Truth or fiction. "What is truth?"[i] Or maybe it's
"whose" truth.
The story of Pilate -- as
written -- focuses on an annual custom at Passover in which the Roman governor
would grant amnesty to a prisoner. Such an act would be looked upon in favor by
the Jews. And Pilate needed all the "favor" he could get.
Presented with a dilemma,
the annual custom afforded Pilate with a way out. He would offer release to either
a murderer or to the peaceful prophet, Jesus of Nazareth. The people's choice. Surely
they would side with this Jesus who was given a hero's welcome just a few days
earlier.
One would think… however
that wasn't the case. While Pilate was doing his best to stay a step ahead of
the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council had "persuaded
the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed."[ii] The hero in the eyes of
this stirred up crowd was the insurrectionist, Barabbas. They were drawn to a
warrior rebelling against Rome; not the passive peacemaker. Who would make a
better vanquisher for the people?
This uprising against "the King of the Jews" put the
Roman prefect in a quandary. If a riot broke out over this situation, and if he
were reported to the Emperor Tiberius Caesar, it would cost Pilate dearly. Was
it worth his job to save a wronged man?
'The Jews cried out, "If you release this man,
you are no friend of the emperor."'[iii]
With his primary job to
keep the peace, is it any wonder Pilate chose to release Barabbas? Nonetheless,
having to acquiesce to the people's adamant demand, and with disgust, Pilate 'took some water and washed his hands before
the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it
yourselves."'[iv]
Turning this story
on its head,…
What if the scene with
Barabbas never happened?
Historical research
indicates no evidence that the Romans released prisoners at Passover. Plus
given Pilate's demeanor as described in written accounts, including those of
Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, what are the odds this Roman governor
would've freed an insurrectionist against Rome -- especially if a Roman life
had been taken? Odds like winning the Lotto.
So, if this story wasn't
factual, why did Mark deliberately concoct a fictitious scene?
Because of Rome. The
author didn't write this gospel account for the Jews; he wrote it for the
Romans.
Prior to the first
Jewish-Roman war in 66 AD, Christianity was a small Jewish sect centered in
Israel. Mark's gospel account became available (most likely) at the conclusion
of the war in 70 AD. At that point, "the center of the Christian movement
shifted from Jewish Jerusalem to the Graeco-Roman cities of the Mediterranean:
Alexandria, Corinth, Ephesus, Damascus, Antioch, Rome. A generation after
Jesus' crucifixion, his non-Jewish followers outnumbered and overshadowed the
Jewish ones."[v]
If the target audience was
to be Rome, how receptive to the story of Jesus would they be if Pilate was
shown in a negative light? If one of their own, a Roman governor, was
considered the culprit behind Jesus' death? As Joe* stated to the study group,
doing so would be "bad for sales."
Did You
Know…?
Some scholars would say
the gospel writers also chose to emphasize the pacifist side of Jesus which
would be more appealing to the Romans rather than to a Jewish nationalist who
wanted Rome's downfall. "Scattered across the Roman Empire, it was only
natural for the gospel writers… to adapt Jesus' words and actions to the new
political situation in which they found themselves."[vi]
If "true" this
scene never happened, why else did Mark include it in the gospel account? He
wanted to show change is never easy, and did so by providing an opportunity of
choice -- even when we know which opportunity was for the betterment of all.
Mark presented us with a selection to
be made -- not with just one Jesus but with two: Jesus Barabbas and Jesus "called the Messiah"[vii] 'Barabbas is Aramaic for "son
of the father." '[viii]
One Jesus -- the son of a
human father; the other Jesus -- the Son of God the Father. When offered an
option between the two, the crowd chose human fallibility over divinity,… war
over peace,… hate over love. Gene* shared Jesus Barabbas would've been easier
in which to relate.
Mark wanted the readership to understand that the people still didn't accept the Christ. The crowd preferred the
Messianic conqueror of the old covenant -- that for which they were familiar --
instead of the Messiah of the new covenant. By "forcing" Pilate to
make a decision against Jesus the Christ, the blame-game was shifted on to the
Jewish people.
'Then the people as a whole answered, "His blood
be on us and on our children!"'[ix]
Taking it a step further, who riled up the crowd to
shout "Crucify him!"? The
Jewish authorities. It was the Sanhedrin who wanted Jesus to die. Even so, if
Matthew 27:25 is taken literally, an entire people are damned for eternity as
well as their bloodline.
Misinterpretation of this
story, along with misplaced emphasis on this verse, has allowed for a long
history of anti-Semitism. It's absolutely ludicrous to place the blame at the feet of the Jews -- who in
turn made blameless a Roman governor known for countless executions and
wrongful acts.
Ultimately, who was
responsible for Jesus' death? Everyone.
* The Sanhedrin and other
religious leaders wanted to be rid of this thorn in their side. They believed
the crucifixion of Jesus would put an end to their woes.
* The people desired
someone who would restore the Promised Land to the Jews. In their eyes, that
someone wasn't Jesus.
* Barabbas or no Barabbas,
Pilate made the ruling. He could've made a different decision. But he didn't.
* The Roman soldiers
tortured Jesus during the flogging, and gravely injured him. "An expert at
wielding the scourge could literally tear the flesh from the back, lacerating
muscles, and sometimes even exposing the kidneys or other internal
organs."[x]
* The disciples were just
as culpable for Jesus' death. Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him, and the
disciples left him.
Everyone was responsible. No one left unscathed.
As for us, if involved in
this chaotic nightmare of a mess,… what would we have done? Who would the story
have been about?
NEXT
A horrific, mock
coronation; the man who played a larger role than just carrying a cross
No comments:
Post a Comment