Question:
In several ancient Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew (specifically Matthew 27:16–17), the prisoner’s full name is listed as Jesus Barabbas, i.e., “Jesus, son of the father”, which means this fabricated narrative perfectly mimics the ancient Jewish ritual of the Scapegoat from the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) in which the High Priest is presented with two identical goats. One goat is chosen by a lot to be sacrificed to purge the sins of the community. The other goat (the scapegoat) has the sins of the community cast upon it and is released alive into the wilderness. Early Church fathers, like Origen, openly recognised this symbolic parallel.
Also, there is absolutely no historical record of a Roman custom called the “Paschal Pardon”. Historians note that Pontius Pilate was a famously brutal, unyielding governor who routinely executed Jewish dissidents without a trial. The idea that he would release a known, violent anti-Roman insurrectionist (which Barabbas is described as) just to please a crowd contradicts everything known about Roman administrative policy in occupied Judea. How do you justify the narratives of the Gospels?
Answer:
It is fairly likely that the reading Jesus Barrabas (rather than simply Barabbas) is a correct one. As for your proposal, a general rule of logic is that in any situation, the most obvious explanation is usually (but not always!) the correct one. The obvious explanation of the story of Barrabas is that it is told because that is what happened. The name Jesus was a common one at that time—in fact very common. The name Barrabas (which means son of his father) was also a common name. This story does not appear fabricated. In fact, when it was first written down, less than thirty years after the event, the majority of those who were there at the trial before Pontius Pilate were still alive. Think about it. If we were to hold an event in front of a crowd today, thirty years from now a large majority will still be alive. If this were a pure fiction, then how could they have shoe-horned this lie into an account which would be read by hundreds, if not thousands, who were there when it happened? This pushes the limits of believability. You call this event, present on all the gospels a fabricated narrative. Where is your evidence for this sheer speculation?
Now, is there a parallel between the story of Jesus and Barrabas and the two goats in the Day of Atonement sacrifice? Yes, there is. But there are dozens of wonderful type/antitype relationships between Old Testament events and events in the life of Jesus. This is because the all-powerful, all-knowing sovereign God caused these historical type/antitype relationships. The snake was lifted up on the wilderness, as Jesus was lifted up, similarly, on a wooden pole. Moses let people through the Red Sea to be freed from slavery, as Jesus asks us to be baptized to be freed from sin. David brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem with great rejoicing, and Jesus rode into Jerusalem with great rejoicing. Johah voluntarily gave his life to save Gentiles, and Jesus voluntarily gave up his life to save Gentiles. I could go on for a very long time with these historical types and antitypes. Is there a purposeful parallel between Jesus/Barrabas and the two goats from the Day of Atonement? I believe so. This is just one more example of God intervening in history to show that the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of things in the New Testament. Like Jesus said in John 5:39, concerning the Hebrew Bible that “these things were written about me.”
So, thank you for pointing out another inspiring example of type/antitype between the Old Testament and the life of Jesus. This is further evidence for the inspiration of the Bible and for the fact that Jesus is the Messiah! But, no! This was not a fabrication. The scenario where people invented out of whole cloth concerning an event for which there were still many hundreds of eyewitnesses is a fantastically unlikely one.
On your second point, when you say that there is no historical record of the “Paschal Pardon” you are clearly wrong. This pardon is recorded in what is perhaps the most historically reliable source from the ancient world, which is the Bible. Lack of other evidence is not evidence that this did not happen. 99.9% of everything which happened in ancient times is not recorded. Pilate was a famously brutal governor, as you mention, and the writing of Josephus does confirm this. This story is fully in line with the kind of thing a brutal autocrat would do. He would throw out a bone of kindness as a distraction for the people from his general brutality. And Pilate was definitely NOT trying to free Barrabas. He did not fully understand what was going on amongst the Jews who were trying to get the Romans to do their dirty work. It is clear that he expected them to take Jesus, when presented with a heinous criminal. But, once he made the bargain, he felt compelled to stick with it. For all we know, Barrabas was soon killed by his soldiers. About that, we do not know. Whether this contradicts policy, perhaps it does, but then, killing an innocent man like Jesus also violated Roman policy, and that is what Pilate was trying to avoid. What this account does not contradict is the brutal nature of Pontius Pilate. This account in the four gospels agrees with other sources on how Jesus died, and it is consistent with what we know about Pontius Pilate.
John Oakes
