The Barabbas episode appears
in the B source of Mark, and so we are not surprised to find that Bultmann
(HST, p. 272) characterizes it as legendary. Yet, since the Johannine account
and perhaps the Lucan account may stem from a tradition independent of Mark’s,
caution seems to be demanded. There is legitimate reason for uncertainty about
the privilegium paschale (Note on
39), and thus one may question whether there was a choice between Jesus and
Barabbas. But we think that the evidence points, at least, to the historicity
of the release of a guerrilla warrior named Barabbas at the time when Jesus was
condemned. Otherwise it is too difficult to explain why the story was invented
and how it found its way independently into diverse pre-Gospel traditions.
(Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI): Introduction,
Translation, and Notes [AYB 29A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008],
871-72)
39. you have a custom that I release someone … at Passover. There is no
extra-biblical confirmation for this custom to which the Gospels bear witness
(Luke alone is ambiguous since 23:17 may be a scribal addition); and the
historical correctness of the Gospel reports is hotly debated (see Blinzler, Trial, pp. 218–21, versus Winter, Trial, pp. 91–94). What type of custom
or practice did the evangelists have in mind? The Synoptics describe this as a
practice of Pilate (Mark 15:6; [Luke 23:17]) or of the governor (Matt 27:15);
John describes it as a Jewish custom. For John it is a Passover custom (whence
the name privilegium paschale), and
presumably this is what the Synoptics mean also when they use the expression
“at the feast.” (It is not impossible that the custom existed at the other
pilgrimage feasts as well; but amnesty fits the general theme of release from
Egypt that characterizes Passover.) Are we then to think of an annual amnesty
peculiar to Palestine and acknowledged by all the Roman governors; or are we to
think of a practice peculiar to Pilate’s reign, meant to better his relation
with his Jewish subjects? From the Gospels we get the impression that the
amnesty is not limited to a certain class of crimes, for Barabbas who is
released is described as a murderer and a revolutionary! R. W. Husband, American Journal of Theology 21 (1917),
110–16, has tried to narrow down the implausible scope of the amnesty by
suggesting that Barabbas had not been found guilty but was accused and awaiting
trial—thus he and Jesus, the two candidates for the amnesty, would have been at
the same stage of legal proceedings. Yet the fact that two revolutionary
bandits were executed together with Jesus suggests that the fate of those
involved in the recent insurrection (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19) had been decided.
The frenzied interest in having Barabbas released would be more explicable if
he were on his way to death.
C. B. Chavel, JBL 60 (1941),
273–78, and others have sought to substantiate the existence of an amnesty by
the reference in Mishnah Pesahim 8:6,
that speaks of the need of slaughtering a paschal lamb for one whom “they
promised to release from prison” (on Passover Eve). Chavel argues that the
reference is to political prisoners in the time of Roman rule and that the
Romans may have taken over the custom from the Hasmoneans (the priest-rulers of
Palestine in the 2nd and 1st centuries b.c.). But obviously this passage is
capable of explanations that have nothing to do with a privilegium paschale. Some have found an analogy in Livy’s report (History V 13) of the lectisternium, an eight-day religious
feast, one feature of which was a release of prisoners. A more likely analogy
is the incident that took place in Egypt in a.d. 85 when the governor released
a prisoner to the people (Deissmann, LFAE, p. 269). However, many would agree
with H. A. Riggs, JBL 64 (1945), 419–28, in the negative judgment he passes on
the value of the proposed parallels. While there is considerable evidence in
antiquity for occasional amnesties, the evidence of an amnesty for serious
crimes at an annual feast is lacking.
to
release for you. The “for you” is omitted in Tatian and
appears as a genitive, not as a dative, in some witnesses. It may not be
original.
‘the
King of the Jews’. See Note on vs. 33. Pilate now understands
that Jesus claims no political kingship, for he has found Jesus innocent. Why
then, as conceived by the evangelist,
does Pilate persist in giving Jesus this title? Some have suggested that he is
being sarcastic, but he would scarcely choose to be offensive if he is
sincerely trying to have Jesus released. (Even though the evangelist is not
interested in writing a psychological study of the prefect, we must suppose
that Pilate is presented as acting rationally.) Others have thought that Pilate
is using the title to appeal to the nationalistic sense of the crowd—the crowd
was interested in revolutionaries like Barabbas, and Pilate is pointing out
that Jesus too is a hero. This explanation may fit Mark 15:9 where Pilate
addresses himself to a crowd that has come up seeking the release of a prisoner
jailed for insurrection; but it does not fit John where Pilate has declared
that Jesus is innocent of political crime and where he is addressing himself
not to a crowd that could be swayed but to “the Jews” who are Jesus’ enemies.
Perhaps Pilate foresees that they will not opt for the release of Jesus and he
wants to make “the Jews” implicitly renounce their expectation of “the King of
the Jews.” This motive is certainly involved in 19:15. In any case the present
episode puts more emphasis on what “the Jews” are forced to do than on Pilate’s
motivation: “the Jews” are forced to prefer a bandit to their king. (Ibid.,
854-56)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
