Yeah, that does seem to be the most likely scenario. But on the other hand, I take the Bible’s take on Romans about as serious as their take on the Babylonians: it’s hard to know what parts to trust and what parts were made up to make the Romans look bad.
The whole Barabbas story is rather questionable; random, unwarranted executions were something Pilate was kicked out for, and there aren’t any independent source backing up the whole “releasing a prisoner at the request of the people” story. I don’t think many scholars believe this story actually happened as described.
Plus, there are the many alternative interpretations, like the idea that Barabbas was not a murderer, but rather the son of Jesus and Maria Magdelena, and that making him a criminal was the work of badmouthing by a Christian sect that believed that Jesus died unmarried and without children, or that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person as some dedicated scholars believe.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, these “scholars” must be mental if they seriously think that.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene
I don’t think it’s a popular take among religious scholars at all, but from a non-religious view, I don’t see why not. There’s a lot about Jesus’ life that’s been altered throughout the years.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
Barabbas’ name means “son of the father”, which already sounds oddly specific in this context.
Sure, they didn’t invent the first name out of thin air, but given that there is no source outside the bible that this “freeing a prisoner condemned to death” practice had ever been done before, I think it makes a lot more sense.
![[ElderCactus] There were worse outcomes](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5715508f-01e1-4e13-90ad-a098f1bb8f63.jpeg){kind=link}
Yeah, that does seem to be the most likely scenario. But on the other hand, I take the Bible’s take on Romans about as serious as their take on the Babylonians: it’s hard to know what parts to trust and what parts were made up to make the Romans look bad.
The whole Barabbas story is rather questionable; random, unwarranted executions were something Pilate was kicked out for, and there aren’t any independent source backing up the whole “releasing a prisoner at the request of the people” story. I don’t think many scholars believe this story actually happened as described.
Plus, there are the many alternative interpretations, like the idea that Barabbas was not a murderer, but rather the son of Jesus and Maria Magdelena, and that making him a criminal was the work of badmouthing by a Christian sect that believed that Jesus died unmarried and without children, or that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person as some dedicated scholars believe.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, these “scholars” must be mental if they seriously think that.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
I don’t think it’s a popular take among religious scholars at all, but from a non-religious view, I don’t see why not. There’s a lot about Jesus’ life that’s been altered throughout the years.
Barabbas’ name means “son of the father”, which already sounds oddly specific in this context.
Was a common name. Even shows up in the talmud
Sure, they didn’t invent the first name out of thin air, but given that there is no source outside the bible that this “freeing a prisoner condemned to death” practice had ever been done before, I think it makes a lot more sense.