People today often judge the value of religious practice from its distance from reason.

The Mystery of Barabbas 2

Jesus’s Followers
The Crowd Acclaims Jesus as a King
The Insurrection
The Arrest of Jesus
Comment

Abstract

For Christians, the peculiar incident of the release of Barabbas, a robber, is another callous event in the narrative of the death of the Son of God for the sins of mankind. It proves that the Jews, by their rejection of Jesus, were no longer the Chosen People of God. Instead the followers of Jesus were. The thesis presented here is that Jesus, the Son of God, was Jesus, the king of the Jews, a man who believed that by capturing Jerusalem from the Romans and cleansing the temple, God would send a miracle to free his chosen people, the Jews. In Roman law, a man who is acclaimed king is a seditionist, so Barabbas and bar Abbas are both revolutionaries. Can we really accept that Pilate offers the crowd the choice of Jesus Barabbas, a seditionist, or Jesus bar Abbas, the son of his father, God, a different seditionist? Is this really historical?

Jesus’s Followers

Judas of Galilee and his followers were barjonim, ones who live on the outside. We would say guerrillas or an underground movement. Barjonim and Zealots were effectively synonyms. The barjonim avoided the towns, preferring wilderness and mountains, and only visiting towns and villages to commit robberies or political murder.

The evangelist, Mark, wrote his gospel at about the time of the Roman triumph in 71 AD when the captured leader of the Jewish Zealots was led in chains through the streets of Rome. Naturally neither Jews in general nor Zealots in particular were popular and Mark was faced with a few problems. Describing the Apostle Simon, he deliberately uses the obscure Aramaic expression, the Cananæan, without explaining it, though Mark normally explains Aramaic words for the benefit of his gentile readers. Luke, writing at least ten years later when feelings were running less high, openly uses the Greek equivalent, understood by all—the Apostle is Simon the Zealot!

Other words are disguised by the gospel writers. For example there is another strange coincidence, like that of Barabbas. When Jesus reveals to Simon Peter his messiahship in Matthew 16:17, he calls him Simon Bar-jona as if Bar-jona were Simon’s surname. In John (Jn 21:15) this is rendered as bar Jonah, as if it were a patronymic, Son of Jonah. It is beyond a coincidence that Barjona as we saw above is a guerrilla or extremist. What was originally intended? Furthermore the nickname, Peter, in Aramaic—Cephas, given to Simon means “rock”. Today we would call him “Rocky”. Then as now it signified a tough guy. How tough? Well later in the story he slices off a man’s ear and later still murders a man and a woman for holding back money. He seems pretty ruthless.

Judas is named as Judas Iscariot, said to mean “of Kerioth” but no such place seems to have existed at the time, though there had once been a town Kiriathim in Moab across the Dead Sea. The word “Sicarii” meaning Knifemen seems more identifiable with Iscariot. Judas would therefore have been a member of the assassins branch of the Zealots. However, a Syrian word Skariot meaning “I shall deliver up” could be an equally appropriate root. Were the Sikari the Deliverers of Israel, a branch of the Zealots or even an alternative name for them? The Talmud names the leader of the barjonim in Jerusalem during the siege as Abbas Sikari, implying that the Knifemen or Deliverers were closely allied to, or a branch of, the Zealots.

The two “Sons of Thunder”, John and James, already sound menacing enough but the expression, “Boanerges”, a meaningless word, is probably “bene reges” meaning “Sons of Tumult” or “bene regaz” meaning “Sons of Wrath”. Or another reading is “Sons of the Wild Ox”, which signifies untameable wildness according to Proverbs. Patently these were not boy scouts. One suspects that the word “Boanerges” only survives because in his original gospel Mark used it without translation like the word “cananæan” used of Simon the Zealot. A few years later an editor felt able to explain it and so it comes down to us today—serving no purpose except as a clue to the nature of the Nazarene band. Finally, five of the Apostles had previously been with John the Baptist. According to his disciple, Mark, John the Baptist taught that to seek God people had to “leave the towns”. He was urging them to become barjonim! It has been suggested that the Sadduc who teamed up with Judas of Galilee to form the Zealots was none other than John the Baptist.

Is all of this simply to be regarded as trivial coincidence? Largely from the gospels themselves we learn that between five and ten of gentle Jesus’s twelve leading disciples were tough guys. Can anyone seriously deny that the band of Jesus the Nazarene sound more like the band of Jesus Barabbas, the Zealot?

The Crowd Acclaims Jesus as a King

When Jesus entered Jerusalem the crowd hailed him as a king:

Blessed is the King that cometh,
Luke 19:38

Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father, David,
Mark 11:9

Hosannah to the Son of David,
Matthew 21:9

as though the non-existent word “hosannah” meant something like “greetings” or “three cheers”. The crowd actually shouted “osanna”, an Aramaic word which means “free us”. The crowd was actually calling—“Osanna, Son of David”—”Free us, Son of David”. The correct expression was used in the Gospel of the Hebrews, an Aramaic version of Matthew, and in the Nazarene Gospel as Jerome writing in the latter part of the fourth century tells us.

On entering Jerusalem, the gospels say Jesus is immensely popular. The Pharisees observe:

Look, the world has gone after him.
John 12:19

He is widely acclaimed as a king, the heir to the throne of David and now Jesus does not refute these acclamations as he had done earlier, according to the gospel writers. Beginning the descent from the Mount of Olives we find people shouting:

Blessed is the king that cometh in the name of the Lord!
Luke 19:38

Even after the crucifixion the hopes of the disciples are expressed in the same terms:

We had hoped that it was he who would deliver Israel,
Lk 24:21

and meeting the resurrected Jesus they ask:

Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom of Israel.
Acts 1:6

There are other clues to Jesus’s kingship in the gospels but rather more subtle ones. Jesus is described often in the synoptic gospels as teaching “as one having authority”. We get the impression it means he knew what he was talking about. But reference to Ecclesiastes 8:4 gives the true meaning of this odd sounding phrase:

the king’s word hath authority, and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Similarly the priests in the Temple ask Jesus by whose authority he had overthrown the tables, inviting him to admit he is a king. These passages are simply saying that people recognised Jesus as being a king according to the Scriptures. Those that had ears to hear would understand!

Explaining to the Apostles how they should pray, Jesus tells them in Matthew and Luke to say the Lord’s prayer. It includes the lines:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven.

The prayer was for God to inaugurate the messianic age of God’s kingdom on earth. It clearly says “…in earth” yet the argument of the gospel writers is that the kingdom referred to is not of this world but in Heaven, and John has Jesus himself saying so (Jn 18:36). Jesus’s followers did not understand this because they were stupid. And, indeed, the gospel writers go to some trouble to depict the Apostles as complete morons even though they had been personally selected by Jesus. This is manifest rubbish. We can be sure that the Apostles, as well as the Jerusalem throng, knew exactly what kingdom Jesus meant. And the Christian interpretation is plainly refuted in the principal prayer of Christendom.

All of the expectations of the Jerusalem crowds were of a restored Jewish kingdom, a new kingdom of David and Solomon on earth, a Jewish state strong enough to expel the invaders and establish a new world order. We know this because it is exactly what Jews expected of their Messiah as described in the Psalms of Solomon.

Jewish religion led Jews to believe that they were God’s “Chosen People”, having a special role in his plans and under his care. Anointment of ancient Jewish Kings made them God’s appointed ruler. The Messiah of the Jews was an ideal Jewish king sent by God and those anointed as kings or priests became Sons of God. The ritual of anointing required the priest, acting as God’s agent, to acknowledge his Son explicitly. At his baptism and Transfiguration, Jesus becomes a “Son of God” (and therefore a king or a priest) when “God” (the acting priest) announces (Mk 1:11, 9:7; Mt 3:17, 17:5; Lk 3:22, 9:35):

Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.

The gospel writers are not lying when they say God spoke these words. God had spoken them—but through his earthly agent—just as today he speaks through books written by men! These ceremonies were effectively coronations.

The gospels offer little evidence that Jesus claimed to be a divine redeemer, the Christian idea of a Messiah, rather than a human saviour. They are consistent with Jesus, a Jew, initially denying—but later accepting—the appellation Messiah, convinced he had been chosen by God to prepare The Chosen People for the kingdom to come, God’s kingdom on earth, and to lead them into it. As a Jew, he could have had no illusions about being a god or of being a divine world redeemer, nor would he have had any intentions of forming a new religion. These blasphemous thoughts were given to him later by the founders of the Christian church. Comment

The Insurrection

In Luke 23:40 one of the “thieves” crucified alongside Jesus, rebuking the other, says they are all in the “same condemnation” implying they had all been found guilty of the same crimes at the same trial. Of course they were not “thieves” any more than Barabbas was simply a “robber”. This is a cover up, the best rendering of the word being terrorists or rebels! They were members of Jesus’s rebel gang.

The gospels admit that Jesus was not as peaceful as Christians like to make out but do so as quietly as possible. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus addressing his followers says:

Think not I came to send peace on the earth—I came not to send peace but a sword.

Contrasted with peace, sword here plainly means conflict in the struggle for the coming kingdom and subsequently the judgement of God. In Luke Jesus says he would cast fire on the earth and that the kingdom of God had to be entered violently. This was certainly not a pacifist talking. But, in Luke, a later gospel than Matthew, “sword” is replaced by “division”. The writer or an editor had realised the words did not match the desired image!

Luke 22:36 also has Biblical commentaries thrashing around in discomfort because gentle Jesus, the pacifist Son of God, urges his followers to buy arms—though two swords turn out to be enough! This looks like a prime example of a difficult passage for Christians being toned down by Christian editors. Both instances belie the gentle Jesus image revealing instead some of the truth hovering beneath the extant text.

Elsewhere in Luke 11:50 Jesus preaches in an impassioned speech that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation. This sounds like Shakespeare’s Henry V rallying his troops, though supposedly spoken to Pharisees. Is it coincidence that Luke is soon writing (Lk 13:1) of Pilate’s troops mixing Galilaean’s blood with their sacrifices, and then of the death of many when the Tower of Siloam collapsed (Lk 13:4)? Though misleadingly placed in the gospel, these sounds like tantalising references to a battle.

Had Pilate’s troops counter attacked and slaughtered Galilaeans in the Temple while they were offering sacrifices? Were those killed when the Tower of Siloam fell on them resisting an attack by Pilate’s soldiers using battering rams? Since Roman troops were normally housed in the Antonia fortress adjacent to the Temple and would therefore have easy access to the Temple and the city it is possible that the Jerusalem garrison had been overpowered, or had strategically withdrawn, and the insurgents had been attacked by a stronger force sent from Caesarea on the coast. Neither of these incidents are mentioned in the extant works of historians of the time.

After the Roman counter attack when the Galilaeans were killed, the Temple was lost and the Tower of Siloam had collapsed, Jesus withdrew to take a meal with his closest associates similar to the messianic meal of the Essenes. We know it as the Last Supper. They had been beaten but were not yet ready to surrender. Jesus repeatedly urges the disciples to repent, obviously believing still that God would intervene if they were all sufficiently pure of spirit. They went, still armed, to the Mount of Olives overlooking the city to wait for God’s miracle, prophesied in Zechariah 14:4. Jesus Barabbas and his band had played their part and had temporarily freed the Holy City from its enemies. Now it was up to God to complete the task as he had promised. Barabbas wants his men to wait and watch for the signs of the miracle but they are exhausted.

The miracle never comes but instead soldiers, a detachment of Romans or some of the Temple Guard, arrive to capture him. God had forsaken him and the Jews.

In a non-canonical document purporting to be the trial of Pilate before Tiberius called The Giving up of Pilate, the author readily admits that Pilate had crucified Jesus because of the rebelliousness of the Jews. Pilate says:

O almighty king, I am innocent of these things…
The multitude of the Jews are violent and guilty…
Their nation is rebellious and insubmissive, not submitting themselves to thy power…
On account of the wickedness and rebellion of the lawless and ungodly Jews…

Praying to Jesus after he is condemned by Caesar Pilate repeats:

Lord, do not destroy me along with the wicked Hebrews, because I would not have laid hands upon Thee, except for the nation of the lawless Jews, because they were exciting rebellion against me.

Though the document can hardly be regarded as historic in general, it is typically Christian to blame the Jews rather than Pilate, who is depicted as a Christian himself, but the author repeatedly implies the cause of the trouble was rebellion, not something that Christians are thought willing to admit. Why should the defendant, Pilate, say repeatedly that the Jews were in rebellion if they were not?

Lest anyone should doubt that the followers of Jesus had been involved in bloody rebellion in which many had died, let them turn to the Acts of the Apostles 6:1-3 where the surviving Nazarenes have to appoint as many as seven men to ensure that no “widows were neglected in the daily ministration”. Did you ever wonder why the Nazarenes had to make special provision for widows just after Jesus’s crucifixion?

The Arrest of Jesus

The synoptics say Christ was arrested by a crowd of people sent by the High Priest. The fourth Gospel (Jn 18:3,12) says the crowd was a cohort, in Greek a speira, of soldiers under a tribune, telling us precisely the arresting party was a Roman military force of 600 men. A military response had been instigated.

Christians have a problem with the cohort of soldiers sent to arrest Jesus. Why should 600 Roman soldiers have moved in the night to arrest a mendicant travelling holy man whose only crime was saying he was a son of God? They puzzle that it seems “excessive” and urge that it should not be “taken literally.”

For anyone more open minded than the typical Christian scholar, this “excessive” force would be screaming out that Jesus and his band were not as harmless as the gospels would have us believe. Even with this show of force, the Nazarenes did not simply surrender, but fought in retaliation, though the holy books say only Peter had his sword drawn and he cut off the ear of one of the High Priest’s servants.

This minor injury is so blatantly a bishop’s excuse for armed resistance, that it is hard to accept that anyone believes it. The pacific band of Jesus armed only with a sword, take on a cohort of Roman soldiers and succeed in injuring one of them. Having to explain stories about the arrest coming to them from Jewishs sources, the gentile bishops pretended that only a dunce of a disciple caused any trouble. Only dunces can believe it. Jesus was not as pacific as they have been indoctrinated to believe.

The text in Mark reads perfectly well without verses 44 and 45 which must be considered as additions to the tradition to further the treachery of Judas. Indeed the introduction of Judas as one of the twelve again, having been so introduced already in verse 10, cries out that he has been added to the arresting party as an afterthought. In John 18:5,8 Jesus freely admits who he is, proving that the kiss was unnecessary.

There is a skirmish which must have been the immediate response to the arresting party, belying the fiction of the kiss. In John 18:6 the reaction of the arresting party on seeing the Nazarenes is that they retreated, and fell to the ground, virtually admitting the fight. Mark does not say explicitly that the guards coming to arrest him are Roman soldiers or temple guards. However chief priests, scribes and elders are mentioned, meaning the Sanhedrin, and in the clash someone described as a servant of the High Priest loses an ear. In John, the smiter is Peter, but oddly the servant’s name is Malchus which means king, possibly a veiling of a tradition that Jesus was wounded in the skirmish—a blemish that might have prevented him being the paschal lamb. The arrest must have been effected by temple guards. That of course is what we expect because Caiaphas assured Pilate that he would arrest the criminal by stealth, in other words not with a great show of Roman overkill.

When a disciple cut off the ear of the priests’ servant in the garden, why was he carrying a sword if the pacific nature of the Nazarenes propagated by the Christians is true? It was illegal to carry arms. Luke 22:35-36 tries to offer the explanation that Jesus told his disciples to carry arms—two swords suffice—deliberately to break the law so that he would fulfil prophecy and be numbered among the transgressors. Jesus already was a transgressor—it is transparently an attempt to explain that the gang were armed.

Mark answers a couple more objections that opponents of the Christians were raising by giving Jesus a short speech:

Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not—but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

One objection was that Jesus could have been arrested in the temple. Jesus answers, “the scriptures must be fulfilled”, meaning for Jesus that he must become the worthless shepherd, or, for Mark, the suffering servant of Isaiah which is how the immediate successors of Jesus had reinterpreted his death. The other was to counter critics who remembered that he led an armed band of insurrectionists, and were reminded of it by the striking off of the guard’s ear. Thief in this context is a deliberate mistranslation—the word is insurrectionist. Today if we were opposed to the Nazarenes we would write terrorist, if we were in favour of them we would write freedom fighter. By showing Jesus indignant that he should be arrested as an insurrectionist, Mark hoped to suggest otherwise.

In verse 49, Mark suggests that Jesus had control of the temple longer than you might think—he taught there daily. Finally, verses 51 and 52 seem very mysterious but they are an unhistorical addition by Mark using Amos 2:16 where God punishes the Israelites for their iniquities so severely that even the courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked. It follows the fleeing of the disciples in verse 50 and is another amelioration passage. Disciples had to be denigrated as Jews but, as founders of Christianity they had to be respected. Here they are pictured as cowardly Jews, which is fine, but they had to be excused as Christians. Didn’t God say in Amos 2:16 that even their bravest would be made cowards by God’s will? For Mark, the disciples behaved just as you’d expect as Jews, but they couldn’t help it and the image of the youth fleeing naked conjured up the appropriate scriptural reference to excuse them.

Comment

from Stephen Ballard

Mike, although I agree with much of what you say in this article, I just hope by founders of the church you mean his disciples and apostles. It seems that even Paul (Saul) believed this to be true and even his brother James said as much even though he probably did not believe it.

This idea of ressurection of the martyred dead seems to have arose during the Maccabean period and Seleucid persecution. In Daniel 7:13 dating from the same period it also seems to be associated with the “coming of one like the Son of Man with the clouds to the Ancient of Days”. This of course would be a reference to the storm/rain god, Baal, appearing before his father, Bull El, who was called“ the Ancient of Days”. Baal was a god who went into the underworld during the summer drought and was ressurected (like the seed and sprouts from the underworld) with the coming of the rains. This idea of the ressurection of a god and of nature may very well have been carried over into the personal ressurection of the martyred insurgents during the Maccabean revolt, as in 2 Maccabees. It would be like a recruiting tool for the insurgency just as Paradise is for Islam.

These same religious beliefs would have been dusted off during the Roman occupation and Jesus would be the embodiement of this Son of God who his followers would await coming in the clouds to deliver them during the revolt of 66-70 AD. Even Josephus admits that this [2nd] coming of the Messiah was what most motivated these partisans of Christ to revolt against Rome. And Galilee [of the gentiles] as you point out was rather late in becoming converted to orthodox Judaism. Harpers Bible Dictionary points out that under the name of Tammuz/Adonis, that Baal was still worshipped in Galilee and Syria in the time of Jesus. And even Ezra 2:13 admits that the children of Adonikam [the risen Lord] were 666 in number when returning from the Babylonian exile. In other words the Baal worshippers also came back from Babylon along with the Jehovah worshippers, probably as a remnant of the northern Baal woshipping tribes who again settle in northern Palestine, their traditional homeland, just as the more orthodox Jews settle in Judea.

So the idea of Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God would have been quickly adopted after his death, even before the Great Revolt of 66 AD.

Page Tags: Mystery of Barabbas, Robber, Thief, Rebel, Galilaean, Barabbas, Jesus, Suspicions of the Authorities, Insurrection, Revolution, Sedition, Pilate, Mystery, Jerusalem, Crowd, Disciples, Roman, Christianity, Christians, Gospel, Gospels, King, Jewish, Jews, Testament, Murder, Arrest, Crowd, Galilee, God, Jewish, Jews, Judas, King, Man, Mark, Pilate, Roman, Son

Last uploaded: 19 April, 2008.