Is the story of Barabbas possibly fabricated?
Note: I believe that the following question is a question of hermeneutics, because exegesis is defined as "a critical interpretation or explanation of the Bible".
I would post the relevant passages, but they are too long to post. They are Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:15-25, and John 18:39-40.
I heard Richard Carrier argue that the story of Barabbas is fabricated and based on the ritual in the Mosaic Law where one lamb was killed as a sacrifice and another was let into the wilderness, found in Leviticus 16.
He says that the name Barabbas is an extremely unusual name, and means "son of a father", which corresponds to what Jesus Christ was, the Son of God the Father. Jesus and Barabbas, therefore, were both "lambs" of the same sort. Added to this is the fact that Barabbas was an insurrectionist, and Jesus was accused of potentially instigating an insurrection, which was ostensibly why He was crucified.
He also says that there is no record of the custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover outside of the Gospels, and so it was most likely fabricated, adding credence to the idea that the story was invented.
Carrier says that Barabbas was the lamb that was freed set free, and that Jesus was the lamb that was killed as a sacrifice.
Is this theory substantiated?
Thank you.
john matthew luke mark gospels
asked Dec 7 at 18:28
CMK
1968
|
show 4 more comments
Note: I believe that the following question is a question of hermeneutics, because exegesis is defined as "a critical interpretation or explanation of the Bible".
I would post the relevant passages, but they are too long to post. They are Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:15-25, and John 18:39-40.
I heard Richard Carrier argue that the story of Barabbas is fabricated and based on the ritual in the Mosaic Law where one lamb was killed as a sacrifice and another was let into the wilderness, found in Leviticus 16.
He says that the name Barabbas is an extremely unusual name, and means "son of a father", which corresponds to what Jesus Christ was, the Son of God the Father. Jesus and Barabbas, therefore, were both "lambs" of the same sort. Added to this is the fact that Barabbas was an insurrectionist, and Jesus was accused of potentially instigating an insurrection, which was ostensibly why He was crucified.
He also says that there is no record of the custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover outside of the Gospels, and so it was most likely fabricated, adding credence to the idea that the story was invented.
Carrier says that Barabbas was the lamb that was freed set free, and that Jesus was the lamb that was killed as a sacrifice.
Is this theory substantiated?
Thank you.
john matthew luke mark gospels
asked Dec 7 at 18:28
CMK
1968
Where is hermeneutics defined that way? What are you quoting? Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:35
I looked it up on Bing (which, incidentally, apparently uses the dictionary of Google, which I find unreliable in certain cases, but not with technical theological terms), and it corresponded to a definition that I found using a relatively unknown dictionary application my phone, which said that hermeneutics is the branch of theology dealing with the principles of exegesis. This is why I define "exegesis", rather than "hermeneutics".
– CMK
Dec 7 at 19:55
Would you mind editing the question and just leaving that part off as it isn't documented and it isn't necessary for the answer. For those of us used to being sensitive to unverified assertions that's a bit jarring. Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:59
1
According to what I have just recently read on Wikipedia, "Abba" was used as a given name in the first century at least once, as has been found in a burial site in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, and it was a common name in the Gemara section of the Talmud, which dates from between 200 and 400 AD. This makes it much more likely that Barabbas was a literal name, and not a contrivance. A scholarly book has been given as a reference. This solves a large part of the problem, I believe. .
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
1
Combined with Alb's evidence that the practice of releasing prisoners at some special event was possibly mentioned in a source apart from the four Gospels, the issue seems almost resolved
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
|
show 4 more comments
Note: I believe that the following question is a question of hermeneutics, because exegesis is defined as "a critical interpretation or explanation of the Bible".
I would post the relevant passages, but they are too long to post. They are Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:15-25, and John 18:39-40.
I heard Richard Carrier argue that the story of Barabbas is fabricated and based on the ritual in the Mosaic Law where one lamb was killed as a sacrifice and another was let into the wilderness, found in Leviticus 16.
He says that the name Barabbas is an extremely unusual name, and means "son of a father", which corresponds to what Jesus Christ was, the Son of God the Father. Jesus and Barabbas, therefore, were both "lambs" of the same sort. Added to this is the fact that Barabbas was an insurrectionist, and Jesus was accused of potentially instigating an insurrection, which was ostensibly why He was crucified.
He also says that there is no record of the custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover outside of the Gospels, and so it was most likely fabricated, adding credence to the idea that the story was invented.
Carrier says that Barabbas was the lamb that was freed set free, and that Jesus was the lamb that was killed as a sacrifice.
Is this theory substantiated?
Thank you.
john matthew luke mark gospels
asked Dec 7 at 18:28
CMK
1968
Note: I believe that the following question is a question of hermeneutics, because exegesis is defined as "a critical interpretation or explanation of the Bible".
I would post the relevant passages, but they are too long to post. They are Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:15-25, and John 18:39-40.
I heard Richard Carrier argue that the story of Barabbas is fabricated and based on the ritual in the Mosaic Law where one lamb was killed as a sacrifice and another was let into the wilderness, found in Leviticus 16.
He says that the name Barabbas is an extremely unusual name, and means "son of a father", which corresponds to what Jesus Christ was, the Son of God the Father. Jesus and Barabbas, therefore, were both "lambs" of the same sort. Added to this is the fact that Barabbas was an insurrectionist, and Jesus was accused of potentially instigating an insurrection, which was ostensibly why He was crucified.
He also says that there is no record of the custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover outside of the Gospels, and so it was most likely fabricated, adding credence to the idea that the story was invented.
Carrier says that Barabbas was the lamb that was freed set free, and that Jesus was the lamb that was killed as a sacrifice.
Is this theory substantiated?
Thank you.
john matthew luke mark gospels
john matthew luke mark gospels
asked Dec 7 at 18:28
CMK
1968
asked Dec 7 at 18:28
CMK
1968
asked Dec 7 at 18:28
CMK
1968
asked Dec 7 at 18:28
CMK
1968
asked Dec 7 at 18:28
CMK
1968
1968
Where is hermeneutics defined that way? What are you quoting? Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:35
I looked it up on Bing (which, incidentally, apparently uses the dictionary of Google, which I find unreliable in certain cases, but not with technical theological terms), and it corresponded to a definition that I found using a relatively unknown dictionary application my phone, which said that hermeneutics is the branch of theology dealing with the principles of exegesis. This is why I define "exegesis", rather than "hermeneutics".
– CMK
Dec 7 at 19:55
Would you mind editing the question and just leaving that part off as it isn't documented and it isn't necessary for the answer. For those of us used to being sensitive to unverified assertions that's a bit jarring. Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:59
1
According to what I have just recently read on Wikipedia, "Abba" was used as a given name in the first century at least once, as has been found in a burial site in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, and it was a common name in the Gemara section of the Talmud, which dates from between 200 and 400 AD. This makes it much more likely that Barabbas was a literal name, and not a contrivance. A scholarly book has been given as a reference. This solves a large part of the problem, I believe. .
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
1
Combined with Alb's evidence that the practice of releasing prisoners at some special event was possibly mentioned in a source apart from the four Gospels, the issue seems almost resolved
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
|
show 4 more comments
Where is hermeneutics defined that way? What are you quoting? Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:35
I looked it up on Bing (which, incidentally, apparently uses the dictionary of Google, which I find unreliable in certain cases, but not with technical theological terms), and it corresponded to a definition that I found using a relatively unknown dictionary application my phone, which said that hermeneutics is the branch of theology dealing with the principles of exegesis. This is why I define "exegesis", rather than "hermeneutics".
– CMK
Dec 7 at 19:55
Would you mind editing the question and just leaving that part off as it isn't documented and it isn't necessary for the answer. For those of us used to being sensitive to unverified assertions that's a bit jarring. Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:59
1
According to what I have just recently read on Wikipedia, "Abba" was used as a given name in the first century at least once, as has been found in a burial site in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, and it was a common name in the Gemara section of the Talmud, which dates from between 200 and 400 AD. This makes it much more likely that Barabbas was a literal name, and not a contrivance. A scholarly book has been given as a reference. This solves a large part of the problem, I believe. .
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
1
Combined with Alb's evidence that the practice of releasing prisoners at some special event was possibly mentioned in a source apart from the four Gospels, the issue seems almost resolved
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
Where is hermeneutics defined that way? What are you quoting? Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:35
Where is hermeneutics defined that way? What are you quoting? Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:35
I looked it up on Bing (which, incidentally, apparently uses the dictionary of Google, which I find unreliable in certain cases, but not with technical theological terms), and it corresponded to a definition that I found using a relatively unknown dictionary application my phone, which said that hermeneutics is the branch of theology dealing with the principles of exegesis. This is why I define "exegesis", rather than "hermeneutics".
– CMK
Dec 7 at 19:55
I looked it up on Bing (which, incidentally, apparently uses the dictionary of Google, which I find unreliable in certain cases, but not with technical theological terms), and it corresponded to a definition that I found using a relatively unknown dictionary application my phone, which said that hermeneutics is the branch of theology dealing with the principles of exegesis. This is why I define "exegesis", rather than "hermeneutics".
– CMK
Dec 7 at 19:55
Would you mind editing the question and just leaving that part off as it isn't documented and it isn't necessary for the answer. For those of us used to being sensitive to unverified assertions that's a bit jarring. Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:59
Would you mind editing the question and just leaving that part off as it isn't documented and it isn't necessary for the answer. For those of us used to being sensitive to unverified assertions that's a bit jarring. Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:59
1
1
According to what I have just recently read on Wikipedia, "Abba" was used as a given name in the first century at least once, as has been found in a burial site in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, and it was a common name in the Gemara section of the Talmud, which dates from between 200 and 400 AD. This makes it much more likely that Barabbas was a literal name, and not a contrivance. A scholarly book has been given as a reference. This solves a large part of the problem, I believe. .
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
According to what I have just recently read on Wikipedia, "Abba" was used as a given name in the first century at least once, as has been found in a burial site in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, and it was a common name in the Gemara section of the Talmud, which dates from between 200 and 400 AD. This makes it much more likely that Barabbas was a literal name, and not a contrivance. A scholarly book has been given as a reference. This solves a large part of the problem, I believe. .
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
1
1
Combined with Alb's evidence that the practice of releasing prisoners at some special event was possibly mentioned in a source apart from the four Gospels, the issue seems almost resolved
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
Combined with Alb's evidence that the practice of releasing prisoners at some special event was possibly mentioned in a source apart from the four Gospels, the issue seems almost resolved
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
There would be no reason to doubt the veracity of the bible on the subject of the story of Barabbas and the custom of releasing a prison from prison at the time of the Passover. There is in fact evidence of the custom in the Mishnah. See snips of article below.
Citation:
Chavel, Charles B. “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 60, no. 3, 1941, pp. 273–278. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3262626.
answered Dec 7 at 19:42
alb
1,619214
That is what they call a "canonical answer". It answers the question compellingly and is the place to go to find the answer. +1 way up!
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:51
Another excellent answer and good quote. +1.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 7 at 20:05
Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, seeing as prison time is not a punishment to be found in the Old Testament law or elsewhere, and so it does answer the obejction that there was no reference of the cusrom outside of the four Gospels. However, that was only a minor objection, the main objection being the similarity between the name of Barabbas and the title of Jesus Christ as Son of God (the Father), and that Barabbas was an extremely uncommon name at that time. How would you answer these objections? Thank you.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:13
@CMK It is possible that the name of the character was changed in order to highlight certain themes/analogies, but there is no reason to throw out the whole story from that. The Bible indeed changes these kinds of details sometimes for the sake of the narrative.
– Nacht
Dec 8 at 0:10
@Nacht Thank you. I have also considered this.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:17
|
show 5 more comments
The question contains a logical fallacy. The fact that something is not mentioned in secular records does not make it false. That is an argument from silence based on what is unknown. The Bible record can be treated as equally reliable (I believe more reliable) than secular records which are often very patchy.
The interesting theological point about the release of Barabbas is the miniature of salvation. Barabbas was a convicted felon; Jesus was sinless (Heb 4:15, 7:26-28, etc). Jesus was executed so that Barabbas was released.
This is exactly what happens to us as sinners (Rom 3:10-18). Jesus was treated as we deserve so that we will be treated as He deserved!
answered Dec 7 at 20:12
Mac's Musings
4,280116
Thank you for your answer. I understand that the last argument is an argument from silence. Perhaps that's why Carrier seemed to have used it as a side-argument to the main argument, that Barabbas' name means "son of a father", and Christ was the Son of God the Father. Also, what you said about Barabbas being released while Christ was executed, although I certainly agree with you, is the exact reason why Carrier says says that the story is invented. How would you answer this objection?
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:19
I would ask - why did he "invent" the story about Barabbas being invented. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest this. That is, there is evidence for the assertion.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 8 at 6:18
add a comment |
Alb has already answered the question with quality sources but I want to add a little more to this matter:
if every event in the scriptures that were filled with symbolic meaning were scrapped as artifice then there would be little Bible left! That is how they work. But consider, the hand of man is belied by "artifice". That is, what man has done is in jarring contrast, like a tractor in a field, to what God has made. But when the historical passages also have symbolic and prophet images then you know that all these were made with the same divine hand.
"To the Hebrews" explains that Jesus is the animal that died and the scapegoat because he permanently left death.
answered Dec 7 at 20:45
Ruminator
2,6582733
I understand your argument that the correspondence between this story and the ritual with the goats was divine; but the objection that the story was contrived still could be made based upon this information.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:26
But my point was that any story that contains symbols is likewise tossed out which would include most of the scriptures. If "Hacksaw Ridge" contains archetypes does that make it unhistorical?
– Ruminator
Dec 8 at 0:03
1
I agree with this point.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:28
What is your opinion on the fact that Abba was a given name in Israel in the first century, however uncommon, and so a man could have been idenfied by the name "Barabbas"?
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:31
1
It is possible. Thank you for your answer.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 3:09
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("virtualKeyboard", function () {
StackExchange.virtualKeyboard.init("hebrew");
});
}, "virtkeyb");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "320"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36352%2fis-the-story-of-barabbas-possibly-fabricated%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There would be no reason to doubt the veracity of the bible on the subject of the story of Barabbas and the custom of releasing a prison from prison at the time of the Passover. There is in fact evidence of the custom in the Mishnah. See snips of article below.
Citation:
Chavel, Charles B. “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 60, no. 3, 1941, pp. 273–278. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3262626.
answered Dec 7 at 19:42
alb
1,619214
That is what they call a "canonical answer". It answers the question compellingly and is the place to go to find the answer. +1 way up!
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:51
Another excellent answer and good quote. +1.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 7 at 20:05
Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, seeing as prison time is not a punishment to be found in the Old Testament law or elsewhere, and so it does answer the obejction that there was no reference of the cusrom outside of the four Gospels. However, that was only a minor objection, the main objection being the similarity between the name of Barabbas and the title of Jesus Christ as Son of God (the Father), and that Barabbas was an extremely uncommon name at that time. How would you answer these objections? Thank you.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:13
@CMK It is possible that the name of the character was changed in order to highlight certain themes/analogies, but there is no reason to throw out the whole story from that. The Bible indeed changes these kinds of details sometimes for the sake of the narrative.
– Nacht
Dec 8 at 0:10
@Nacht Thank you. I have also considered this.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:17
|
show 5 more comments
There would be no reason to doubt the veracity of the bible on the subject of the story of Barabbas and the custom of releasing a prison from prison at the time of the Passover. There is in fact evidence of the custom in the Mishnah. See snips of article below.
Citation:
Chavel, Charles B. “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 60, no. 3, 1941, pp. 273–278. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3262626.
answered Dec 7 at 19:42
alb
1,619214
That is what they call a "canonical answer". It answers the question compellingly and is the place to go to find the answer. +1 way up!
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:51
Another excellent answer and good quote. +1.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 7 at 20:05
Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, seeing as prison time is not a punishment to be found in the Old Testament law or elsewhere, and so it does answer the obejction that there was no reference of the cusrom outside of the four Gospels. However, that was only a minor objection, the main objection being the similarity between the name of Barabbas and the title of Jesus Christ as Son of God (the Father), and that Barabbas was an extremely uncommon name at that time. How would you answer these objections? Thank you.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:13
@CMK It is possible that the name of the character was changed in order to highlight certain themes/analogies, but there is no reason to throw out the whole story from that. The Bible indeed changes these kinds of details sometimes for the sake of the narrative.
– Nacht
Dec 8 at 0:10
@Nacht Thank you. I have also considered this.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:17
|
show 5 more comments
There would be no reason to doubt the veracity of the bible on the subject of the story of Barabbas and the custom of releasing a prison from prison at the time of the Passover. There is in fact evidence of the custom in the Mishnah. See snips of article below.
Citation:
Chavel, Charles B. “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 60, no. 3, 1941, pp. 273–278. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3262626.
answered Dec 7 at 19:42
alb
1,619214
There would be no reason to doubt the veracity of the bible on the subject of the story of Barabbas and the custom of releasing a prison from prison at the time of the Passover. There is in fact evidence of the custom in the Mishnah. See snips of article below.
Citation:
Chavel, Charles B. “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 60, no. 3, 1941, pp. 273–278. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3262626.
answered Dec 7 at 19:42
alb
1,619214
answered Dec 7 at 19:42
alb
1,619214
answered Dec 7 at 19:42
alb
1,619214
answered Dec 7 at 19:42
alb
1,619214
1,619214
That is what they call a "canonical answer". It answers the question compellingly and is the place to go to find the answer. +1 way up!
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:51
Another excellent answer and good quote. +1.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 7 at 20:05
Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, seeing as prison time is not a punishment to be found in the Old Testament law or elsewhere, and so it does answer the obejction that there was no reference of the cusrom outside of the four Gospels. However, that was only a minor objection, the main objection being the similarity between the name of Barabbas and the title of Jesus Christ as Son of God (the Father), and that Barabbas was an extremely uncommon name at that time. How would you answer these objections? Thank you.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:13
@CMK It is possible that the name of the character was changed in order to highlight certain themes/analogies, but there is no reason to throw out the whole story from that. The Bible indeed changes these kinds of details sometimes for the sake of the narrative.
– Nacht
Dec 8 at 0:10
@Nacht Thank you. I have also considered this.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:17
|
show 5 more comments
That is what they call a "canonical answer". It answers the question compellingly and is the place to go to find the answer. +1 way up!
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:51
Another excellent answer and good quote. +1.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 7 at 20:05
Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, seeing as prison time is not a punishment to be found in the Old Testament law or elsewhere, and so it does answer the obejction that there was no reference of the cusrom outside of the four Gospels. However, that was only a minor objection, the main objection being the similarity between the name of Barabbas and the title of Jesus Christ as Son of God (the Father), and that Barabbas was an extremely uncommon name at that time. How would you answer these objections? Thank you.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:13
@CMK It is possible that the name of the character was changed in order to highlight certain themes/analogies, but there is no reason to throw out the whole story from that. The Bible indeed changes these kinds of details sometimes for the sake of the narrative.
– Nacht
Dec 8 at 0:10
@Nacht Thank you. I have also considered this.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:17
That is what they call a "canonical answer". It answers the question compellingly and is the place to go to find the answer. +1 way up!
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:51
That is what they call a "canonical answer". It answers the question compellingly and is the place to go to find the answer. +1 way up!
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:51
Another excellent answer and good quote. +1.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 7 at 20:05
Another excellent answer and good quote. +1.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 7 at 20:05
Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, seeing as prison time is not a punishment to be found in the Old Testament law or elsewhere, and so it does answer the obejction that there was no reference of the cusrom outside of the four Gospels. However, that was only a minor objection, the main objection being the similarity between the name of Barabbas and the title of Jesus Christ as Son of God (the Father), and that Barabbas was an extremely uncommon name at that time. How would you answer these objections? Thank you.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:13
Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, seeing as prison time is not a punishment to be found in the Old Testament law or elsewhere, and so it does answer the obejction that there was no reference of the cusrom outside of the four Gospels. However, that was only a minor objection, the main objection being the similarity between the name of Barabbas and the title of Jesus Christ as Son of God (the Father), and that Barabbas was an extremely uncommon name at that time. How would you answer these objections? Thank you.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:13
@CMK It is possible that the name of the character was changed in order to highlight certain themes/analogies, but there is no reason to throw out the whole story from that. The Bible indeed changes these kinds of details sometimes for the sake of the narrative.
– Nacht
Dec 8 at 0:10
@CMK It is possible that the name of the character was changed in order to highlight certain themes/analogies, but there is no reason to throw out the whole story from that. The Bible indeed changes these kinds of details sometimes for the sake of the narrative.
– Nacht
Dec 8 at 0:10
@Nacht Thank you. I have also considered this.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:17
@Nacht Thank you. I have also considered this.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:17
|
show 5 more comments
The question contains a logical fallacy. The fact that something is not mentioned in secular records does not make it false. That is an argument from silence based on what is unknown. The Bible record can be treated as equally reliable (I believe more reliable) than secular records which are often very patchy.
The interesting theological point about the release of Barabbas is the miniature of salvation. Barabbas was a convicted felon; Jesus was sinless (Heb 4:15, 7:26-28, etc). Jesus was executed so that Barabbas was released.
This is exactly what happens to us as sinners (Rom 3:10-18). Jesus was treated as we deserve so that we will be treated as He deserved!
answered Dec 7 at 20:12
Mac's Musings
4,280116
Thank you for your answer. I understand that the last argument is an argument from silence. Perhaps that's why Carrier seemed to have used it as a side-argument to the main argument, that Barabbas' name means "son of a father", and Christ was the Son of God the Father. Also, what you said about Barabbas being released while Christ was executed, although I certainly agree with you, is the exact reason why Carrier says says that the story is invented. How would you answer this objection?
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:19
I would ask - why did he "invent" the story about Barabbas being invented. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest this. That is, there is evidence for the assertion.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 8 at 6:18
add a comment |
The question contains a logical fallacy. The fact that something is not mentioned in secular records does not make it false. That is an argument from silence based on what is unknown. The Bible record can be treated as equally reliable (I believe more reliable) than secular records which are often very patchy.
The interesting theological point about the release of Barabbas is the miniature of salvation. Barabbas was a convicted felon; Jesus was sinless (Heb 4:15, 7:26-28, etc). Jesus was executed so that Barabbas was released.
This is exactly what happens to us as sinners (Rom 3:10-18). Jesus was treated as we deserve so that we will be treated as He deserved!
answered Dec 7 at 20:12
Mac's Musings
4,280116
Thank you for your answer. I understand that the last argument is an argument from silence. Perhaps that's why Carrier seemed to have used it as a side-argument to the main argument, that Barabbas' name means "son of a father", and Christ was the Son of God the Father. Also, what you said about Barabbas being released while Christ was executed, although I certainly agree with you, is the exact reason why Carrier says says that the story is invented. How would you answer this objection?
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:19
I would ask - why did he "invent" the story about Barabbas being invented. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest this. That is, there is evidence for the assertion.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 8 at 6:18
add a comment |
The question contains a logical fallacy. The fact that something is not mentioned in secular records does not make it false. That is an argument from silence based on what is unknown. The Bible record can be treated as equally reliable (I believe more reliable) than secular records which are often very patchy.
The interesting theological point about the release of Barabbas is the miniature of salvation. Barabbas was a convicted felon; Jesus was sinless (Heb 4:15, 7:26-28, etc). Jesus was executed so that Barabbas was released.
This is exactly what happens to us as sinners (Rom 3:10-18). Jesus was treated as we deserve so that we will be treated as He deserved!
answered Dec 7 at 20:12
Mac's Musings
4,280116
The question contains a logical fallacy. The fact that something is not mentioned in secular records does not make it false. That is an argument from silence based on what is unknown. The Bible record can be treated as equally reliable (I believe more reliable) than secular records which are often very patchy.
The interesting theological point about the release of Barabbas is the miniature of salvation. Barabbas was a convicted felon; Jesus was sinless (Heb 4:15, 7:26-28, etc). Jesus was executed so that Barabbas was released.
This is exactly what happens to us as sinners (Rom 3:10-18). Jesus was treated as we deserve so that we will be treated as He deserved!
answered Dec 7 at 20:12
Mac's Musings
4,280116
answered Dec 7 at 20:12
Mac's Musings
4,280116
answered Dec 7 at 20:12
Mac's Musings
4,280116
answered Dec 7 at 20:12
Mac's Musings
4,280116
4,280116
Thank you for your answer. I understand that the last argument is an argument from silence. Perhaps that's why Carrier seemed to have used it as a side-argument to the main argument, that Barabbas' name means "son of a father", and Christ was the Son of God the Father. Also, what you said about Barabbas being released while Christ was executed, although I certainly agree with you, is the exact reason why Carrier says says that the story is invented. How would you answer this objection?
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:19
I would ask - why did he "invent" the story about Barabbas being invented. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest this. That is, there is evidence for the assertion.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 8 at 6:18
add a comment |
Thank you for your answer. I understand that the last argument is an argument from silence. Perhaps that's why Carrier seemed to have used it as a side-argument to the main argument, that Barabbas' name means "son of a father", and Christ was the Son of God the Father. Also, what you said about Barabbas being released while Christ was executed, although I certainly agree with you, is the exact reason why Carrier says says that the story is invented. How would you answer this objection?
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:19
I would ask - why did he "invent" the story about Barabbas being invented. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest this. That is, there is evidence for the assertion.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 8 at 6:18
Thank you for your answer. I understand that the last argument is an argument from silence. Perhaps that's why Carrier seemed to have used it as a side-argument to the main argument, that Barabbas' name means "son of a father", and Christ was the Son of God the Father. Also, what you said about Barabbas being released while Christ was executed, although I certainly agree with you, is the exact reason why Carrier says says that the story is invented. How would you answer this objection?
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:19
Thank you for your answer. I understand that the last argument is an argument from silence. Perhaps that's why Carrier seemed to have used it as a side-argument to the main argument, that Barabbas' name means "son of a father", and Christ was the Son of God the Father. Also, what you said about Barabbas being released while Christ was executed, although I certainly agree with you, is the exact reason why Carrier says says that the story is invented. How would you answer this objection?
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:19
I would ask - why did he "invent" the story about Barabbas being invented. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest this. That is, there is evidence for the assertion.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 8 at 6:18
I would ask - why did he "invent" the story about Barabbas being invented. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest this. That is, there is evidence for the assertion.
– Mac's Musings
Dec 8 at 6:18
add a comment |
Alb has already answered the question with quality sources but I want to add a little more to this matter:
if every event in the scriptures that were filled with symbolic meaning were scrapped as artifice then there would be little Bible left! That is how they work. But consider, the hand of man is belied by "artifice". That is, what man has done is in jarring contrast, like a tractor in a field, to what God has made. But when the historical passages also have symbolic and prophet images then you know that all these were made with the same divine hand.
"To the Hebrews" explains that Jesus is the animal that died and the scapegoat because he permanently left death.
answered Dec 7 at 20:45
Ruminator
2,6582733
I understand your argument that the correspondence between this story and the ritual with the goats was divine; but the objection that the story was contrived still could be made based upon this information.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:26
But my point was that any story that contains symbols is likewise tossed out which would include most of the scriptures. If "Hacksaw Ridge" contains archetypes does that make it unhistorical?
– Ruminator
Dec 8 at 0:03
1
I agree with this point.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:28
What is your opinion on the fact that Abba was a given name in Israel in the first century, however uncommon, and so a man could have been idenfied by the name "Barabbas"?
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:31
1
It is possible. Thank you for your answer.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 3:09
|
show 1 more comment
Alb has already answered the question with quality sources but I want to add a little more to this matter:
if every event in the scriptures that were filled with symbolic meaning were scrapped as artifice then there would be little Bible left! That is how they work. But consider, the hand of man is belied by "artifice". That is, what man has done is in jarring contrast, like a tractor in a field, to what God has made. But when the historical passages also have symbolic and prophet images then you know that all these were made with the same divine hand.
"To the Hebrews" explains that Jesus is the animal that died and the scapegoat because he permanently left death.
answered Dec 7 at 20:45
Ruminator
2,6582733
I understand your argument that the correspondence between this story and the ritual with the goats was divine; but the objection that the story was contrived still could be made based upon this information.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:26
But my point was that any story that contains symbols is likewise tossed out which would include most of the scriptures. If "Hacksaw Ridge" contains archetypes does that make it unhistorical?
– Ruminator
Dec 8 at 0:03
1
I agree with this point.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:28
What is your opinion on the fact that Abba was a given name in Israel in the first century, however uncommon, and so a man could have been idenfied by the name "Barabbas"?
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:31
1
It is possible. Thank you for your answer.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 3:09
|
show 1 more comment
Alb has already answered the question with quality sources but I want to add a little more to this matter:
if every event in the scriptures that were filled with symbolic meaning were scrapped as artifice then there would be little Bible left! That is how they work. But consider, the hand of man is belied by "artifice". That is, what man has done is in jarring contrast, like a tractor in a field, to what God has made. But when the historical passages also have symbolic and prophet images then you know that all these were made with the same divine hand.
"To the Hebrews" explains that Jesus is the animal that died and the scapegoat because he permanently left death.
answered Dec 7 at 20:45
Ruminator
2,6582733
Alb has already answered the question with quality sources but I want to add a little more to this matter:
if every event in the scriptures that were filled with symbolic meaning were scrapped as artifice then there would be little Bible left! That is how they work. But consider, the hand of man is belied by "artifice". That is, what man has done is in jarring contrast, like a tractor in a field, to what God has made. But when the historical passages also have symbolic and prophet images then you know that all these were made with the same divine hand.
"To the Hebrews" explains that Jesus is the animal that died and the scapegoat because he permanently left death.
answered Dec 7 at 20:45
Ruminator
2,6582733
answered Dec 7 at 20:45
Ruminator
2,6582733
answered Dec 7 at 20:45
Ruminator
2,6582733
answered Dec 7 at 20:45
Ruminator
2,6582733
2,6582733
I understand your argument that the correspondence between this story and the ritual with the goats was divine; but the objection that the story was contrived still could be made based upon this information.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:26
But my point was that any story that contains symbols is likewise tossed out which would include most of the scriptures. If "Hacksaw Ridge" contains archetypes does that make it unhistorical?
– Ruminator
Dec 8 at 0:03
1
I agree with this point.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:28
What is your opinion on the fact that Abba was a given name in Israel in the first century, however uncommon, and so a man could have been idenfied by the name "Barabbas"?
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:31
1
It is possible. Thank you for your answer.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 3:09
|
show 1 more comment
I understand your argument that the correspondence between this story and the ritual with the goats was divine; but the objection that the story was contrived still could be made based upon this information.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:26
But my point was that any story that contains symbols is likewise tossed out which would include most of the scriptures. If "Hacksaw Ridge" contains archetypes does that make it unhistorical?
– Ruminator
Dec 8 at 0:03
1
I agree with this point.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:28
What is your opinion on the fact that Abba was a given name in Israel in the first century, however uncommon, and so a man could have been idenfied by the name "Barabbas"?
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:31
1
It is possible. Thank you for your answer.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 3:09
I understand your argument that the correspondence between this story and the ritual with the goats was divine; but the objection that the story was contrived still could be made based upon this information.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:26
I understand your argument that the correspondence between this story and the ritual with the goats was divine; but the objection that the story was contrived still could be made based upon this information.
– CMK
Dec 7 at 22:26
But my point was that any story that contains symbols is likewise tossed out which would include most of the scriptures. If "Hacksaw Ridge" contains archetypes does that make it unhistorical?
– Ruminator
Dec 8 at 0:03
But my point was that any story that contains symbols is likewise tossed out which would include most of the scriptures. If "Hacksaw Ridge" contains archetypes does that make it unhistorical?
– Ruminator
Dec 8 at 0:03
1
1
I agree with this point.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:28
I agree with this point.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:28
What is your opinion on the fact that Abba was a given name in Israel in the first century, however uncommon, and so a man could have been idenfied by the name "Barabbas"?
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:31
What is your opinion on the fact that Abba was a given name in Israel in the first century, however uncommon, and so a man could have been idenfied by the name "Barabbas"?
– CMK
Dec 8 at 2:31
1
1
It is possible. Thank you for your answer.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 3:09
It is possible. Thank you for your answer.
– CMK
Dec 8 at 3:09
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36352%2fis-the-story-of-barabbas-possibly-fabricated%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Where is hermeneutics defined that way? What are you quoting? Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:35
I looked it up on Bing (which, incidentally, apparently uses the dictionary of Google, which I find unreliable in certain cases, but not with technical theological terms), and it corresponded to a definition that I found using a relatively unknown dictionary application my phone, which said that hermeneutics is the branch of theology dealing with the principles of exegesis. This is why I define "exegesis", rather than "hermeneutics".
– CMK
Dec 7 at 19:55
Would you mind editing the question and just leaving that part off as it isn't documented and it isn't necessary for the answer. For those of us used to being sensitive to unverified assertions that's a bit jarring. Thanks.
– Ruminator
Dec 7 at 19:59
1
According to what I have just recently read on Wikipedia, "Abba" was used as a given name in the first century at least once, as has been found in a burial site in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, and it was a common name in the Gemara section of the Talmud, which dates from between 200 and 400 AD. This makes it much more likely that Barabbas was a literal name, and not a contrivance. A scholarly book has been given as a reference. This solves a large part of the problem, I believe. .
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00
1
Combined with Alb's evidence that the practice of releasing prisoners at some special event was possibly mentioned in a source apart from the four Gospels, the issue seems almost resolved
– CMK
Dec 8 at 0:00