The Bible as a Historical Source

[M. Porcius Cato]

Given the paucity of secondary source material that is freely available on the web, it's not always possible to link to the relevant scholarly material. If you have JSTOR access and search for 'Barabbas' and 'Paschal', you'll find a few articles that lay out the corroborating evidence for the ancient custom of freeing prisoners at religious festivals. Also, note that I've never maintained that Jewish priests had the power to FORCE Pilate's presentation of Barabbas. There's no support for that claim even in the Synoptics.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I've never maintained that Jewish priests had the power to FORCE Pilate's presentation of Barabbas. There's no support for that claim even in the Synoptics.

Here comes the Gospel According to Mark, a Synoptic (Chapter 15) (Douay-Rheims translation) :

 

"15:6. Now on the festival day he was wont to release unto them one of the prisoners, whomsoever they demanded.

Per diem autem festum dimittere solebat illis unum ex vinctis quemcumque petissent

 

15:7. And there was one called Barabbas, who was put in prison with some seditious men, who in the sedition had committed murder.

Erat autem qui dicebatur Barabbas qui cum seditiosis erat vinctus qui in seditione fecerant homicidium

 

15:8. And when the multitude was come up, they began to desire that he would do as he had ever done unto them.

Et cum ascendisset turba coepit rogare sicut semper faciebat illis

 

15:9. And Pilate answered them and said: Will you that I release to you the king of the Jews?

Pilatus autem respondit eis et dixit vultis dimittam vobis regem Iudaeorum

 

15:10. For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him up out of envy.

Sciebat enim quod per invidiam tradidissent eum summi sacerdotes

 

15:11. But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas to them.

Pontifices autem concitaverunt turbam ut magis Barabban dimitteret eis

 

15:12. And Pilate again answering, saith to them: What will you then that I do to the king of the Jews?

Pilatus autem iterum respondens ait illis quid ergo vultis faciam regi Iudaeorum

 

15:13. But they again cried out: Crucify him.

At illi iterum clamaverunt crucifige eum

 

15:14. And Pilate saith to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more: Crucify him.

Pilatus vero dicebat eis quid enim mali fecit at illi magis clamabant crucifige eum

 

15:15. And so Pilate being willing to satisfy the people, released to them Barabbas: and delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

Pilatus autem volens populo satisfacere dimisit illis Barabban et tradidit Iesum flagellis caesum ut crucifigeretur

 

(Luke is more or less similar)

[M. Porcius Cato]

Very nice, you've shown that Pilate complied with a request. Now, do you have any evidence that Pilate was coerced? It's a critical distinction--the very one that is relevant to whether Pilate was FORCED by Jews to release Barabbas.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Very nice, you've shown that Pilate complied with a request. Now, do you have any evidence that Pilate was coerced? It's a critical distinction--the very one that is relevant to whether Pilate was FORCED by Jews to release Barabbas.

Nice and critical indeed, and here it is. Cline, Magee, me and many others have no problem in seeing it, not only here in Mark 15, but also in other Gosples.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Matthew 27, 15-26 is even clearer (Contemporary English Version):

 

"During Passover the governor always freed a prisoner chosen by the people. At that time a well-known terrorist named Jesus Barabbas was in jail. So when the crowd came together, Pilate asked them, "Which prisoner do you want me to set free? Do you want Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?" Pilate knew that the leaders had brought Jesus to him because they were jealous. While Pilate was judging the case, his wife sent him a message. It said, "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man. I have had nightmares because of him."

But the chief priests and the leaders convinced the crowds to ask for Barabbas to be set free and for Jesus to be killed. Pilate asked the crowd again, "Which of these two men do you want me to set free?"

 

"Barabbas!" they replied.

 

Pilate asked them, "What am I to do with Jesus, who is called the Messiah?"

 

They all yelled, "Nail him to a cross!"

 

Pilate answered, "But what crime has he done?"

 

"Nail him to a cross!" they yelled even louder.

 

Pilate saw that there was nothing he could do and that the people were starting to riot. So he took some water and washed his hands in front of them and said, "I won't have anything to do with killing this man. You are the ones doing it!" Everyone answered, "We and our own families will take the blame for his death!"

 

Pilate set Barabbas free. Then he ordered his soldiers to beat Jesus with a whip and nail him to a cross.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave

I think we're somewhat veering off the main topic here, namely, "The Bible as a Historical Source". Some very valid points have been made by all sides in this debate but what it really boils down to is this - people are perfectly free to interpret the bible in a metaphorical and allegorical sense and fulfill a religious and spiritual need and have been doing so for the last twenty centuries, but when it comes to taking each and every word of the book in a literal sense, the historian is apt to run into some really thick Gordian knots as must be evident to anyone who has followed this debate closely.

John may or may not be more reliable than the other evangelists but I am actually focusing on the book as a whole, not just a particular epistle. It must be evident by now that in taking the bible as a reliable historical source one is treading on very shaky ground indeed. I suppose one could say the same thing about Caesar's Commentaries or Josephus' works, but the difference is that these latter two works, and others like them, do not have rabid fanatics proclaiming their veracity with foam at the edge of their mouths and senile fingers on a nuclear trigger (remember old Ronnie?).

[ASCLEPIADES]

Ave

I think we're somewhat veering off the main topic here, namely, "The Bible as a Historical Source".

Ave, GH

This topic's subtitle is "The Historicity of the Gospels".

 

I think veers had been given by each member's argumentation.

 

Aside from that, I totally agree with your post.

[Gaius Octavius]

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/8215.htm

[Julius Ratus]

Crucifixion was a standard punishment doled out to political offenders. It seems that an attempt is being made here to shift the ball to another court and deliberately pin the crime of deicide on the Jews.

 

Definately not by the writers of the Gospels. They were all Jews, and so were unlikely to be anti-Semites.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Definately not by the writers of the Gospels. They were all Jews, and so were unlikely to be anti-Semites.

 

Salve, JR!

 

You should better check what the Jews think about that, for example here or here (this last domain has recently expired, but it's interesting anyway), or in the Jewish Encyclopaedia.

Edited September 29, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Definately not by the writers of the Gospels. They were all Jews, and so were unlikely to be anti-Semites

None of the Gospel writers identifies himself by name in any of the Gospels. The assumption that the Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John is just what it is - an assumption. Hence we have no proof these works were written by Jews to begin with. Read the links that Asclepiades provided above - carefully.