Barnabas does not have to be completely made up for many of the details of the account to be incorrect. Mark speaks of him as if he was well known. He may very well have been historical but we know Pilate was not releasing any prisoner requested. Mark may have attached a figure of repute to the story which is easily seen as being about the Temple and the Jews choosing the wrong type of Messiah over Jesus, the suffering servant. That story can relay deep truth without all of its details actually being historically true. Same as the book of Job.
Howās that mate? Do you know anything historical in Genesis that I donāt? Anything at all? From the history books?
What, specifically from the book of Genesis, has been demonstrated to be true either by archaeology or by external corroborative witnesses? Just curious. Iām firmly on the Genesis 1-11 are mythological/theological narratives train. Been a while since I read the rest. Honestly, how do we even find evidence of a nomadic shepherd named Abraham that lived in tents 4000 years ago?
Vinnie
Absence of evidence is not evidence of ahistoricity. That is a logical fallacy. Most of the material is so old we simply could not expect to have much for corroborative testimony. But a lot of people are willing to call Genesis 1-11 theological history or true myths, but Iām not seeing why the line should only be drawn there? How about in Exodus where logistical problems are well known? Might as well keep that train going but Genesis could, of course, contain facts and fictions intermingled throughout. From a historical perspective there is very little we can say. This means we canāt accept or reject the stories on historical grounds. I believe in the absence of adequate evidence either way, a verdict of non liquet is in order. Obviously, supposing a line of transmission that preserved details very accurately for over a thousand years is in itself pretty suspect. I get what you are saying but its a bridge built too far.
What, we canāt reject Eden, the Flood, S&G, the Exodus - any and all of it - on historical grounds?
Whats your view of the Barabass incident if i may ask Vinnie?
Most of that was probably not originally meant to be historical so you were correct the first time. But I wouldnāt put all 50 chapters of Genesis in the same boat as the flood, the Tower of Babel, or the magical garden with the talking snake. That was my point is that each claim would have to be discussed on a case by case basis and we would have to consider, date, authorship and sources for part of Genesis. Iām not inclined to think an author sat down and just made it all up one day. From the other creation and flood myths we know this is not true. Lots of material was probably passed down. How much history is there still embedded within it is anyoneās guess.
My point is, was Abraham a real person? Possibly? Did God ask him to kill his kid? I hope not.
Vinnie
1 Like
I spend most of my time studying the New Testament because, well, Jesus. I canāt comment on a lot of the Old Testament.
I have a minor in physics, bachelors in earth science and MS in geosciences so I donāt find Genesis 1-11 to be remotely historical. I also have unrelenting difficulties with God ordering rape or the mass slaughter of children and many other stories in the Old Testament. I try to find meaning in the big picture as a foundational narrative for a people God chose to establish a covenant with. Do I think all 613 precepts of the Law are Godās literal word and commands? Absolutely not. Neither did Jesus.
Vinnie
I was refering to Barabass.Sorry i didnt edited it in time
If you accept authorship of Mark right around 70AD as I do, I believe the account is best read theologically as the Jews choosing the wrong type of Messiah and being punished accordingly. God allowed Rome to destroy the temple. Barabbas literally means son of the father and Matthew makes this very explicit when the crowd says āhis blood is on our handsā or something to that effect. The truth is Pilate should never be reconstructed historically as releasing any prisoner chosen, especially a murderous insurrectionist. Itās completely implausible.
Vinnie
So it wasnt somethign Pilate only did in your opinion/Its a myth then?
I love that the Latin anagram answers Pilateās question.
Quid est veritas? āWhat is truth?ā
Est vir qui adest: āIt is the man who is here.ā
As it is written in the Gospel of Mark, all the details cannot be deemed historically plausible. This does not mean there canāt be some truth behind it or that it is all made up. As it stands now, itās a theological narrative.
Whether there was a historical impetus or not, I canāt be certain. It also would probably not be strange by itself for a Roman prefect not to capitally punish a man some Jewish people wanted him to or to release a prisoner at Passover. He probably wouldnāt have cared much about Jewish internal arguments insofar as it did not serve as kindling for a rebellion against Rome. But for him to release any prisoner and a man guilty of insurrection against Rome, well that might have found Pilateās own head on a platter. Not to mention his docile tendency at the face of an unarmed crowd with the might of the Roman military at his back is peculiar to say the least. Plus a hitherto unheard of custom that makes no sense as itās described.
The only argument Iāve seen for historicity is that the manās name is Jesus Barabbas and a Christian inventing this would not give him the same name as Jesus out of respect. Origen thought this in the second century. We scarcely can argue for independent testimony here given gospel relationships and a putative pre-Marian passion narrative. The question is, was Barabbas part of Markās sources?
Mark lacks the name Jesus but either way the force of this argument is not strong enough to overcome the difficulties nor is it compelling to me. It makes the literary view stronger. The Jews chose the wrong Jesus, the wrong Messiah. They took a murderous revolutionary over the correct Jesus and the Temple was destroyed as a result.
Vinnie
The claims concerning legendary individuals have been fully discussed forensically on a case by case basis for a good three hundred years. What is the most generous rational interpretation is the question. As for Barabbas. Itās not a matter of guesswork, itās a matter of how fine a mesh.
Proposing that the 2000 year Barabbas account is authentic is an order of magnitude or three or six or nine more valid than proposing that the 1500-1000+ years edited oral tradition based Patriarchal account from Abraham through Joseph up to the 1000- years edited oral tradition account of Moses-Joshua. The particles get smaller by those orders of magnitude, because of time, the loss of historiographic quality, the inclusion of ever more fantastical claims; the mesh that accepts named individuals stays the same.
If we hope that God the Killer did not command (ask?!) Abraham to kill Isaac, do we hope that God the Killer did not nuke S&G and three other collateral cities? That the God we see in Christ was never other than that? Gentle, non-violent, non-coercive, inclusive, other centred, suffering servant, forgiving, healing, generous Jesus. Never God the Killer.
Do we hope that there is a rational story of actual Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his brothers covering a century and not four in the early C2nd millennium BCE as the background to another rational story of an Egyptian prince in the mid? Where does claim of a two point two million Israelite invasion of Canaan after living for 40 years in the desert fit in rationality? Just 400 years before the historic David?
And what has any of this got to do with Jesus?
I donāt disagree with any of that. Iām of the ilk that most of it is best deemed non-historical and the rest is irrecoverable if there is some history behind it. Yes, Barabbas is in a different case altogether. We have a writing mentioning him, as if he was well known, only 40 years after the alleged incident. That is miles better than the attestation for Abraham which doesnāt say much because it is not that good to begin with. The other stories in the account correspond to people that actually were real and existed (the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Jews, Jesus). The narrative may be true but it is still not historical in my eyes. Most notions of confirming Genesis and much of the Old Testament (even the non-supernatural aspects) are hopelessly lost. And even if you have sound reason to suspect 80% of it is not historical, that doesnāt justify concluding 100% of it is. If you said Genesis is useless as a historical document for the time of the stories it intends to report, I would agree with you fully.
And according to almost all of the early church, save the Marcionites and maybe another select group or two, the Old Testament stories were immensely important to Jesus and Christians. Jesus clearly saw himself and his mission as a key part of Israelās eschatological drama. Though in Romans 3, despite Paulās claim to the contrary, the sacrifice of Jesus occurred irregardless of or despite the Law (its a little technical). It didnāt matter if you were a Jew or a Gentile. Per Paul, the Law existed to convict us of our sin, presumably amongst other things. Everything we know about the Gospels, Jesus and the early church is heavily steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures. Iām not willing to cut all ties at this time despite many difficulties within.
Vinnie
1 Like
Not bad Vinnie, but Iām Puritan. The OT covers three and a half thousand years of claims whose historiography starts bad, Saxon standard, and gets rapidly, exponentially worse by an order of magnitude per century at least. Either side of the Exile. The late post-Exilic Book of Daniel is pure, lying (by conservative evangelical standards) C2nd BCE apocalyptic propaganda and it even gets that wrong. Darius the Who? Third rate even by Dan Brown standards.
And yes, I fully acknowledge that the Jewish myths and legends which Jesus clothed Himself in were therefore important to Him. That the 100% human part of Him had no option but to assume all of it in every way. His epistemology isnāt ours. He was right for the wrong reason. He saw Himself in the OT even though Heās not there, and even sustained that for His audience in Emmaus after His full transcendence knowing it to be untrue. Iām that much His apologist it doesnāt bother me. Better He be just that pragmatic than God the Killer. The ties cannot be cut. The feet of, in cultural clay are all but stuck in the mud, mire, midden. Paul was desperately trying to transcend it in Romans to find a way for the Jews not to be damned. The Church has barely moved since. In fact in the Reformation it regressed.
2 Likes
and can we also acknowledge that, even if Mark used this account to attach a figure of repute to the story as you suggest, that it is possible he did so by selecting and incorporating a true historical account into his narrative wherein the details were correct?
I do not understand this race to assume these details are unhistorical or erroneous with seemingly no basis (at least none that I can discern).
I feel I spent significant time already explaining why the account does not seem historical. I am not feeing inclined to repeat it all. I attempted to reconstruct its purpose given its life setting (thanks Dale!) of ca 70AD and the Jewish-Roman war. As it stands the narrative is not to
be accepted as historical and reconstructing any putative historical core out of it is largely impossible, given the paucity of our source material. If you want to dialogue with the material I presented highlighting the historical difficulties with the account, feel free to.
Vinnie
But VInnie if its not historical why did The writter of Mark lied by putting it there if it didnt happened in the first place?It doesnt have any theological meaning anyway
