Mark 15:6

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Previous Verse < Mark 15 > Next Verse

Now at the feast he used to release unto them one prisoner, whom they asked of him. (ASV)

Pro

Lack Of Historical Support

The Privilegium Paschale is the claim that there was a custom that at Passover the Roman administration would release any prisoner at the request of the population of Jerusalem. We all know the horrific atrocities that the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of Christians over the centuries due to the Biblical belief that it was the choice of the Jewish people to kill Jesus.

There is no evidence outside of the Gospels that confirms this custom as happening in Jerusalem or indeed in any other part of the Roman Empire. I believe that one piece of evidence stands out above all others in regard to the authenticity of this custom, and that is the fact that Josephus is silent about this practice.

Anyone who is familiar with Josephus knows that he was particularly enthusiastic about recording all the privileges that the Roman government had given to the Jews, it seems highly unlikely that Josephus would have failed to mention this notable privilege if it had existed (Brandon. p. 259).

The custom alluded to is wholly unknown (Montefiore. p.363).

“There is absolutely no evidence that the pardoning or release of a prisoner had ever occurred, even once, before the time of Pilate” (Husband. p.111) and

There seems to be no instance on record, either from Rome or from the provinces, in which a Roman officer pardoned any person who had been convicted of a crime (Husband. p.112).

Also, Now this custom is not attested to anywhere outside of the New Testament, whether in connection with Pilate or in connection with some other governor of Judea (Legasse. p.68).

The supposed custom of setting a prisoner free at the feast of the Passover is referred to in a different manner by the Matthew and Mark on the one hand, and by John on the other. Luke nowhere mentions such a custom, in fact Luke 23:17 is a very late interpolation (Legasse p.143) made at a time when the belief had come to exist that a legal obligation compelled Pilate to comply with an established custom. In fact, the NIV doesn’t even print it, going straight from v16 to v 18, without a v 17.

If we actually read the two references to the “custom” in Mark 15:6-8 and Matthew 27:15-17, (KJV) we find that there isn’t any mention of a Jewish custom, or a Roman concession, that would make it binding on the governor to set a prisoner free.

Mark 15:6-8: Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.

Matthew 27:15-17 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? These references give no background of how, why, or when the practice of releasing a prisoner at Passover came into being. The claim that Pilate was in the habit of ingratiating himself with the provincial population is contrary to the image bloodthirsty tyrant that we get of Pilate from other sources, such as Josephus and others.

The telling of the Privilegium Paschale fable had become so embedded in the imagination of Christians that the author of John’s Gospel shows a development from a gratuitous gesture by Pilate in Mark and Matthew, to a fully fledged custom. For John, Pilate’s nature would have to take a back seat as he would have had to comply with all established customs. John informs us that it wasn’t in fact the “wont” of the governor to release a prisoner it was a Jewish Custom :

John 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

Apologists have picked up on this subtle difference and claim that there was an established Jewish custom that proves that the Privilegium Paschale is accurate. They believe that the mention of a Jewish custom in the Mishnah Pesahim 8:6, which says that Jews in Jerusalem who were discharged from prison on the eve of the Passover celebration were permitted to take part in the eating of the paschal lamb. But this regulation has not the slightest bearing on the case reported in the Gospels. It refers to an unspecified number of people who were let out of jail too late to be present at the slaughtering of the lamb, but in time to attend the evening meal.

So as far as the Privilegium Paschale being an established custom is concerned, this Jewish custom was so well known that the Jews, usually meticulous about recording the details of national observances, have failed to preserve any trace of, or reference to, this “custom” (Winter. p.134).

The stipulation provides for the admission of such people to the festive table on the night of the fifteenth Nisan. The synoptic Gospels report that Barabbas as released after that night. Also, in all four canonical narratives it is a question of liberating just one prisoner. Mishnah Pesahim specifies no number, but it is clear that the ordinance refers to any quantity of persons who happened to be discharged from prison in time to participate in the meal (Winter. p. 132).

There is only one thing in the Gospel accounts that is agreed upon by all evangelists.

Mark 15:6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.

Matthew 27:15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.

Luke 23:25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

John 18:39-40 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

The one single thing that they all agree on is that it was entirely the free choice of the Jewish population who was to be set free. If this is true then it is surprising to find that Pilate should have limited the people's choice to two possibilities, the release of Jesus or Barabbas. We read in the Gospels that there were at least two other prisoners in Pilate's hands, awaiting crucifixion, namely the two men who were eventually crucified with Jesus. Why weren’t these two included if the people could choose any condemned prisoner at all?

Whilst the evangelists state explicitly that the crowd was free to demand from Pilate the pardon of any prisoner, yet at the same time they imply that the choice was limited to two individuals. The offer to choose between two persons only in fact denies the free exercise of the privilege of the people's will. On this point the Gospels are self-contradictory in their reports.

Imagine if the Privilegium Paschale was actually true, what would the practice of such a custom do to the efficient governing of a Roman province? Can you imagine the scenario? Hypothetically speaking, this custom allows the possibility that a man who is the leader of a massive group of revolutionaries, who may have murdered dozens of Roman soldiers, could simply be allowed to go free at the request of a sympathetic population!

Pilate, who is already convinced of Jesus’ innocence, has to resort to an otherwise unknown tradition in order to do what he knew was right? If Pilate really wanted Jesus released he could simply have released him, after all it was he that ruled over Judea and not the Sanhedrin. We are asked to believe that Pilate was stupid enough to release a popular resistance fighter (Barabbas). How would he justify this to the emperor Tiberius?

The Privilegium Paschale appears to have been invented to show that the Jews ultimately had the chance to save Jesus and not only did their leaders conspire to have Jesus arrested and executed, but the Jewish population in general are equally guilty of murdering the Lord God Jesus.

Brandon S G F. Jesus and the Zealots Manchester Uni Press 1967.

Danby H. The Mishnah Oxford Uni Press, 1933.

Husband R W. The Pardoning of Prisoners by Pilate , American Journal of Theology , vol.21, 1917, pp.110-116.

Legasse S. The Trial of Jesus SCM Press LTD, London 1997.

Montefiore C G. The Synoptic Gospels London, 1909.

Winter P. The Trial of Jesus Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1974

Equinox 2006.08.24 (used with permission of the author, Brian from the EvC forums).


Theological/Literary Motivation

In combination with the lack of Historical support for The Privilegium Paschale is Literary evidence in "Mark", the original Gospel, that it was a Literary Creation. Josephus describes a situation of increasing Jewish resistance to Roman taxation in the first century leading to eventual Rebellion which led to the Destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem and many Jews by Rome. "Mark's" presentation has the following events which appear to be commentary on the Historical mistake of the Jews to choose Rebellion:

1) Jesus explains that the Jews should pay tax to Caesar.

2) When Jesus is arrested he complains that he is being treated like he was leading a Rebellion.

3) In the Climactic scene of the Gospel, Rome gives the Jews a Choice between Barabbas, who leads Rebellion, and Jesus, who said pay tax to Caesar.

4) "Barabbas" in Aramaic means "son of the father".

5) The Jews choose the Rebel Barabbas.

6) The peaceful Jesus is destroyed by the Romans along with the Rebels.

--JoeWallack 09:23, 25 Aug 2006 (CDT)

Con

The "Privilegium Paschale" marks the historical core of a fictional story (parable)

John 18:39 and Mishnah Peshaim 8:3

Disagree about the above negated correlation between the Mishnah Peshaim 8:6 and John 18:39. Mishnah Peshaim only makes sense when there is a significant number of released prisoners, and John 18:39 indicates a custom of passover amnesty. So these both records match up perfectly. Furthermore, the amnesty custom cannot be the invention of Pilatus because roman prefects did not have the authorisation to amnesty arbitrarily.

Two different records of the "privilegium paschale"

Whilst John's statements use to be very precise the mention of the privilegium paschale is imprecise and seems to have it's own history of origin.

The Barabbas story - a parable about "old Israel" and it's choice

A number of facts indicate that the Barabbas story is not historical:

a) The aramaic word Bar-Abbas is not a name, it just means "Son of the father" and this denotation forms a remarkable contrast to what Jesus is going to become during his tale of woe: "Son of god"

b) In Matthew this guy even has the name "Jesus" according to the most trustable manuscripts.

c) Pilatus would never have freed a rebel and known murderer.

In all Barabbas appears as both: the mundane, rebellious mirror image of Jesus and the icon of the jewish future up to the Jewish War 66-70. The story wants to show that Israel got the choice when Jesus came to Jerusalem, and chose the violent, "earthly", putative saviour and rejected the gentle, real savior, the son of god: "Crucify him". As seen above, this parable does not appear to be historical.

The Barabbas story and the "Privilegium Paschale" The Privilegium Paschale can be verified much better than the story about Jesus and Barabbas, and that's why it appears to be most reasonable not to throw out the baby with the bath water by taking both as not historical but to divide between the custom of passover amnesty and the Barabbas story. Hence we find a fictional story with a historic initial point, just as many parables use to have.


Strack/Billerbeck.:Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch,in 6 Bde. '86

Neutral

Attempts have been made to justify its historical accuracy. There have been various attempts to uphold the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts, Roman and Jewish records have been ransacked in the search for supporting evidence, but the results of these efforts have been negative (Winter. p.131). Their apparent favourite piece of 'evidence' is a reference to a document referred to as Papyrus Florentinus 61.

There is evidence in the papyrus that a Roman official in Egypt stopped the scourging of a certain suspect at the population's request but we do not know whether legal proceedings had already been instituted when the culprit's release was ordered. But this is immaterial since the person in question had not been accused of a capital offence. It is clear that this incident does not reflect a custom similar to the Privilegium Paschale .


On another note, the name of the released prisoner may be of interest. Was it chosen arbitrarily, or was it made up to make a point? I heard that "Bar" means "Son of", while "abba" means "father". Could someone check on that for me? If that's true, then was the name chosen to remind everyone of the fact that Jesus could have been free, if but the Jews decided otherwise?

Equinox, 2006.08.24

External links