Raymond E. Brown on the Custom of Releasing a Prisoner at the Feast

  

The Custom of Releasing a Prisoner at the Feast (Mark 15:6; Matt 27:15; John 18:39a)

 

If the Lucan Pilate calls together the chief priests, rulers, and people, and the Johannine Pilate goes outside the praetorium to speak to the already gathered “Jews,” in Mark 15:8, the crowd now comes up to add its presence to the whole Sanhedrin (15:1) before Pilate. Matt 27:17, with a reflexive use of the passive of synagein, has “when they had gathered together,” without specifying the “they“—the pronoun would include “all the chief priests and the elders of the people” from 27:1, 12, as well as “the crowd(s)” of 27:15, 20. Matt’s synagein gives a more official tone to those present than Mark’s anabas (“having come up”); but for the latter there is an interesting textual variant in the Koine tradition and the OS^sin: anaboēsas (“having screamed/cried out”), related to epiboēsis (“acclamation”). Colin (Villes 14) accepts this reading as part of his thesis that the verdict in the Roman trial was by acclamation of the crowd/people (§31, D3c above); copyists would have misunderstood this rare verbal form and substituted anabas. Matt’s “gathered,” however, means that he read a verb of motion in Mark, not a verb of calling out. Probably the copyist’s change went in the other direction, i.e., removing “having come up” because it contradicted the picture in Luke and John where the addressees were already present.

 

Mark explicitly and Matt implicitly give as the purpose of the coming up or gathering of the crowd(s) before Pilate the custom of releasing a prisoner at a/the feast. John 18:39a also mentions the custom. But before we discuss this custom, let us note that Luke 23:17, which refers to it, is absent from the best textual witnesses to Luke (P⁷⁵, Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sahidic). Some scholars who think that the custom mentioned in Mark 15:6–8 is a secondary addition by Mark to an original tradition that lacked it (Dibelius, “Herodes”) evaluate Luke 23 without v. 17 as closer to that original tradition. Others doubt that Luke had special access to such an original tradition and explain his text (without v. 17) as a deliberate shortening of Mark to facilitate the storyline. The opposite approach is to affirm 23:17, “But he had the obligation to release one person to them at a/the feast,” to have been originally written by Luke (despite its weaker, Koine attestation) and to have been omitted by a copyist’s error as his eye skipped from the anagkēn de that began v. 17 to the anekragon de beginning v. 18. To the more common thesis that v. 17 is a copyist’s insertion in imitation of Mark and Matt (because all the words I have italicized are in those two Gospels) an objection is raised that neither of them speaks of an “obligation” (anagkē), something an imitative copyist would not have introduced. Recognizing the difficulty of settling the issue, although I shall follow the majority view that 23:17 is a copyist’s addition, I will not speculate about Luke’s reason for omitting all reference to the custom. His silence cannot with surety be used as an argument that he thought the custom incredible (see p. 819 below).

 

In the three Gospels that mention the custom of release there is a combination of agreements and disagreements. John attaches the custom specifically to Passover; but Mark/Matt (and Luke 23:17) use kata heortēn anarthrously, which could mean “at a feast” (every or any: kata as a distributive). The same expression, however, in Josephus (War 1.11.6; #229) means “at the feast.” Now, in the last instance of heortē (“feast”) in each Synoptic (Mark 14:1–2; Matt 26:2, 5; Luke 22:1) the reference has been to Passover. Thus it seems likely that Mark/Matt refer to every year’s occurrence of the feast, i.e., Passover, and thus implicitly agree with John. No evangelist, however, necessarily places the release on Passover day itself.

 

To describe the habitual character of the custom, Mark 15:6 employs the imperfect of apolyein (“used to release”); and in 15:8 the Koine ms. variant has “as he always used to do for them.” Matt 27:15 uses the verb eiōthein (“to be accustomed”); John 18:39a has the noun synētheia (“custom”). The dubious Luke 23:17 hardens it to an obligation. Mark (along with Luke 23:17) indicates that this is Pilate’s custom. In speaking more generally of “the governor,” Matt 27:15 is not necessarily describing every governor’s custom, since he equates Pilate with the governor in 27:2 and 27:13–14. On the other hand, the “You have a custom” in John 18:39a makes it a custom of “the Jews.” All the Gospels agree that the content of the custom is to release one person or prisoner—one whom they requested (Mark: paraiteisthai), or willed (Matt: thelein), or desired (John: boulein).

 

The release is “to you” (= for you) in Mark, Matt, and John. The crowd constituted by the Jewish or Jerusalem populace is the main agent in choosing the one to be released. In John (and in Luke 23:17) the chief priests are part of the choosing group, whereas in Mark/Matt the chief priests have to lobby the crowd(s).

 

By way of summary, then, the Gospels agree on a festal custom attached to Passover (explicitly in John, implicitly in Mark/Matt) whereby a prisoner was released whom the Jewish crowds chose. The major disagreement is whether it was a custom of Pilate the governor or a Jewish custom recognized by Pilate. (Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah–From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vols. [The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994], 1:793-95)

 

Mark Wilson on αρμα (KJV: “Chariot”) in Acts 8:29

  

Finally, the geographical dimensions of Acts 8 are mind-boggling. From Jerusalem to their meeting point outside Gaza, Philip and the Nubian official have traveled separately for some 30 miles over a day and a half. Philip is directed by an angel to this route near Gaza, more properly termed “wilderness” than “desert” (v. 26). Traveling by foot, he overtakes the African official, whose return trip to Nubia from Jerusalem is by a different mode of transportation. Philip is told by the Spirit to approach a vehicle called a harma (v. 29). Most English versions misleadingly translate this word as “chariot”; however, chariots were not appropriate for long-distance travel. A double-axled carriage, known in Latin as a petorritum, was more comfortable and served as the limousine of the Roman world. With a wooden roof (which allowed shade for the Nubian to read his scroll of Isaiah [v. 28]) and a decorated interior, the petorritum was pulled by a team of horses or donkeys. Such carriages averaged up to 5 miles per hour on level ground. It is plausible that the African man is riding in such a vehicle. (Mark Wilson, “Philip’s Encounter with the ‘Ethiopian Eunuch,’” Biblical Archaeology Review 52, no. 1 [Spring 2026]: 64)

 

Strack and Billerbeck on Matthew 27:25

  

27:25: His blood come upon us and upon our children.

 

The words mean “May the responsibility and guilt affect us and our children!”

 

A baraita in b. ʿAbod. Zar. 12B: A person does not drink water in the night—and if he drinks, his blood comes upon his head (i.e., he must attribute the guilt of his misfortune to himself). ‖ A baraita in b. Yoma 21A: Whoever gets on the road before the rooster’s crow, his blood comes on his head (he has to bear the responsibility and consequences himself). ‖ Sifra Leviticus 24:14 (424A): They (the witnesses of the blasphemy) shall put their hands on his (the blasphemer’s) head (Lev 24:14) and say, “Your blood is on your head; for you have caused this” (brought it on yourself). ‖ Babylonian Talmud ʿAbodah Zarah 30A: With boiled wine, the prohibition concerning remaining open does not come into consideration. Someone said, “Can we rely on this?” R. Yannai b. Ishmael (ca. 300) indicated to them by a movement of the hand, “Let it come on me and my neck” (I take responsibility). ‖ Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 6.23B.46: Once it happened that someone was led out to execution. Someone said to him, “Say (as a confession of sin), ‘May my death be an atonement for all my sins.’ ” But he said, “May my death be an atonement for all my sins, except for this sin (for which I am condemned); if I have done it, it shall not be forgiven me, but the court of Israel shall be innocent!” When this came before the scholars, their eyes teared. They said, “It is not possible to bring him back; then the case would have no end. Behold, may his blood hang on the neck of the (false) witnesses!” ‖ Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.5: (Fear was put into the witnesses with the words …:) “Know that capital cases are not like disputes about money. With disputes about money, a person can give money and there will be atonement for him; but with capital cases his (the executed person’s) blood and the blood of his (possible) descendants clings to him until the end of the world.” (See the whole passage at § Matt 5:21 B, #3, B, #3, n. c and § Matt 26:60, #2.) ‖ Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 10: (When the ship companions wanted to toss Jonah into the sea,) they said, “God of the world, Yahweh, do not bring innocent blood on us; for we do not know what this has to do with this man.”—The phrase “His blood comes on his head” דמו בראשו is also found in y. Ber. 7.11C.61; b. Pesaḥ. 111A; 112A (twice); b. Nid. 17A. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1188-89)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 97: Craig Foster on Anti-Mormon Pamphleteering in Great Britain (1837-1860)

 

Episode 97: Craig Foster on Anti-Mormon Pamphleteering in Great Britain (1837-1860)

Strack and Billerbeck on Jewish/Rabbinical Attitudes Towards Suicide

  

27:5: Went and hanged himself.

 

The ancient synagogue found the prohibition of suicide in Gen 9:5.

Genesis Rabbah 34 (21B): “Yet אַךְ your blood, that of your souls לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, I will require” (Gen 9:5). אַךְ, this intends to include the one who strangles himself החונק עצמו (by hanging).—In this case, Gen 9:5 was interpreted as “Yet your own blood I will require of you yourself,” if you put a hand on yourselves as suicides.—In b. B. Qam. 91B, this interpretation is found in the mouth of R. Eleazar b. Azariah (ca. 100): “Yet your blood I will require לנפשתיכם” (Gen 9:5); R. Eleazar (b. Azariah) said, “From the hand of your souls (i.e., from yourselves) I will require your blood.”

The average opinion about the reprehensibility of suicide is expressed most clearly by Josephus, J. W. 3.8.5:

 

“Suicide, ἡ αὐτοχειρία, is both foreign to the general nature of all living beings and a godlessness towards the God who created us.… Do you not think that God will be angry if a person impiously scorns his (God’s) gift? For we both have received existence from him and must leave our no-longer-existing to him.… Additionally, if someone allows a person’s deposit to be lost or spends it badly, he appears to be evil and unfaithful; but if someone expels the deposit of God (the soul) from his own body, does he suppose that he will remain hidden from the one he has offended?… Their hands have raged against their own life, their souls will be received by the darkest Hades, and God their father will visit the guilt of evildoers on their descendants. Therefore, this (the offense of suicide) is hated by God, and by the wisest lawgiver it has been assigned a penalty. Among us at least it has been found to be good to leave suicides unburied until the sun sets, although it is considered just to bury one’s own enemies. With other nations, though, it has even been commanded to cut off the right hands of such dead people with which they went to battle against themselves, since it is supposed that, as the body must be separated from the soul, so too the hand from the body.…”

 

Mourning suicides is regulated as follows in tractate Semaḥot 2 (beginning):

 

Whoever consciously takes his life המאבד עצמו לדעת, with him one undertakes nothing in respect to him (to mourn him publicly). R. Ishmael († ca. 135) said, “One calls out over him, ‘Woe because of this severity, woe because of this severity!’ ” (We read נַטְלָא instead of the incomprehensible נטלה.) R. Aqiba († ca. 135) said to him, “Leave aside any remark about him; do not honor him and do not curse him. One does not tear one’s garment for him, one does not expose one’s shoulder for him and one does not mourn him publicly; but one may stand in the line because of him (through which the mourners go with comforting statements from the retinue) and say the blessing of mourners (see the excursus “Works of Love”), because this serves to honor the living. The general rule about this is as follows: in everything that serves to honor the living, one may occupy himself with him (the suicide); but in everything that does not serve to honor the living, the multitude may not occupy itself with him. Who is someone who consciously takes his life? Not someone who climbs to the top of a tree and falls down and dies, or someone who climbs to the top of a roof and falls down and dies. Rather the one who says, ‘Behold, I will climb to the top of the roof to the top of the tree and cast myself down to die’; and then he was seen as he climbed up to the top of the tree and fell down and died—behold, in his case, the assumption stands that he consciously took his life, and whoever consciously takes his life, with him one occupies himself (with respect to mourning) in no regard. If he was found strangled חנוק and hanging on a tree תלוי באילן, slain הרוג (with the sword) and laid out with the sword, behold, in his case, the assumption stands that he unconsciously שלא בדעת took his life and nothing (with respect to mourning) is withheld from him.” ‖ In closing, reference may also be made to a later saying. TanḥumaB ויצא § 6 (74B): Let our teacher teach us: What is the difference between the death of the righteous and that of the godless? R. Justa b. Shunam (ca. 400) said in the name of R. Joshua of Sikhnin (ca. 330), “The death of the godless is neither on earth nor in heaven, for so it is written of Ahithophel: ‘He arranged his house and hanged himself’ (2 Sam 17:23). And likewise Haman was neither on earth nor in heaven; see Esth 7:10: ‘Then they hanged Haman on the tree trunk,’ and similarly his sons: ‘He and his sons had been hanged on the tree’ (Esth 9:25). Yet with the death of the righteous, there is something in heaven and on earth; see 1 Sam 25:29: ‘The soul of my lord will be bound in the bundle of the living.’ And whence do we know that it is also on earth? See 2 Chr 32:33: ‘He (Hezekiah) was buried on the steep road to the graves of the house of David, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem showed him honor at his death.’ ” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1181-83)

 

Examples “Curious Workmanship” in Pre-1830 Literature

 In his article, “Misunderstanding the Book of Mormon,” John Tvedtnes noted that:

 

Misconceptions abound concerning the text of the Book of Mormon, among both Latter-day Saints and others.

 

For example, how do people understand the term “curious workmanship” in such passages as 1 Nephi 16:10 and 1 Nephi 18:1? Some undoubtedly take the word “curious” to mean “peculiar, strange,” or, less likely, “inquisitive,” which would be the normal usage of the word in 21st century English. Its original meaning is “skilled” or “artful,” a meaning still retained in Joseph Smith’s day, as seen by Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary of American English. So the expression should be understood as “skilled workmanship.” (John A. Tvedntes, “Misunderstanding the Book of Mormon,” September 20, 2010, Meridian Magazine)

 

This is borne out by an examination of how the phrase was used in pre-1830 liteature

 

One of these Maces is of very fine Workmanship, all of Silver, gilt, and very heavy, of fine imagery, and curious workmanship, made at Paris by the Archbishop’s Special Directions, as appears by an Inscription on a Plate, fastened to the Mace by a little Chain, and preserved with it. (Daniel Defoe, Curious and Diverting Journies, Thro' the Whole Island of Great-Britain [1734])

 

The lower part of the border upon the table was neatly engraved, but the outside part excelled in curious workmanship, and was placed fuller to view: . . . (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book XII [London: 1754], 273)

 

 

A Diadem of great Value, in the Eastern Taste, such as is wore for the principal Ornaments of the Great Mogul, Nabobs, and Princes of Asia, consisting of very large Diamonds and other fine Jewels of curious workmanship, has lately been made by an eminent Jeweller of this City, designed, as we are informed, for the Lord Clive, as a Present from his Lordship to the Nabob of Bengal. (“An Historical Detail of Publick Occurrences, &c.,” The Weekly Amusement [1765], 4:37)

 

This Morning at ten o’Clock, the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor and the Committee, consisting of fix Aldermen and 12 Common Council Men, went in Procession from Guildhall, attended by the Recorder, Sheriffs, Chamberlain, and other City Officers, to Savile House, and presented to his Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester the Freedom of this City in a Gold Box of very curious workmanship . . . (“Ode for His Majesty’s Birthday, June 4, 1765,” The Weekly Amusement [1765]: 4:94)

 

 

One of the gateways of this palace has an arch of curious workmanship, and in the tower over it is kept the magazine for the county militia. (England Described: Or, The Traveller’s Companion [London: R. Baldwin and J. Prescott, 1776] 164)

 

 

A sword of Gen. Moreau’s, and one of Marshal Duckner’s.—in another room are various specimens of plate armour, helmets, and weapons, some Indian armour of curious workmanship, composed of steel ringlets, similar to the hauberk worn by the Knights Templars, but not so heavy, and the helmets are of a different construction; . . .  (“The Prince of Wales’s Armoury, at Carlton House,” La Belle Assemblée 2, no. 9 [August 1810], 102)

 

Barabbas (Bar Abba) as a Common Personal Name

  

27:16: Barabbas, Βαραββᾶν.

 

Bar Abba בר אבא “son of Abba,” a common personal name.

 

Babylonian Talmud Berakot 18B: Funds for orphans had been deposited with the father of Samuel († 254). When his soul entered into rest, Samuel was not with him. He was called a son who consumes orphan funds (from the deposit). He went out to his father at the cemetery. He cried out to them (the dead), “I’m looking for Abba” (so his father was called). They answered, “There are many Abbas here.” He cried out, “I’m looking for Abba bar Abba!” (Samuels grandfather was also called Abba.) They answered, “There are also many Abbas bar Abba here.” He cried out, “I’m looking for Abba bar Abba, the father of Samuel. Where is he?” They answered, “He has ascended into the heavenly academy.… (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1186)