And for the same reasons, "Jesus" was removed from "Jesus Barabbas" -but you will find it in the oldest texts and scholarly translations. DB, same day, 1:15 PM.

And you base this on what? Rome is clearly depicted in a negative light in Revelation, and of the documents that survive from the Apostolic and early Patristic period none of them give any leeway to Rome or "bend over backwards" to the Imperial cult. Please, if you have any specific sources, share them, otherwise the gross and unfounded generalization isn't much help. Second, "Iesus ton Barabbon" appears nowhere in any of the earliest Greek sources of the Gospels; the only reason we know about it at all is from commentary by Origen based on the Syriac gospels that are after the Greek Gospels by at least two centuries. So, once again, what precisely are you talking about? pookster11 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not just Origen. Early Syriac manuscripts, the Caesarean Group of Texts, the Sinaitic Palimpsest, and the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries all agree that the reading is Iesous ton Barabban.

Furthermore, the Criterion of Embarrasment strongly supports the reading "Jesus Bar Abba." This is something that four families of manuscripts would have no reason at all to invent, but everybody else would have very good reasons to suppress and delete.

Revelation does not so "clearly" attack Rome. The name "Rome" is never mentioned - only allegories and code names.

Any serious New Testament scholar who can read the original Greek will tell you that the Apocalypse's author can not possibly be the author of any of the four Gospels.

Any serious New Testament scholar - John Dominic Crossan, Paula Fredriksen, etc., will agree that the Gospel authors were very afraid to offend the Roman authorities, and tried very hard to shift the blame for the Crucifixion away from Pilate as much as possible. - Das Baz 03/30/2006, 10:55 AM

The syriac gospels were specifically what I was mentioning, hence... well, why I mentioned them. Revelation was "taken" as an attack on Rome even during the post-Nicean era; there is no doubt the ancients clearly saw the "city/woman on seven hills" in Revelation as being Rome. As far as that goes, I AM a serious New Testament scholar and I CAN read the Greek and there are several reasons to link the Gospel of John and Revelation, though whether the letters from John are written by the same John is a diffrent matter. Frankly this idea that the Gospel writers would attempt to shift the blame of the crucifixion anywhere at all is nonsensical, and why it would appear in the Gospels, the foundational texts of the religion, and then disappear and no one afterwards feel it necessary to expand or reference this concept for at least 300 years is beyond me; in the early patristic and late apostolic writings there is no concern whatsoever about either ascribing or deflecting blame for thecrucifixion on anyone. I thank you for the scholars who hold this view however, and I will certainly look into it. pookster11 03:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually found two very good scholars for once, very impressive. Please don't take that as condescending or demeaning; most on here will find alist of names and throw them up as the premier scholars in the field without actually researching (take a look at the Jesus page for ample examples). Do you happen to have their books btw? I'd be interested to see just how exactly they present and defend this argument and then explain the silence for three hundred years afterwards while the Romans are killing Christians? If not, thats fine, I'm perfectly able to access the library on my own. pookster11 03:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See specially From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen. See also What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills. Wills, an excellent scholar of New Testament Greek, points out that the Book of Revelation has the worst Greek in the NT. There is no way its author could be the same as the author of the Gospel of John. Besides its very unusual Greek, Revelation was unusual in attacking Rome, however veiled and encoded was the attack.

You forget that once the Gospels were accepted as Scriptures, their viewpoint was engraved on granite as far as the Christians were concerned. None of the writers who wrote after the canon was complete had any inclination to dispute what the Gospels claimed. It was no longer a matter of debate.

I hope you realize that your viewpoint is the unusual and exceptional one. Serious scholars in general hold it as common knowledge that the Gospel writers were trying to protect the Church by deflecting Crucifixion blame away from the Imperium and onto the Jews. Once this was done, there was nothing more to be said by the Christians, for whom the Gospels were literally Gospel Truth. Das Baz.04/04/2006, 10:53.

P.S. Is there any serious scholar besides yourself who agrees with your strange views? Please give us some examples. DB, 04/04/2006, 10:54 AM.

Not sure what specifically your short paragraph on the Gospels being "engraved in granite" has to go with te discussion; I apologize if I'm being dense, but I was referring to Christian works pre-Constantine and canonization. Both Revelation and John have a similiarly poor usage of Greek, and are structured along almost identical lines with identical use of symbolism and a strong tie to the "mystery religion" aspect of early Christianity; in style, structure, and language the two books are nearly identical in almost everything except their exact subject matter. Once again I'm not questioning you, but rather the scholars that hold these views that you are putting forth and would have to analyze the grounds that they are basing their arguments on, but to my knowledge the views on the Gospel of John and Revelation are generally that either a: they were both written by John, b: they were both written by the same person, but not John, or c: that they were written in tandem by two authors working closely together. As far as the Gospel writers trying to shield the church, this is quite unusual, and most of the research I have done points to an ambivalence on the part of both te early church and Rome; neither really cared what the other was doing. Revelation especially stands out as it was believed to have been written as a response directly to Nero's persecutions, but other than that the Gospels ar ambivalent towards Roman authority, as Roman authority in turn is generally ambivalent to Christianity, only realy paying any attention to the Christians at certain times and (especially in the case of Diocletian)for unknown and seemingly counter-productive reasons. Once again, the bottom line is that neither side really cared about what the othr was doing, and there really is no attempt by the Christians to try to placate or appear attractive to the Romans. For sources, look at Mellor, Helfgott, Price, Bengston, Aldo, Grant, Chambers, Bury, Mommsen, et al. Basically put, just about any book on Roman history or early Christian history will give ou this analysis. Really the only negative Roman view of Christianity we have comes from Tacitus, and thats only if you assume that by mentioning the "proselytizing Jews" Tacitus is in reality making reference to Pauline Christians, as generally speaking after the Diaspora Jews were not a proselytizing community and neither the Ebionites nor the Gnostics made all that great an effort to bring new followers in. Pliny mentions Christians in a negative light in a letter to Trajan, but the content is more "what do I do with these yokels?" rather than "how do we wipe out Christianity?" Once again, there's no reason to assume the Gospel writers tried to shield the early church from anything or in any way tried to paint Rome in a special light; the two groups just ignored each other. pookster11 06:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Long essay

Gentile Christians likely worried about offending Rome, especially after the Great War of the Jews, AD 66-70. This is pointed out by S.G.F. Brandon in his books "Jesus and the Zealots," 1967, and "The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth", 1968. Significantly Brandon observes: "Mark (3:18), in naming them [the apostles], designates one 'Simon, the Kananaios'....This failure to explain a term of Jewish origin is strange, because Mark regularly explains Hebrew or Aramaic words and Jewish customs to the Gentile Christians, for whom he wrote....Why, then, this silence about the meaning of 'Kananaios'? The reason is not far to seek. If Mark had translated the Aramaic word, which he transliterates as 'Kananaios', into Greek, he would have been obliged to write 'Zelotes', thus revealing that one of Jesus' apostles was a Zealot, a member of the Jewish national 'resistance' against Rome." S.G.F Brandon, "The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth", pg. 65. Brandon leaves one to to wonder if Mark does not translate "Barabbas," or if Mark transposes the "I" and "S" in Judas Iscariot for the same reason. That is, not only was one of the disciples a Zealot, but another an assassin (Sicariot) for the Zealots, and their leader, Jesus called "bar Abbas," also a Zealot (John 2:17). John 6:71 (ASV/RSV), in the context of the twelve, has "Simon Iscariot" instead of "Simon the Zealot". (cp. Hippolytus, "Heresies" 9.21, also Robert Eisenman, "James the Brother of Jesus", 1997, pg. 34) In a much earlier work, "The Antichrist," Ernest Renan writes: "We have seen Paul restrain the impulse towards a political rising, in A. D. 57, urging upon the faithful in Rome, and doubtless many other churches, submission to "the powers that be," (Rom 13) whatever their source, and laying down the maxim that he who bears the sword is a servant of God....Peter, on his part, was the most placid of men; we shall soon find (1Pe 2:13) the rule of submission to the powers taught in his name, almost in the very words of Paul." Ernest Renan, "The Antichrist," 1873 Paul was a Diaspora Jewish Christian who was circumspect in his teaching to the Gentile churches and advocated "rendering to all their due..tribute to whom tribute [is due]" (Romans 13:7), in almost the very words attributed to Jesus (Matthew 22:21). But R.H. Charles, "Commentary on Revelation," 1920, and Ernest Renan, "The Antichrist," 1873, have pointed out that John of Patmos, the author of Revelation, was almost certainly eretz Israel Jewish Christian. John was quite possibly like Jesus bar Abbas in his beliefs, and showed little reticence in teaching that the Saints would "rule them [the Gentiles, or nations] with a rod of iron" (Rev 2:27). "...the Apocalypse breathes a bitter hatred against Paul and all who were lax in keeping the Jewish Law...Of all the New Testament writings, the Apocalypse is the most Jewish, and the Fourth Gospel the least so. Thus the word 'Jew,' which in that Gospel always means 'enemy of Jesus,' is in the Apocalypse the highest title of honour (Rev 2:9, Rev 3:9)...The book is Judeo-Christian, Ebionite; it is the work of an enthusiast [zealot] drunk with hate against the Roman empire and the pagan world ; it forbids all reconciliation with that empire and that world; its messianic doctrine is purely material ; it affirms the thousand years' reign of saints and martyrs." Ernest Renan, "The Antichrist," 1873. John's letters (Rev 2:14, 2:20, 2:24,) to the seven churches in Asia are largely a rebuke to Pauline permissiveness (1Cor 10:25) in allowing the eating of things "sacrificed to idols." For John this was a type of apostasy, that is fornication and adultery on the part of the Church, the bride of God (or Christ). By way of analogy 4QMMT, "Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah", or "Some Works of the Law," the "Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English", Geza Vermes, 2004, pg. 224,Q394,Q395, "And concerning the sacrifice of the Gentiles...[we consider that] they {sacrifice} to [an idol and] that is [like] a woman fornicating with him" (cp. Eisenman tr. 1QS 4.10 "works of Abomination [idolatry, Rev 21:27] in a spirit of fornication, and ways of uncleanness in the Service of pollution"). On the other hand Paul (2Cor 11:4, 2Cor 11:15, Gal 1:6-7) and Luke (Acts 20:29) inveighed against Judaizers, Jewish Christians who were teaching "another Jesus" (perhaps Jesus bar Abbas), and "another Gospel," and salvation according to "works [of the Law]" (Rev 2:2, Rev 2:26, Rev 22:12) instead of "faith" (Gal 2:16, 1Th 1:3, Luke 7:9). And yet Paul, like John, believed that the Saints would "judge (or rule) the world" (1Cor 6:2, 1Th 1:10). According to Tacitus, Roman historian AD 56-117, "The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities [The Great War] opened their eyes to the truth" (Histories 5.13). Josephus (War 6.5.4) says "What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings (Numbers 24:17, Dan 2:44, Dan 7:13-27), how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the WISE MEN (Matt 2:1-2, Dan 2:48) were thereby deceived in their determination (cp. Rev 11:15). Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea." Given that both Paul and John of Patmos, different as they were, shared the same expectation that the Saints would rule this world, one might conclude that the Jewish Church and Jesus held a similar view. And if Jesus did try to realize that vision in the same way as Judas Maccabeus when he "cleansed the Temple" (1Macc 4:41), then one might guess this is something the Gentile churches might not wish to acknowledge. Indeed they may have simply not wanted to believe that the Christ taught to them by Paul was one and the same as Jesus bar Abbas. And indeed such an identity of the two was dangerous both before and after the War of the Jews. Fear (Rev 2:10) of Rome provided a motivation for John of Patmos to veil his polemic against Rome (Rev 17:6-9,18), and fear of Rome (Rom 13:3-7) could have provided a motivation for the Gentile Churches to create a pacifist Christ in the likeness of Paul instead of the Jewish Church's Jesus bar Abbas. This might explain why the last days and trial of Paul are very similar to that of Jesus in the Gospels (John Gill, "Exposition of the Entire Bible": Acts 21:36/Luke 23:18/Mark 15:13-14) and (John 18:22/Acts 23:2-4), and (Luke 23:15/Acts 26:31). It may also explain the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, since the Judas (Jewish) Sicariots of Paul's own day may have attempted to kill Paul and the Roman soldiers guarding him (Acts 23:12-23, "People's New Testament", 1891), something the pro-Roman Sadducean "chief priests" seem unlikely to have authorized, but the "chief priests" of those "zealous for the Law" might have authorized (Acts 21:18-22). It is possible the council of the "Many" (Acts 21:22), the Essene Church, may have judged Paul guilty of teaching the Jews who lived among the Gentiles to apostatize from Moses, and authorized Paul's assassination (Acts 23:12-14). Therefore Jesus bar Abbas was not betrayed by the Sicariots, but Paul (Mark 14:10, Acts 23:14). In 1Cor 15:5 Paul appears to know nothing of Jesus' betrayal by one of the twelve (cp. also Q Matt 19:28), only that Jesus was "delivered [up]" (1Cor 11:23). Consistent with the theory that Paul and not Jesus was betrayed by the Judas (Jewish) Sicariots, the problem that Judas had with Jesus is the same problem the Zealots had with Paul, his violation of works of the Law, the rules of the Ebionite Church (known as "The Poor", Mark 14:4-10, Matt 26:9-16, Luke 7:37-50). This theory would also explain Jesus "eating with publicans and sinners" (Mark 2:16, Matt 9:11), since that is what Paul did (Gal 2:12, Rom 14:2), violating the Sabbath (Mark 2:24, Rom 14:5), teaching against tradition (Mark 7:8, Col 2:8, Col 2:21-22), endorsing payment of taxes to Rome (Mark 12:17, Rom 13:6-7), and the anachronism of a Sicariot among Jesus' disciples, since the Sicarii were not known by that name until the time of Paul (Acts 21:38, War of the Jews 2:13:3), although see Josephus (War 7:8:1) where the Sicarii and their "avarice" (John 12:6) are traced to Judas of Galilee and the taxation. Judas also seems to meet the same fate (Matt 27:5-8, Act 1:18) as the Sicarii (and others) during the Roman siege of Judea (Josephus, Wars of the Jews 5.11, 5.13, 7:8). The Baker Evangelical Dictionary observes: "The presence of a tax collector among the disciples is impossible to explain if Jesus were a revolutionary, for tax collectors were seen as collaborators with the Romans and hated by zealots." Yet this is readily explained if Jesus bar Abbas and his Gospel have been overlaid and almost replaced with Paul's inclusive (and pro-tax) Gospel to the Gentiles (Mark 2:14-17; for other examples see Note 7 below). Therefore much in the Gospels (but not all) seem to be written with an eye to promoting Paul and the Gentile churches at the expense of the Jewish Church. Supporting such a view is S.G.F Brandon's observation in "Jesus and the Zealots" page 309, {footnote 2} The 'poor in spirit' appears in the Qumran War Scroll (XIV. 7) in a militant context: "Through the poor in spirit [there shall be gnaw]ed a hard heart, and through them that are upright in THE WAY shall all wicked nations come to an end, and their mighty men shall not be able to resist' (trans. Y. Yadin, Scroll of the War, pp. 326, 327; cf. A. Dupont-Sommer, Les ecrits esseniens, p. 205). ... Surely in placing the 'poor in spirit' together with the 'meek' and the 'peacemakers', Matthew was reinterpreting a well-known militaristic term. ... {end footnote}. Notice the mention of "THE WAY" in the Dead Sea quote and compare with Acts 24:5 "We have found this [Paul] to be a pestilent man, and raising seditions among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sedition of the sect of the Nazarenes....But this I [Paul] confess to thee, that according to THE WAY, which they call a heresy, so do I serve the Father and my God, believing all things which are written in the Law and the prophets." Brandon believed that the Gentile Churches had created a pacifist Christ to avoid offending the Romans. And it is possible in doing so the Jesus Christ of the Gospels was modeled as much (if not more) after Paul as he was the original Jesus bar Abbas. A possible case in point illustrating how Jesus is made to endorse Paul's mission to the Gentiles: Luke 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth .....And he [Jesus] said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is acceptable in his own country (Mark 6:4, even "among his own kin"). But of a truth I say unto you, There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; and unto none of them was Elijah sent, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, unto a woman (a Sidonian Gentile) that was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian (a Gentile). And they were all filled with wrath in the synagogue, as they heard these things; Act 22:1 Men, brethren and fathers, hear ye the account which I now give unto you. And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence. And he saith: I am a Jew....[who was] zealous for the law (DRB), as also all you are this day, who persecuted THIS WAY unto death....And he[Jesus] said unto me [Paul], Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word [Gentile]; and they lifted up their voice, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live." Another case in point, as mentioned above, is Jesus' post eventum endorsement of Paul's render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (Rom 13:7, Matt 22:21). Brandon comments on Luke 23:2: "That this was Jesus' ruling [not to pay taxes or tribute]....is further confirmed by the Lukan Gospel in its report that the Jewish authorities charged Jesus before Pilate, saying: 'We found this man perverting (subverting, L&N 31.71 and 88.264) our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.' The evidence, accordingly, builds up to a conclusion, which is consistent with the fact that the Romans executed Jesus for sedition: Jesus had ruled that the tribute was wrong on religious grounds, as did the Zealots." (The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, Brandon, pg. 67) It is possible that a rumor was going around in Mark's time (shortly after the Jewish War in 70AD) that Paul's Jesus Christ was one and the same as Jesus bar Abbas. This was a very dangerous rumor since Rome had just destroyed the Jewish Church and the Jewish Temple in 70AD. And if, as Brandon believed, Mark was writing in Rome, then the situation was even more precarious because just a few years before in 64AD Nero had rounded up Christians (Paul perhaps included) on the accusation of torching Rome (Tacitus, Annals 15.44). And this charge, even if coming from Nero, might not have been misplaced if some of these Christians were Jews zealous for the Law. See for example Rev 18:8-24 on the burning of Babylon, a code word for Rome, and Acts 21:20, Acts 22:3-DRB, 1Mac 2:27, 1Mac 2:50, 1Mac 2:54, 1Mac 2:58 on zealots for the Law. Tacitus says Nero needed a scapegoat and "an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." And while fires were common, Jewish apocalyptic writing (Revelation) was incriminating and hateful [of Rome], as Renan pointed out. From PBS "Secrets of the Dead: The Great Fire of Rome" : "Yet there is evidence that, in 64 A.D., many Roman Christians believed in prophecies predicting that Rome would soon be destroyed by fire", for example Rev 18:8 "...and she shall be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God that judges her." (Compare, however, the Pauline sentiment Rom 12:17-21 and Matt 5:43-44, a sentiment not shared by Jews zealous for the Law (1Mac 2:25-27)). If in fact such a rumor existed, then it seems likely that Mark would have denied that Jesus Christ and Jesus bar Abbas were one and the same, perhaps taking his "another Jesus" from Paul (2Cor 11:4, Gal 1:6-7). What Mark could NOT do is hide the fact that Jesus Christ had been crucified by the Romans for sedition. This was too well known, and in fact was the basis of the Church's faith that Jesus had been crucified and raised from the dead. But what Mark could do is create a parable that the innocent Pauline Christ had been killed like the sacrificial atonement lamb (goat), and perhaps like Paul himself, while Jesus bar Abbas had been released into the wilderness like the scape goat Azazel. Intentional or not this is somewhat ironic in that the scape goat also takes away the sin of the people ("Atonement: The Rite of Healing", Margaret Barker). Mark perhaps is hinting at two things: 1. The Jewish Church believed that Jesus bar Abbas had made atonement for the land by his martyrdom-witness, testimony, and faithfulness, which see Matthew Black below (also Gal 1:4 where by extension Paul makes the atonement for the whole world) and: 2. The demon Azazel (Satan or the Devil) dwelt in the wilderness like the zealots (1Macc 2:29) and Dead Sea Scroll sect to tempt Jesus with the kingdoms and power and glory of this world (Mark 1:13, Matt 4:1, Luke 4:8). Simon also tempts Jesus (Mark 8:29-33, John 18:11) as do James and John (Mark 10:37,44-45, Luke 9:54-56). As with Simon Peter (Mark 8:33) so too the Devil or Satan enters into Judas son of Simon Sicariot (John 13:2, 13:26-27, RV). From "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Doctrine," Matthew Black, 1966, pg. 13, quoting from "The Manual of Discipline" folio viii "In the council of the community there shall be twelve men and three priests perfect in all that is revealed from the whole Torah, to act truly, rightly and justly and with a love of mercy; and to walk humbly each with his neighbour; to maintain loyalty in the land, with integrity of purpose and a broken spirit; to expiate wrongdoing as men who uphold the righteous cause [or who act justly] and who endure the afflictions of the refiner’s furnace... For an eternal planting, a Temple for Israel, A conclave which is an holy of holies for Aaron; True witnesses to judgement, and the chosen of grace to atone for the land, And to render to the wicked their desert. This is the tested wall, the precious corner-stone; Its foundations will not be shaken, nor be removed from their place." The parallels in the Gospels and Paul's letters and Revelation are several: the 12 apostles, the 3 pillars (Gal 2:9) of the early church, James, John, and Simon, a pillar in the temple of my God (Rev 3:12), the temple (or house) founded upon a rock that shall not be shaken (Luke 6:48), and "atonement" (Rom 5:11). But Paul's atonement does not enjoin "render to the wicked [Rome and her Roman collaborators] their desert" (cp. Sirach 45:23, 1Mac 2:26). Therefore the Gospels appear to be recasting the beliefs of the Jewish Church and Jesus bar Abbas, beliefs similar to those of John of Patmos, to be more Pauline and and less offensive to Rome. In addition, one might even suggest that Jesus bar Abbas was recreated (more or less) in the image of Paul by the writers of the Gospels, and that these four Gospels were written specifically in such a way as to have Jesus endorse Paul's own gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 1:6, 2Cor 11:4). Luke also seems intent on having the ever vacillating Peter (Simon) endorse Paul's message to the Gentiles, for example Acts 10:13-15, as does the author of 1Peter, 2:13. The four Gospels are pro-Pauline and anti Jewish apostolic authority, with Jesus correcting the Jewish apostles to conform (for the most part) to Paul's own Gospel to the Gentiles. Yet the Gospels are also the basis for an "orthodox" apostolic Christianity which is mocked in turn by an even more anti-apostolic and anti-Judaic Gnostic "Gospel of Judas" ("The Thirteenth Apostle", April DeConick, 2007). The extant copies of Josephus (Ant. 18.3.3) say that Jesus was a WISE MAN (see Josephus, War 6.5.4, on how the "wise men" were deceived in their expectation of the coming kingdom of god) and a "wonder worker" (compare Mark 13:22) and that "he was a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure," in much the same way as men received with "pleasure" the words of John the Baptist (Ant. 18.5.2) and Judas the Galilean (Ant. 18.1.1). And like these others, Jesus was preaching the sovereign rule of God. Josephus also says that Jesus was called the Christ. Josephus does not say Jesus was a violent insurgent like Jesus bar Abbas. However, the context might suggest that Jesus was executed for the same reason as the "wonder worker" at Mount Gerizim (Ant. 18.4.1), and for the same reason as John the Baptist (Ant. 18:5:2), to prevent an insurrection by a multitude of followers "pleased" at what they had said or done (John 11:47-48, Luke 24:21). But there is reason to think that Josephus has something to hide in his account of Jesus, John the Baptist (Ant. 18.5.2), and James the Just, the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.9.1). For example, even though Josephus says nothing overtly incriminating about James (Ant. 20.9.1), Josephus does say (Ant. 20.9.3) that like James the Sicarii were at odds with the Sadducean high priestly house of Ananias and had earlier murdered the high priest Jonathan (Ant. 20.8.5). Origen in "Against Celsus" quotes Josephus as writing that the destruction of Jerusalem "was punishment for the death of James...a just man", in the same way that Josephus had earlier written (Ant. 18.5.2) "some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man." The 1915 International Bible Encyclopedia article on Essenes states: "A very marked point of difference between the tenets of the Essenes, as described by Philo and Josephus, and those attributed to them by Hippolytus, is in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection [the propaganda of the Jewish resistance]. Hippolytus affirms that they did believe in the resurrection of the body. The others, while not in terms denying that they did believe in it, ignore it in such a way as might lead the reader....to think that they denied it altogether.....Another point held in abeyance by both those writers was the Messianic hopes that we know from the New Testament were so prevalent. Hippolytus says 'all factions [of the Essenes] look for the Messiah,' but held that He was to be merely man born in the ordinary way. The reason of Philo's silence and that of Josephus is easily understood. They had commended the Essenes so highly; if they mentioned that they had treasonable hopes of a Messiah who should rule the world, their own personal loyalty would become doubtful." Be that as it may, what Josephus may be leaving out in his account, Mark adds in his. Mark says: Mar 15:9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy. But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. S.G.F. Brandon points out in his book "The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth", pg. 96, how would Mark know what was in the mind of Pilate? The fact is Mark wouldn't know, and apparently is inventing some of this for his apologetic purpose. In addition, Brandon asks, why do the "chief priests" "envy" Jesus? The Sadducean chief priests were wealthy, pro Roman, and unlikely to be "envious" of Jesus' status or popularity with the people. The Sadducean chief priests were mainly tasked with maintaining civil order for Rome. They wanted only the quite obedience of the people to Roman rule. So if anything, the Sadducean chief priests would not have envied Jesus, but would have been concerned that he might "move" the people to insurrection. And indeed this is what Luke and John say (John 11:48, Lk 24:21, Lk 23:2, cp. also Acts 24:5 Douay-Rheims). But, paradoxically, Mark says the "chief priests moved" the people to release an insurrectionist. The 1915 "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" entry on Barabbas observes: "But it seems equally improbable that the priests (the pro-Roman party) would urge the release of a political prisoner [Barabbas] and that Pilate would grant it, especially when the former were urging, and the latter could not resist, the execution of Jesus on a political charge (Lk 23:2)." Yet the Latin Vulgate translates as "sedition" (Mk 15:7) the charge against Barabbas. So why these paradoxes in Mark? We take it for granted that Mark is referring to the Sadducean "chief priests," and that is partially true. But who did the "chief priests" of the Jerusalem Church "envy" from the perspective of the Gentile Churches? They "envied" Paul, because it was "those sent by James" (Gal 2:12) who went about trying to undo Paul's teaching. And it would have been the "chief priests" of those "zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:20) who would have agitated for the release of Jesus bar Abbas, and the condemnation of Paul and his Jesus. Mark appears to be projecting Paul's later conflict with the Jerusalem Church "chief priests" and the "envy" (or jealousy/zeal) of "the Jews" (Acts 13:45) into the original story of Jesus bar Abbas, even though that "other Jesus" was at odds with the Sadducean priests and the Roman governor because of his own zeal (John 2:17). In the same way Jesus bar Abbas' likely contention with the Pharisees of the House of Hillel and Gamaliel (for being what the Dead Sea Scrolls called "teachers of smooth things") has been overlaid by Paul's conflict with the Judaizers and Pharisees of the Jewish Church and the House of Shammai for being zealots for the Law (Acts 15:5, 21:20). But on the surface, Mark's Gospel shows how Paul's pacifist Jesus was rejected by "the Jews" just like Paul (cp. Acts 18:6,18:13, Matt 27:24-25), and sets the stage for Paul's mission to the Gentiles. Mark also creates a separate identity and apology for Paul's pacifist Jesus Christ over against the Jerusalem Church's Jesus Barabbas, thus clearing Paul's Jesus from the charge of sedition even though crucified by the Romans for sedition. (Tacitus, Annals 15:44). But sadly enough, Mark also blames the "Jews" for the death of Paul's pacifist Jesus, even though it was surely Jesus bar Abbas who was crucified by the Romans for sedition. This too is consistent with Mark's policy, because Mark almost certainly saw the "chief priests", Sicariots, and Zealots for the Law (Mark 14:1,14:10, Acts 21:20), as responsible for Paul's imprisonment and possible eventual execution by the Romans. For the Zealots, Judaizers, Sicariots, Pharisees, and "chief priests" of Paul's own church, Paul was teaching apostasy from Moses (Acts 15:5, 21:21, 22:3 Douay-Rheims/Gill). And for the Sadduccean chief priests, Paul was a ringleader of the "sedition of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5 Douay-Rheims). So like Mark's Jesus, Paul is rejected and betrayed and handed over to the Romans by "the Jews." And in that light, Mark's Barabbas episode can be understood to mean: "the Jews" chose murder and insurrection (Acts 3:14) in their Jesus bar Abbas instead of choosing Paul's pacifist teaching about this same Jesus Christ. Mark's portrait of Barabbas therefore appears to be alluding to preaching about "another Jesus" (2Cor 11:4), preaching by Judaizing Christians whom the Gentile Churches called wolves (Mark 13:5-6, Matt 7:16, Acts 20:29), which preaching and "collection for the Poor" (Ant. 18.3.5, Gal 2.10) may have been a contributing factor in that greater insurrection, the War of the Jews (see Wikipedia entry Monobaz II, Matt 6:19-20). Josephus "B. J." ii. 8, § 1; "Ant." xviii. 1, §§ 1, 6; comp. "B. J." ii. 17, § 8 describes Judas of Galilee as "the founder of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, who taught that God is the only Ruler and Lord, and neither death nor any dread should make them call any man Lord"; and at the same time he says, "The nation was infected with their doctrine to an incredible degree, which became the cause of its many misfortunes, the robberies and murders committed." The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, entry Zealots states: "Judas the Galilean, the son of Hezekiah, is spoken of in Eccl. R. i. 11 as one of the scholarly Ḥasidim to whom in the world to come God shall join a band of the righteous to place him at His side [the right hand of God] because he failed to receive due homage as a martyr (see Derenbourg, "Palestine," p. 161)." Luke reveals (Acts 5:34-37) that Gamaliel, a Pharisee of the House of Hillel, saw Jesus and his followers as potentially in the same category as Judas of Galilee. But Luke wants (or expects) his readers to know that Jesus was like Paul and not like the patriot Judas of Galilee. And indeed Jesus Barabbas need not have been a violent murderer as Mark claims and perhaps exaggerates for contrast with Paul's pacifist Christ. Jesus need only have been like the Rabbins and their disciples who, in their zeal for God's house (John 2:17), pulled down the golden eagle from the temple gate (Wars 1.33.2-4, 2.1.2). But given that Jesus, like Judas the Galilean, may have been a faithful witness, a martyr, and also one who was inciting robberies and murder, meaning insurrection, with his preaching about the coming kingdom of God, then in the aftermath of the Jewish War the Gentile Christian churches would have been eager to distance themselves from the mother Church and this "other Jesus" to avoid offending Rome. To accomplish this they needed to have the Jesus of the Gospels endorse Paul's Gospel to the Gentiles and Paul's teaching to submit to Rome. And to further legitimize Paul's teaching, it was necessary for Peter to endorse Paul's message of submission to Rome. And for Mark and his Roman Church it was necessary that "another Jesus" be guilty of sedition against Rome. Brandon sums up by saying, pg. 107, "Trial of Jesus of Nazareth" : "Of this puzzling and embarrassing involvement of Jesus in Jewish-Roman politics, Mark has given them [the Roman Church] a welcome solution: Jesus had been the innocent victim of Jewish malice, and his divinity had been first perceived by a non-Jew [a Gentile] at the very moment when God had signified his abrogation of the Temple cultus." (Mark 15:38-39, also see Ephesians 2:14 ) Note 1: S.G.F. Brandon, "Fall of Jerusalem", pg. 52, note 3: The amazing claim [by Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus] that James exercised the functions and privileges of High Priest has been explained by Eisler, "Messiah Jesus", pp. 540, as proving his theory that the nationalist party maintained a rival priesthood to that of the pro-Roman Sadducees. Ernest Renan, "The Antichrist," commenting on Polycrates: "The πέταλον...is only attributed to two personages, and to two personages of the first century, to James and John, both belonging to the Judeo-Christian party, and this party believed to exalt them by attributing to them the prerogatives of the Jewish high priests." Note 2: See Joseph Atwill, "Caesar's Messiah," 2005, pg. 248, for Josephus' use of the Greek word "hedone" to connote malicious or seditious pleasure. Note 3: According to the Gentile churches, Jesus rejects his religion (Matt 12:9, keeping the Sabbath), his nation (Matt 12:39-43, an evil nation possessed by a demon, i.e. zealotry - Living Bible translation), and his own family (Matt 12:46-47), apparently in favor of the Gentiles (Matt 12:18, Matt 12:21 cp. Acts 28:28). This is Paul's Gospel and Paul's Jesus (2Cor 11:4) modified by the Gentile Churches to mirror Paul and Paul's teaching, somewhat ironically in keeping with Paul's dictum "we know Christ no more after the flesh." (2Cor 5:16 - John Gill, "Exposition of the Bible", S.G.F. Brandon, "Fall of Jerusalem", pg. 56). Compare also Mark 3:21, Acts 26:24, 2Cor 5:13. It might be noted that John of Patmos' glorified Christ is also no longer "after the flesh," but certainly not in the image of Paul. For John, the risen Jesus is still the warrior Messiah (Rev 19:13-15) and "son of God" in the Davidic sense (Psalm 2:7-9, Rev 2:27) and more, and Jesus had not abrogated the Judaic covenant or "works [of the Law]" (Rev 2:5, 12:17, 14:12, 22:12,14 kjv, cp. Ezekiel 18:21, James 1:25) as Luke (and Paul) would have us believe (Acts 13:33-46 kjv, Rom 4:4-5). Note 4: For the resurrection as a propaganda tool used by Jewish nationalists to encourage resistance to foreign rule see 2Macc 7:9, Dan 12:2-3, Rev 22:12-14, Tacitus, Histories 5: "They [the Jews] hold that the souls of all [Jews] who perish in battle or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence...their contempt for death." Also Josephus, Wars of the Jews 1.33.2, "it was a glorious thing to die for the laws of their country; because that the soul was immortal, and that an eternal enjoyment of happiness did await such as died on that account." Note 5: Luke 1:74, 24:21 "Our own hope had been that he would be the one to set Israel free [from slavery to Rome]." Yet the Jews were not enslaved by Rome, even though they paid taxes or tribute to Rome. So why does Luke say the original Jewish disciples believed that Jesus would set them free [from Rome]? According to Josephus, Ant 18.1, "Yet was there one Judas...who, taking with him Sadduc("the Righteous One" ?), a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their freedom." This is the "other Gospel" and the "other Jesus" that Paul spoke of (2Cor 11:4), Jesus bar Abbas, after the flesh. Note 6: With respect to Luke 24:21, the Slavonic Wars of the Jews II. vii. 2: "He [John the Baptist] came to the Jews and summoned them to freedom, saying: 'God hath sent me, that I may show you the WAY of the Law, wherein ye may free yourselves from many holders of power. And there will be no mortal ruling over you, only the Highest who hath sent me.'" This of course is the teaching of Judas the Galilean "that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord...and would call no man Lord" (Ant. 18.1.6). The Slavonic testimony is a mixed bag (see S.G.F. Brandon, "The Fall of Jerusalem," pg. 116), nonetheless it is exceeding strange that the Slavonic "Wars" describes John the Baptist's teaching as identical to that of Judas the Galilean. The Greek version of the "Wars" does not mention John, and the "Antiquities" make no direct comparison between Judas and John (Ant. 18.5.2). But a likeness between the two might be inferred given that John was executed to forestall an insurrection by those who received his teaching with "[seditious] pleasure" (Ant. 18.5.2), just like Judas (Ant. 18.1.1), and like Jesus. Compare Ant. 18.3.3 and Slavonic Wars of the Jews, II ix. 3.: "And many from the folk followed him [Jesus] and received his teachings [with pleasure]. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands." Note that the Slavonic "Testimonium" does not say "with pleasure", but that might be reasonably inferred from the Greek "Testimonium" Ant. 18.3.3 which does -- "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man...a wonder-doer, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure." According to the Slavonic Josephus, after Jesus' death, the disciples of Jesus continued to teach that Jesus would free them from servitude to Rome, B. J. II. xi. 6, "And at that time...many had been discovered as servants of the previously described wonder-doer; and as they spake to the people about their teacher,—that he is living, although he is dead, and that he will free you from your servitude [to Rome],—many from the folk gave ear...and took upon themselves their teaching." This is in contrast to Luke's emphasis on the spread of the Gospel to all the Gentiles (Luke 24:46-47). It would not have served Luke's apologetic to write that the Jewish disciples, like John of Patmos, continued to teach Jesus raised and coming in judgment to deliver the Jews from servitude to Rome. Note 7: In Mark 10:36-40 Jesus rebukes James and John's request to sit on his right hand and on his left hand in his "glory." As in the case of Peter (Mark 8:29-33, John 18:11), the Gentile Church is "correcting" James and John's expectation for the Jewish Messiah. Jesus points out (Mark 10:45) that he came to be a minister, not a temporal king, and to give his life a ransom for many, meaning both Jew and Gentiles. But, having rejected John and James' request, Jesus does grant the request of Bartimaeus (Aramaic for "son of an Unclean [Gentile]") that he might "see" (Mark 10:51, Mark 8:18-25) because of his faith. This is Paul's justification through faith (Rom 9:30-32), instead of the Jewish Church's justification through works [of the Law.] Even though the Jewish Church will suffer martyrdom, the Gentiles will be first and the Jews last (Mark 10:29-31, 10:39-40, Matt 20:12-16). Mark is stating what came to pass in his own time with the fall of Jerusalem and the decimation of the Jewish Church by a Roman army (Rev 13:7, Rev 11:8). Mark (and Luke 13:1-3, Gill, and Matthew 27:25) saw the "wrath" (1Th 2:16) that came upon the Jews in 70AD as owing to the Jews rejecting Paul's Gospel and Paul's pacifist Jesus, choosing instead Jesus Barabbas and his Gospel. That is certainly one way of looking at it. But from an historical point of view "the Jews" were were made to suffer for the same reason as Jesus, sedition against the Roman Empire (Luke 23:2). Note 8: "None of the later accretions which in the Gospels overlay the original primitive account, and none of the editorial modifications from the hands of successive evangelists, can hide or dis-guise the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was arrested, accused, tried, sentenced, and executed on a charge of insurrection against Roman rule in Judaea." Paul Winter, "The Trial of Jesus", 1964, pg 38-39, http://www.scaview.org/pages/pdf/The%20Trial%20of%20Jesus.pdf, "On the Trial of Jesus", 1961 Note 9: "It appears inconsistent that the same chief priests that demand the freedom of a violently anti-Roman insurrectionist are supposedly the same chief priests that cry out, We have no king but Caesar!" (Mark 15:11-12, John 19:15). John, like Mark, has morphed Paul's rejection by the crowd (Acts 22:21-22) and the chief priests of the Jewish church (Acts 21:20-22) into Jesus' rejection by the crowds and Sadducean chief priests. The chief priests and crowds of the Jewish church, who had "no king but God" (Ant. 18.1.1), would have demanded the release of Jesus Barabbas. The Sadduccean chief priests, who had "no king but Caesar," would have delivered Jesus Barabbas to the political jurisdiction of the Romans. Albertswit (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Albertswit

Talk pages (such as this page) are for discussing how to improve the article, not general discussion of the subject. If you think that what you've written should be included in the article, please discuss it with others. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The "long essay" can be deleted if need be. It is hard to see how any of that could be incorporated in the main article, since it is very speculative. Albertswit (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Alberswit

Irrelevant and Disputed Interpretation of Matthew 5:39

I removed the following clause : "– which means not submission but strong and courageous, though nonviolent, defiance and resistance." It is irrelevant, original, uncited, and disputed among different Christian denominations. Apollo (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleated Sections

sections removed from the article for lack of sources etc.

Barabbas in the gospels Three gospels all state unequivocally that there was a custom at Passover during which the Roman governor would release a prisoner of the crowd's choice: Mark 15:6; Matt. 27:15; John 18:39. The corresponding verse in Luke (Luke 23:17) is not present in the earliest manuscripts and may be a later gloss to bring Luke into conformity. The gospels differ on whether the custom was a Roman one or a Jewish one. Such a release or custom of such a release is not recorded in any other historical document. Some point to the perception of Pontius Pilate's disregard for Jewish sensibilities; the idea of him honouring Jewish Passover in any way may not fit with historical accounts of his character. However, other historians take the opposite approach, arguing that Pilate showed careful regard to customs in order to avoid revolts in an unruly province, and this may be an example of Pilate creating a tradition ad hoc, in order to avoid a possibly explosive situation. The gospels, however, portray Pilate not as the one in control of the situation, and have him pleading with the crowd that they choose Jesus of Nazareth to be released, then reluctantly surrendering to their decision. An alternate reading of the events involving Barabbas can also be made, however. Given that Barabbas was described by some to be a revolutionary or a terrorist, it stands to reason that his acts of terror and revolt would have been directed against the Romans. In this case, it would be logical to assume that Barabbas might have been viewed by the people as something of a folk hero, in modern terms a freedom fighter or insurgent taking the fight to the Roman occupiers. When Barabbas is seen through this lens, it appears that Pilate's choice to the people was not much of a choice at all. If Pilate were to offer a local hero to the people as an alternative to Jesus, they would most certainly choose to free the hero. Thus, Pilate could bring about the execution of a dangerous man of God without seeming to actually be responsible for his death. This argument is also supported in the events of Luke 23:6-12. Pilate claims no jurisdiction over Jesus because he is from Galillee (Jerusalem was in Judea) and passes him along to Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, to be sentenced. Despite having ordered the death of John the Baptist, Herod's reaction is to ridicule Jesus for a time, and then to pass him right back to Pilate. The result of Herod's apparent assent to Pilate's jurisdiction over Jesus is said to have brought about a truce between the two men in Luke 23:12. This event, along with the "vote" between Barabbas and Jesus, and taken with the fact that it was the Jewish Sanhedrin who had brought Jesus before Pilate in the first place, would seem to illustrate that Jesus was something of a political hot potato whom everyone from the leaders of the Temple hierarchy, to the Romans, to the Hebrew aristocracy would just as soon be rid of, but whom no one wanted to take the actual responsibility for killing. If Pilate did not offer a choice between Jesus and another person, several possible explanations for the origin of such a story have been offered by a number of scholars. Were Barabbas and Jesus the same person? The name Barabbas is composed of two elements: bar, meaning "son of", and Abba. Abba has been found as a personal name in a first century burial at Giv'at ha-Mivtar and Abba also appears as a personal name frequently in the Gemara section of the Talmud, dating from 200-400. This would mean that Barabbas was the son of one named Abba. Abba also means "father" in Aramaic. Jesus sometimes referred to God as "father;" Jesus' use of the Aramaic word Abba survives untranslated (in most English translations) in Mark 14:36. In the gospels, Jesus rarely refers to himself as "son of God" and never refers to himself as "son of the father.". However, some scholars like Michael Magee and Mary Whitehouse speculate that "bar-Abbâ" could refer to Jesus himself as "son of the father". Hyam Maccoby and some other scholars have averred that Jesus was known as "bar-Abba", because of his custom of addressing God as 'Abba' in prayer, and referring to God as Abba in his preaching. It follows that when the Jewish crowd clamored before Pontius Pilate to "free Bar Abba" they could have meant Jesus. Anti-Semitic elements in the Christian church, the argument goes, altered the narrative to make it appear that the demand was for the freedom of somebody else (a brigand or insurrectionist) named "Barabbas". This was in, the theory goes, part of the tendency to shift the blame for the Crucifixion towards the Jews and away from the Romans. (See Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judea.) Maccoby identifies Paul of Tarsus for this shifting of blame in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention Of Christianity, which explains extensively why it was necessary to appease Roman sentiment prior to Constantine I's Edict of Milan (Edict of Tolerance) in 313, which legalized Christianity. The appeasing of Roman sentiment was, Maccoby suggests, confined to the matters of the blame for Crucifixion and over Jesus' "true" mission in life. Maccoby argues that Jesus was an anti-Roman revolutionary and that Paul, who had never met Jesus during his life-time, disagreed strongly with Jesus' actual followers over what Jesus' mission was. In his 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 with no guilt for the murder that made it possible. 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 and, more famously, the Judas myth, were used as blame shifting tactics to get new recruits to Paul's newly formed religion. Benjamin Urrutia, co-author with Guy Davenport of The Logia of Yeshua: The Sayings of Jesus agrees with Maccoby and others who aver that Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and that the choice between two prisoners is a fiction. However, Urrutia opposes the notion that Jesus may have either led or planned a violent insurrection. Jesus was a strong advocate of "turning the other cheek" - which means not submission but strong and courageous, though nonviolent, defiance and resistance. Jesus, in this view, must have been the planner and leader of the Jewish nonviolent resistance to Pilate's plan to set up Roman Eagle standards on Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The story of this successful resistance is told by Josephus — who, curiously, does not say who was the leader, but does tell of Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus just two paragraphs later in a passage whose authenticity is heavily disputed. (See article Josephus on Jesus, in particular the section "Arabic Version." This version seems to be free of the postulated Christian interpolations, but still makes it clear that Pilate ordered the crucifixion of Jesus.) A different interpretation is that the story derives from the Jewish crowd (many of whom may have been among those who had hailed Jesus as a king perhaps less than a week earlier) calling out for the freedom of the man who referred to the Jewish God as "father" and referred to himself as "son-of the father" (bar-Abba in Aramaic) — namely, Jesus himself. Pilate refused their pleas (and likely would have been disciplined by his superiors in Rome, if he did not punish both insurrectionists and those who claimed to be king of the Jews). 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 - incidentally thus making the Romans less culpable, and the Jews more so. Further interpretations, most notably by Doctor Michael Magee, along these same lines raise questions about how much difference there was between Jesus and an insurrectionist. In the gospels, shortly after being hailed as a king by the Jews, Jesus caused a commotion in the Jewish temple by overturning tables and swinging a lash (mentioned only in John) at people. Soon afterwards and just shortly before his arrest, the gospels have Jesus telling his apostles to sell their cloaks and buy swords(Luke 22:36) — and at least one sword turns up in the hands of Peter (named only in John) in the Garden of Gethsemane. Arthur Drews, a German Hegelian philosopher, in his books Christ Myth (1924) and Legend of Peter (1924), argued that first-century Christianity was a social ethical movement which needed no founder to explain its rise. A long standing feature of the Semitic world was an annual sacrifice of a "Son of the Father" — Barabbas, originally called Jesus Barabbas.. Of course, in the Hebrew Bible and in Judaism in general, human sacrifice is strongly condemned. Because of this and many other aspects of Drews' research, including his attempt to discredit Christianity in favor of a national Germanic religion (i.e. Nazism), most of Drews' research and views are held suspect by the academic community, though he remains a significant source among some of those who argue that Jesus was a mythical creation as opposed to an historical figure. Again, this annoys me. Can we present the Orthodox depiction of who Barabbas is to a Christian? I recognize the importance of textual criticism, but I don't think any of what you've presented is as important as what Barabbas means in the traditional context of Christianity. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not original research. To be frank, what you think about Barabbas doesn't particularly matter. Logia of Yeshua is extracanonical. Guinness4life (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC) A possible parable This practice of releasing a prisoner is said by Magee and others to be an element in a literary creation of Mark, who needed to have a contrast to the true "son of the father" in order to set up an edifying contest, in a form of parable. An interpretation, using modern reader response theory, suggests no petition for the release of Barabbas need ever have happened at all, and that the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus is a parable meant to draw the reader (or hearer) of the gospel into the narrative so that they must choose whose revolution, the violent insurgency of Barabbas or the challenging gospel of Jesus, is truly from the Father.. If this interpretation is true, it means that the fictitious division of Yeshua Bar Abba (Jesus Barabbas) into two different people was already made in the hypothesized Aramaic texts, before the Greek Gospels were written.. Dennis R. MacDonald, in the The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, notes that a similar episode to the one that occurs in Mark- of a crowd picking one figure over another figure similar to the other occurred in The Odyssey, where Odysseus entered the palace disguised as a beggar and defeated a real beggar to reclaim his throne. MacDonald suggests Mark borrowed from this section of The Odyssey and used it to pen the Barabbas tale, only this time Jesus- the protagonist- loses to highlight the cruelness of Jesus' persecutors. However, this theory too is rejected by mainstream scholars. It has also been suggested that Barabbas was an allegory for humanity. In this theory, the freeing of Barabbas represents the redemption of humanity from the original sin of Adam, "Son of the Father," through the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. If this is correct, it might suggest that the appellation "Jesus Barabbas" was simply an error made by a scribe who was ignorant of the actual allegorical significance of the narrative.[4] Other uses of "Barabbas" Barabbas (1928): Play by avant-garde Belgian dramatist Michel De Ghelderode. Barabbas (1950): A novel by Swedish author Pär Lagerkvist for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature 1951. Barabbas (1962): Epic film starring Anthony Quinn, based on Lagerkvist's book. Monty Python's film Life of Brian (1979) features a comic scene with Pontius Pilate having a speech impediment, and asking the crowd if they want him, instead of "Bwian", to "Welease... Woger". Isabel Allende's novel House of the Spirits (1982) features the family dog named Barabbas. Barabbas (1999 - 2003): Orlando, Florida progressive rock trio. Give Us Barabbas (2004): Album by American rock band Masters of Reality The Passion of the Christ (2004): In this controversial film, written, produced and directed by Mel Gibson, Barabbas is described by Pontius Pilate as a "notorious murderer," for which there is little evidence in text. Matthew 27:16 describes Barabbas simply as "notorious," and Luke 23: 19 even implies that his crimes may have been political (noting that he "had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)". He is further portrayed as mad, for which there is no textual evidence whatsoever. Collectively, these editorial choices on the part of the film maker have the net effect of making Barabbas' release more craven than text would support. Arsis' song "Worship Depraved" (2004) contains the lyrics: "Let Mary sleep forever. Sordid dreams, she must be bound. Once faithful followers scream: "Set Barabbas free!"" The Jewish main character of Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta is named "Barabas", a reference to the biblical character. A former Puerto Rican wrestling heel used the stage name "Barrabás" (Barabbas in Spanish). Karabas Barabas is the villain in The Golden Key, or the Adventures of Buratino, a Soviet children's story about Buratino, a character similar to Pinnochio In common Gleswegian parlance (circa 2008 onwards), commenting that you have "Barabbased" someone, is to have bummed them. Sorry if this emBARABBASses anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristal17 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

for historical reference if necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

null posting with false date to trigger archiving -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 14:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Gospel of Peter is not a biblical text

I removed two references to the Gospel of Peter from the Biblical Account section as it is not a biblical text.

I also added the clarifying phrase "(of Jesus)" to the Blood Curse reference. Saibot942 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Art and literature" section

The "Art and Literature" section gets longer and longer with editors adding unreferenced trivia. I am moving all unreferenced items from that section to this talk page. If anyone wants to put them back into the article, they will need to supply a reference.

• Barabbas, a 1950 novel by Pär Lagerkvist.
• Barabbas, a 1953 Swedish film adaptation of the 1950 novel directed by Alf Sjöberg.
• Barabbas, a 1961 film adaptation of the 1950 novel, directed by Richard Fleischer and starring Anthony Quinn as Barabbas.
• In the 1961 film King of Kings, Barabbas is portrayed by Harry Guardino the leader of the Zealots and a friend of Judas Iscariot.
• In the 1965 film The Greatest Story Ever Told, Barabbas is portrayed by Richard Conte.
• Barabbas is portrayed by Stacy Keach in the 1977 miniseries Jesus of Nazareth.
• Barabbas is portrayed by Pietro Sarubbi in Mel Gibson's 2004 film The Passion of the Christ.
• Barabbas is portrayed by Fraser Ayres in the 2013 miniseries The Bible and its 2014 film version, Son of God.
• Barabbas, a 2012 TV adaptation of the 1950 novel, directed by Roger Young and starring Billy Zane as Barabbas
• Barabbas became a meme in the British comedy The Collings and Herrin Podcast, where it was suggested he engaged in sodomy.
• Jason Eady released a song titled "Barabbas" ahead of his upcoming self-titled album in early 2017.Smeat75 (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor adding neutrality disputed tag without opening discussion here

Editor Lalvia is improperly adding a POV tag to the "Modern views" section of this article. When you add a tag like that it leaves a notice on the page "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" but Lalvia has opened no such discussion here, in fact s/he won't discuss it at all but keeps reverting my removal of this improperly added tag with edit summaries that are nothing but original research Not at all, it's more likely that Barabbas is patronymic, and that the first name "Jesus" was removed by scribes because the name Jesus had become too holy of a name. Anyone who knows a shred of Hebrew understands and when I told this user in an attempt to discuss on their talk page that we have do not state our own assertions as opinions here but need to cite everything to WP:RS, I was reverted again with the edit summary Too bad, it's fact, not opinion. The material in that section is cited to scholars, of course. This needs to stop,Lalvia you need to discuss what problems you see with the article here, not just slap a tag on it.Smeat75 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice on omitting the rest of the second quote. Clear bias. Don't waste my time. Lalvia (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The rest of your second edit summary said See "Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honour of James D. G. Dunn and that is not how you discuss problems or cite sources here on WP. You need to discuss the problems you see with the section here and also read WP:CIVIL accusing other editors of "clear bias" and telling them "Don't waste my time" is unacceptable.Smeat75 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is, you are a normie. Lalvia (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A direct quote from Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honour of James D. G. Dunn with a page number would be useful here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Modern view section

Gives undue weight to Hyam Maccoby, such as for example in:

Benjamin Urrutia, co-author of The Logia of Yeshua: The Sayings of Jesus, agrees with a well known theory in biblical scholarship[2] as presented for instance by Hyam Maccoby,

First, well known theory in biblical scholarship -- right, although it is only mentioned now and then. I don't know how much it is disputed and how seriously, but I believe there are some serious proponents here and there. Secondly as presented for instance by Hyam Maccoby, Hyam Maccoby, who is a Jew by religion, is regarded with disdain among Christians and Jews and indepent scholars for promoting his own New Testament stories without proper sourcing, while attacking opposing views by either conspiracy allegations or vague sweeping dismissals.

I propose rewriting the section so that Hyam Maccoby get his own paragraph and isn't used to "support" a nontrivial serious minority (?) theory. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree after researching this topic more. This is rarely put forward due to a number of issues. This includes Pilate being on a strenuous relationship with the Jews and this ultimately is only proposed by Christ Myth Theorists Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Barabbas Hindi film

@Gotitbro: I am rather skeptical, per WP:DUE and WP:V, that your references of linkedin.com and an unverified YouTube channel meet our inclusion criteria. These are not reliable sources, not even good as external links. They do not demonstrate notability for the film. I am even leery, from a copyright standpoint, that "Holyfire Ministries" has permission to host all those TV programs on their channel. I will happily entertain your explanations of why this is a valid entry in this article and my concerns are moot. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: The LinkedIn cite mentions a nomination for the film at the Indian Telly Awards for a TV film, showing that the film has received recognition. The Holyfire Ministry only hosts the 1979 Jesus film (a freely distributed work) and episodes from the Bible Ki Kahaniyan Indian televison show (a rare unindexed work) besides the Barabbas film and their own programs. Nothing suggests that they don't have permissions for these (Christian-themed media products are frequently distributed to/by ministries in India, see for e.g. Karunamayudu). Your original concern about spam was likely misinformed and I think I have addressed the notability issue (nomination). Gotitbro (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Ben-Yosef & Jesus Bar-Abbas?

"Jesus, son of Joseph" and "Jesus, son of the Father"? This simply cannot be a mere coincidence. One is punished, one is set free. Clearly this was some sort of allegory meant to suggest that Jesus was both punished AND forgiven. Shocking more has not been theorized and written about this possibility. Obviously since it challenges the very core of Christianity, if in fact Jesus did not die on the cross to suffer for the sins of mankind. 68.129.151.208 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is Jesus death' important to Christians? I thought the resurrection was all they cared about. Dimadick (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)