After listening to the homily on Easter Sunday the priest read that the two men crucified beside Jesus were rebels, not simple petty thieves. This seemed to align with what I'd heard about crucifixion being reserved for only the worst criminals; those who commit crimes against the state, which being rebelling most certainly falls under.
This led me to question what Barabbas did to be on death row (with Pilate supposedly trading Barabbas's life with Jesus's). I assume that he was also a rebel, cause from what I understand, only criminals against the state met such a punishment.
If my conjecture is correct, and Barrabas, like the other two men at Jesus's side, was indeed a rebel, I see that my whole understanding of what happened when the crowds demanded for Jesus's crucifixion.
Rather than looking at their choosing of Barabbas to be in a fit of rage at Jesus's sacrilegious behavior or something that can be attributed to the encouragement of the Pharisees who wanted him dead, it now becomes apparent that, to the crowd, it wasn't a choice between a holy man questioning and challenging their religious beliefs against a coldhearted murderer. Instead, I believe that the context of that choice (assuming it was made at all), was made by Jews who chose to support a violent and bloody path towards their salvation from their oppressors(Rome), over a man who preached change and reform of the status quo while still emphasizing peace and perhaps compromise with the ruling power at the time(his healing of the servant whose ear Peter had cut off, his directive to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's, as well as Pontius Pilate's claim that he did not see the wrong Jesus had done, which he most certainly would've had Jesus advocated for the violent expulsion of the Romans). I feel that this viewpoint is a lot more logical and likely rather than people choosing the murderer Barabbas, they looked to him as a savior and a hero of the people.
I understand that religion can be a highly controversial topic and there may be some who would counter and say that none of these events happened, however for the sake of discussion let's just assume that the Gospel was somewhat based on a historical event and managed to capture a gist of what was happening.
I was hoping that an expert could: 1)Give an accurate translation of what Barabbas was purported to have done (based on the original texts if possible), and confirm or deny my understanding that he too was a rebel.
2)Use the context of the place and the era that Jesus is said to have lived, and perhaps give credence/discredit my conjecture based on what could be seen as typical Jewish/Roman behavior and law at the time.
3)Give an alternative line of reasoning that could explain what appears to be an illogical and brash decision at first glance.(Should you find my line of reasoning to be inaccurate)
Thanks!
The primary passage to consider is Luke 23:18-43. Luke 23:19 describes Barabbas as ‘this man was in cast into prison on account of a certain uprising that occurred in the city, and murder’. The term translated ‘uprising’, στάσις, can refer to anything from a full-scale rebellion, to a riot. In John 18:40 Barabbas is called a λῃστής, which can be translated ‘robber’, but extends to a range of activities that we might translate as ‘bandit, highwayman, brigand’; in some contexts though, it could refer to an irregular combatant (guerrilla, terrorist, etc..). Given the political climate around the time of Jesus’ death, and the occurrence of both those terms, it is likely that Barabbas was leading figure involved in insurrectionist violence.
The two criminals crucified with Jesus are called λῃστής not in Luke, but in parallel passages in Mk 15:27 // Matt 27:38. Again, the term can range from ‘thieves’ (though violence is in view), through to insurrectionists.
If we consider that the tradition about releasing a prisoner is authentic and that a figure named Barabbas guilty of insurrection was being held there, the construction of the narrative in Luke and the other gospels suggests that the cries of the crowd in general were instigated by leading figures from the chief priests and other factions; indeed, the crowds gathered for this judicial decision are very likely pro-establishment supporters who have been assembled primarily by the Judean leadership to voice their sentiments. Why then would they want Barabbas, an insurrectionist, released in place of Jesus of Nazareth? Presumably they consider Jesus a ‘live’ threat, both to political stability and religious status quo, whereas Barabbas is effectively neutralised. Sure, Barabbas might take up his insurrectionist ways again, but he has failed once and is unlikely to gain strong support. Neither does Barabbas enjoy anything like the reputation Jesus appears to at this time.
I could say more about the literary, figurative, and theological shape of the narrative, but I feel like that’s a good start on your question.
A few points to consider:
Jesus was followed about by huge crowds and in response to this the Romans sent spies to follow him and report etc.
Jesus was welcomed as 'King' on entrance to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday (He tells them to not call Him that as subsequent events showed why).
The Zealots were terrorists to the Romans and would stab passing Romans and then disappear into the crowds so the Romans were angry at this rebellion.
Pilate was a real piece of work and contrary to his laid back 'I don't want innocent blood' attitude... he was drenched in innocent blood and one of the few Roman governors that were ever recalled to Rome for being too severe with a subject people.
Barabbas appears to be a disreputable person and likely a known criminal who preyed on the Jeish population. Pilate is playing a typical Roman game - a test really - to see if the Jews would rather choose their supposed king and thus prove that they were rebellious and repercussions (Roman style) and punishments would follow. Or would they show that they rejected this rebel whom they called King ( a big no no that to the Romans) and was from the royal line of David. "better one innocent man suffer than for the whole population to suffer..."
Forty years later Jerusalem would be totally destroyed stone by stone as foretold by Jesus and the Diaspora of the Jews began. A million were either enslaved or killed in the fighting etc.
The Romans used crucifixion as punishment for rebellion etc. This way their way of showing people that rebellion was futile. They mockingly put the sign INRI on the cross ' Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews.
As an added point the Romans generally treated repeated rebellions by a subject people by rounding up members of the royal blood and executing them in the belief that without a royal leader to coalesce around that the rebellion would suffer from 'divide and conquer'.