Do the Gospels belong in a "GENRE" of literature which makes them necessarily "FICTION"?
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
I'm not impressed by Lumpenproletariat's spews. I haven't seen in them anything close to a discussion of modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels.
Discussing such a large volume of literature as "modern scholarship concerning the origin of the Gospels" would require extensive Walls of Text beyond these, but the following and earlier spews on the lpetrich links will hopefully approach closer to such a discussion.
Here are some links on what the Gospels have in common with various works from antiquity nowadays considered fictional.
Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament | Κέλσος . . .
(resuming notes from this link)
Why do the Gospels contain so many miracles?
(more than virtually any other ancient writings)
[16] Of course, there are exceptions where certain ancient historians include miracles in their narratives far more frequently. One example is the Roman historian Valerius Antias, whose history of regal Rome (although no longer extant, but still partially preserved in fragments) shows far more credulity towards miracles than is seen with Livy. As in the case of source citations and noting contradictions between traditions, the criterion that miracles pop up less frequently in ancient historical writing than the Gospels, and are often analyzed more critically, should be treated as a distinction of frequency, rather than universality. Some ancient historians mention virtually no miracles in their narratives, whereas others (like Antias) may include a large number. But, in general, the miracles in the Gospels are far more central to the core of the narrative, and . . .
In fact it's impossible to imagine what purpose the Gospels serve without the miracle acts of Jesus included in them as central. What's left if those events are removed? What's the "good news" if he did not do those miracle acts? How would the Gospels even exist if he did not perform those acts? or if no one had believed he did those acts? What would there have been to write a "gospel" about?
You'll note that Ferguson (and Carrier and other debunkers) never ask such an important question as: Why do the Gospels contain so many miracle claims, beyond virtually all other ancient writings? Their theories do not allow any answer to such relevant questions.
. . . the miracles . . . are treated less critically, than what is usually seen in ancient historiography and historical biography.
The reason they are treated less critically is that the Gospel writers were certain that those events really happened, whereas miracle claims normally were rejected and not taken seriously, for lack of evidence, and so the writers omitted them. So we need to ask: Why did the Gospel writers believe so definitely that the Jesus miracle stories were true events? while there are no writers who believed any other reported miracle claims? We have 4 written sources, near the time of the alleged events, attesting to the Jesus miracle acts (5 attesting to the Resurrection), but none attesting to any other miracle claims.
Also there are reports of frauds or hoaxes or charlatans, but none of that period condemning the Jesus miracle stories as fraudulent. So some ancient writers did report fraudulent claims where they existed. But virtually no writers reported recent miracle events as actually having happened -- except in this one case only.
If you think it was normal for educated people to believe such events and record them, then why are there no other cases of such reported events in the literature? i.e., 4 (5) sources, dated near to the time of the alleged events? There's nothing else even close.
A possible explanation why the Gospel writers believed the claims is that they had multiple reports from different sources, such that these miracle reports had much more credibility than the normal miracle claims, which usually were not taken seriously, for lack of evidence, and so were not recorded and copied and recopied as the Gospel events were.
In contrast to writers like Antias and Livy and Plutarch, the Gospel writers were much closer to the actual time of the alleged events they report. There were contemporaries of the historical time of the events who were still alive when they wrote their accounts, but there were no such contemporaries of Romulus & Remus etc. still alive when Antias and Livy wrote their accounts.
So the Gospel writers had much more reason to believe the miracle claims before them than Livy etc. had to believe the miracle legends they report, from ancient traditions passed down to them over many centuries.
[17] Another aspect of the Gospels that points towards legendary development is the . . .
"legendary development"? Does that mean fictional rather than historical?
All the facts point toward the miracle events being historical, not fictional. Of course there's probably the fictional element -- mainly the Bethlehem story -- which there is reason to doubt. Every ancient writing contained some fiction. But nothing factual presented so far by Ferguson shows any fictional element in the reported miracle acts of Jesus. Only the virgin birth has "legendary development" or a fictional aspect to it, but not the Jesus miracle acts.
There is the one exception -- the multiplying the fish and loaves -- which has the similarity to the Elisha story of II Kings 4:42-44 and therefore suggests a "legendary development" possibility, as it could have been patterned on this earlier story. But no other reported miracle act of Jesus has been shown to have such a connection to anything earlier which might suggest "legendary development" from earlier literature.
That there is only this one case showing possible tie-in to earlier tradition means that this one Jesus miracle story is the "exception which makes the rule" here -- i.e., the rule that the Jesus miracle acts are dissimilar to any earlier traditions, and so could not be based on "legendary development" but popped up in the 1st century AD without any explanation or any precedent making them part of an ongoing pattern of miracle claims during those centuries. There is no such pattern they fit into.
. . . that points towards legendary development is the presence of a number of characters, who appear to be solely allegorical in their role. For example, in my essay “WLC Tries to Defend the Myth of Barabbas,” I argue that . . .
"a number . . . who appear to be solely allegorical . . ."? Who? Which characters? There will have to be a better example than Barabbas, who is almost certainly historical, and for whom there is no explanation making him an allegory. If this is Ferguson's best example of a "solely allegorical" character, then there are no examples.
Why should we believe the Barabbas character is fictional?
Though the interpretation of the Barabbas episode is problematic, that's no excuse to dismiss this character as an "allegory" instead of just admitting we have difficulty explaining this particular episode. There's no explanation why the
Mark author would invent this character, or what literary role he plays.
I argue that the character Barabbas (whose name means “son of the father”) is probably a mythical character.
The facts indicate that he was a real person, regardless of confusion on the details of what happened. That there is something confusing does not mean the character was invented as an "allegory," but rather points to something real which happened, and what we lack is further information to explain it. That makes far more sense than saying the story is invented, because a story-inventor would have produced something less confusing than we have with this episode.
Barabbas appears right before the scene of Jesus’ crucifixion, when Pontius Pilate asks the crowd to choose one prisoner for release as part of the Passover festival. Not only is this custom to release a prisoner at the crowd’s bidding unattested among any other ancient sources (and is likewise unknown as a practice in any Roman territory, beyond just Judea), but . . .
Yes, the prisoner release custom could be fictional, but not this whole event or the Barabbas character. We have to distinguish these two:
•
this prisoner release incident and Barabbas character
---
cannot be explained as a fiction or invention.
• the general
custom of releasing a prisoner
---
can easily be explained as a fiction, i.e., an attempt by the
Mark writer to explain the release.
If the release did happen, it's easy to explain how the fiction would be invented (that this was a regular custom) as the writer's explanation for it.
But for the whole event to be a fiction makes no sense. Such a character serves no "allegory" role for the inventor of the story. But if this particular prisoner release actually did happen, then the
Mark author could easily have misinterpreted what the reason was for it. Many were present and witnessed the release, with the shouting and arguing, but the reason for the release wasn't necessarily obvious. Why would there necessarily be an official announcement to the crowd explaining why this prisoner was being released?
The event was not necessarily an official formal trial, in our modern sense, with set procedures and protocols for each step in the process, with a formal testimony period, then deliberation, then announcement of the verdict, etc. Rather, we have a chaotic scene during which Jesus was condemned and the notorious prisoner was released, and the details to explain it are missing.
What's the real reason Barabbas was released? It's easy to explain why someone would invent a reason for the release, and also why some in the crowd wanted him released, if he was a revolutionary zealot, but not why the whole scene of a prisoner release would be invented. Such a fictional character serves no purpose -- explanations trying to state the purpose of inventing this scene are incoherent.
Much more likely is that Barabbas was released for some unknown reason, i.e., unknown to the
Mark author and most others. That a prisoner was released, or a swap took place, releasing the guilty one and condemning an innocent one instead, is not improbable. We just don't know the reason (though we can speculate).
Why did the crowd turn against Jesus? One might reasonably disbelieve the scene of the crowd rejecting Jesus in favor of a criminal, which contradicts common sense, because the "multitude" usually favored Jesus and did not condemn him. But the scene could easily be explained if this particular "crowd" was not representative but contained an unusual number of aggressive militants who were sympathetic to Barabbas.
Isaac Asimov gives a reasonable explanation of the scene of Barabbas and the shouting crowd which favors the criminal over Jesus:
It might well be then that Barabbas had been one of the Sicarii, or terrorists, who had led a guerilla band against the Romans, and had carried through the assassination of some Roman official. He might well therefore be a hero to the Zealots, the very ones who were disenchanted with Jesus for having backed away in the matter of the tribute.
Given their choices between a bandit leader who did not preach but fought against the Romans, and one who preached and called himself a Messiah but took no action and submitted tamely to capture, imprisonment, and trial, the populace (or at least the vocal Zealots among them) called for Barabbas--and got him.
Asimov's Guide to the Bible, p. 889
This could explain why the "crowd" turned against Jesus. It accounts for everything except the specific reason for the release of Barabbas -- the real reason rather than the fictional custom of releasing a prisoner, including why the Romans/Pilate would go along with releasing a violent revolutionary guilty of murder.
These 2 questions, why Barabbas was released, and why the crowd turned against Jesus, do have possible answers that would reasonably explain it, though they're only speculation. However, that the whole incident is a fiction or "allegory" doesn't answer anything and cannot reasonably explain this episode in the Gospels.
Why couldn't there be a connection of the Barabbas scene to the betrayal by Judas? Though Asimov doesn't suggest such a connection, he thinks Judas was also a violent zealot revolutionist:
If, indeed, Judas Iscariot is a misreading for Judas Sicariot ("Judas the Terrorist") then it is possible to view the betrayal in an entirely different light.
Suppose Judas was heart and soul one of those extremists who desired and demanded instant war against Rome. He may have attached himself to Jesus in the hope that this man might indeed be the Messiah whose coming would put an end to the hated Roman dominion at once. It may have been with a gathering excitement that he traveled with Jesus to Jerusalem, that he witnessed his triumphant entry . . .
Judas may have felt sure that Passover would be the signal for the divine battle, so often foretold in detail by the prophets, in which all the forces of heathendom would be destroyed and the Son of David would be seated on the throne of the kingdom.
What changed things? It may well have been the matter of the Roman tribute and Jesus' retort that what was Caesar's would have to be given to Caesar. To Judas, this may have seemed a disclaimer of any intention to oppose Rome politically and a declaration on Jesus' part that he was concerned with religious and ethical matters only. If so, that would have been a crushing blow to him.
Then, too, if Jesus did in fact preach the second coming, . . . then that could well have completed Judas' disillusionment. It was now that Judas wanted action -- not having it postponed after the Messianic coming to a second coming.
. . . Judas might have been so sick with disillusionment as to have yearned for revenge. Feeling he had been made a fool of, he might have hastened, in a fit of rage, to get back at what he considered a deceiver by arranging to have him arrested and executed."
(Asimov, p. 877)
And maybe Judas, in sympathy with Barabbas, made his deal with the high priests for a trade, i.e., to get Barabbas released in return for Jesus, who the authorities regarded as a greater threat than Barabbas, who was only a minor nuisance by comparison, though he might have murdered someone.
So a reasonable speculation is that the release of Barabbas was Judas' main motive, while the authorities saw Jesus as more dangerous, as a rallying point for the revolutionaries. And the crowd yelling "crucify him!" at the trial were zealots angry at Jesus for not leading a violent uprising. This could be the real reason for the exchange of Barabbas for Jesus, rather than a custom of releasing a prisoner.
If such a deal had been struck between Judas and certain high priests, it would be in their interest and Pilate's to honor the deal, seeing that it's in their long-term interest to keep their word in such a case. The Romans/Pilate could easily have seen this as pragmatic, if Barabbas was a lesser long-term threat.
The scene didn't have to be a formal trial, in the normal sense, but there was a crowd and a proceeding of some kind, and the exchange stirred some confusion. The aggressive zealots in the crowd strongly favored having the rebel Barabbas freed and Jesus condemned for not carrying through their demands for a violent uprising. While the non-zealots present were afraid to oppose the aggressive zealots and so kept quiet.
Of course there are many other possible explanations of this incident, but none which would have the whole incident and Barabbas figure be purely fictional. Only the reason given for the release, the
Mark custom of releasing a prisoner, is likely fiction.
. . . but there is also strong reason to suspect that this scene was invented for allegorical purposes.
No, only to suspect that we don't have a full account of it, and that what we have contains confusing elements. There's nothing to suggest the original scene was invented. An invented scene would be far more complete and consistent, because there must be a purpose intended by the inventor, who would make that purpose clear in his "allegory" example.
The scene has to be based on something real which happened, because there's no point served by inventing this scene. If there's any "allegory" here, it has to be about the injustice of an innocent person being convicted and punished while a guilty person is set free, because that's what this story is saying, and any "allegory" has to fit that scenario, if the story was invented for some purpose, or with a message to communicate.
Though some later theologians (who might have been smoking something) tried to make an allegory from the story, the only explanation that fits is that a real event like this happened, and then perhaps the story became distorted later, as it was difficult to make sense of the original story. But any explanation still has to interpret the basic story in its original form and not change it to fit some "allegory" applied to it by a later theologian mystic. Such later mystical distortions do not tell us what the original story was, or if a character was invented.
The basic plot is of an innocent person condemned and a guilty person being set free, which Ferguson's allegory theory doesn't fit:
During the Yom Kippur sacrifice, there were two identical goats selected each year.
That doesn't fit the Barabbas scene, because there's nothing "identical" about the two "goats" Christ and Barabbas in the basic story. One is clearly presented as innocent and being falsely punished, while the other is clearly guilty and is getting off scot-free. There's no similarity between this scene and that of the two Yom Kippur goats. If an analogy to the two goats was the original meaning, the Barabbas figure would also be an innocent person accused and treated unjustly, or threatened unjustly with punishment. But that's not what the inventors gave us in this story, if it's an invention.
One was released into the wild bearing the sins of Israel.
But this was an innocent scapegoat deserving no blame or punishment. Whereas Barabbas was guilty and deserved to be punished, yet is described as going free. It's nutty to see some analogy between him and the scapegoat, as if he's innocent and being falsely accused. In the Gospel accounts Barabbas is guilty and is falsely released, not falsely accused as a scapegoat. So there is no analogy of Barabbas to the scapegoat symbol.
The other was sacrificed in blood to atone for those sins. Hebrews 8-9 outside of the Gospels already attests to how the early Christians viewed Jesus as the ultimate Yom Kippur sacrifice where Jesus is the atonement for sins.
But the Hebrews text is not about the Yom Kippur ritual of the two goats. The blood sacrifice and lamb-of-God language in the New Testament has nothing to do with the Yom Kippur ritual of the two goats. There's never any 2-goats symbolism in the New Testament language about blood atonement found in Paul and the Gospels. Of course an oddball theologian centuries later can pervert any text to make it fit some mystical-vision theory he comes up with, but it's not in the original text. That text must have come from a real event where a guilty person was released even though he deserved to be punished as a criminal.
The allegory theory has to explain why we have a BAD GOAT Barabbas, guilty, deserving punishment, whereas the Yom Kippur scapegoat was an
innocent victim, not guilty of anything. The analogy totally breaks down on this point.
Thus, in this allegory, the Gospel authors are telling their readers to reject the sins of violence and rebellion represented through Barabbas . . .
But that has nothing to do with the Yom Kippur scapegoat, which did not represent any sins of violence or rebellion. If this scene is supposed to represent the Yom Kippur ritual from Leviticus, there was no reason for the inventors of it to make Barabbas a violent criminal. They should have portrayed him as innocent, making two innocent victims, from which one is to be ritually sacrificed and the other to be the scapegoat, but neither has anything to do with violence and murder and rebellion, and thus no connection to the criminal Barabbas character.
If the Yom Kippur scapegoat scene is what the story inventor wanted to express, he would have made his Barabbas character an innocent victim, rather than a guilty murderer. So that "allegory" cannot possibly be the origin of this episode, however much confusion or fictional elements the
Mark account might contain. Whatever got confused after the original story, it's impossible that the original story had anything to do with the scapegoat symbol.
So there must have been a REAL scene here, with a real criminal or rebel who committed murder, and then perhaps this scene was later interpreted and twisted by a Christian theologian wanting to give mystical interpretations to Bible verses. There's no way to explain why Barabbas is made a criminal rather than an innocent victim, unless there was in fact such a guilty person who was really arrested and about to be executed for his crime.
. . . and instead to embrace Jesus’ ultimate atonement sacrifice.
This can be further demonstrated by the fact that the early church father Origen even recognized the symbolism of the allegory in Homily on Leviticus (10.2.2):
Behold! Here you have the goat, who is sent alive into the wilderness, bearing the sins upon himself . . .
Origen is simply wacked out here, because he's implying that Barabbas is the one who bears the sins upon himself, which obviously contradicts the New Testament teaching that Christ is the one bearing the sins. There's no suggestion in the Gospel scene that Barabbas is being sent by Pilate off somewhere to bear everyone's sins. It's clearly Christ only who is described this way, not only as the one who is sacrificed, but also the one bearing the sins.
So Origen is just going off the deep end here with his attempt at drawing symbols from the Bible text. Sometimes you just have to leave the text alone, with its plain meaning, and not try to mesmerize people by reading dark mysterious symbolism into it.
There's no way the Gospel writers could have meant to suggest that Barabbas was the scapegoat bearing the sins on himself and being rejected somehow, in this scene where he is released by Pilate and is described as someone "among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection" (Mk 15:7) and as a "robber" (Jn 18:40).
. . . of the people shouting and saying: Crucify! Crucify! That man [Barabbas] is accordingly the goat sent alive into the wilderness, . . .
No, stop it! The goat sent into the wilderness is innocent and has nothing to do with any crime or robbery or violence or rebellion. Barabbas is not the innocent scapegoat but is a guilty violent criminal. If you're going to make symbols out of the Bible text, or the scene, you must make the object in the text correspond to your symbol. The scapegoat symbol of Yom Kippur does not correspond to anything violent or criminal or rebellious, such as Barabbas represents.
. . . and he [Jesus] is the goat, who is offered to God as a sacrifice, in order to atone for sins, and has made a true atonement for the people who believe in him.
But Barabbas cannot be the other "goat" or innocent scapegoat. There must have been a real historical character Barabbas, who was a criminal and not a scapegoat, and later maybe a misguided theologian distorted this scene into something representing the Yom Kippur ritual.
A pundit can draw whatever symbols he wants from the text, but the original event it depicts was about a character who must have been violent, participating in a riot and killing someone, which explains why he was arrested and was to be executed. That character cannot be a symbol for an innocent victim scapegoat.
This scapegoat "allegory" is only one wacko attempt to explain the Barabbas episode as fiction. What is driving these wackadoodle pundits to come up with such nonsense? Here's another goofy attempt to explain the Barabbas incident, this time tracing it to a text in Homer's
Odyssey, which
Mark supposedly used:
http://skepticalviewsofchristianity.com/jesus_and_barabbas.html
Athene touched him with her wand and [made Odysseus look like an old tramp]…Now there came a certain common tramp [named Irus] who used to go begging all over the city...and was notorious as an incorrigible glutton and drunkard…. he began to insult Odysseus, and to try and drive him [away and said to him,] "Be off, old man ….Do you not see that they are all giving me the wink, and wanting me to turn you out by force?"….. Odysseus gave him a blow on the neck…he fell groaning in the dust, gnashing his teeth and kicking on the ground…the [people] were beyond measure astonished….[they] threw up their hands and nearly died of laughter…[and said], "Hail , father stranger.."
Is there any way to see the above characters, Odysseus and Irus, as corresponding to Jesus and Barabbas respectively? In the Barabbas incident there's no exchange of words between Jesus and Barabbas, and no assault on him by Jesus, knocking him to the ground. How could someone be so demented as to think the
Mark story is based on this excerpt from Homer? It's this kind of mental derangement we're dealing with here, as Gospel-debunkers desperately try to make the Jesus events into fiction.
Incredibly, the above website continues to show alleged parallels between the two, the Barabbas scene and the Odyssey episode above, giving parallel verses in both stories, side by side, indicating the alleged same symbolism in both.
It's possible that a few legitimate parallels have been found between
Mark and the
Odyssey -- which wouldn't mean
Mark is fiction -- but then the wackos have come out of the woodwork and taken this up as a kind of religion, seeking magic symbols connecting these two works of literature, trying to pair them off chapter by chapter, verse by verse, seeking out corresponding symbols in every nook and cranny, on every page.
The rule-of-thumb has to be that you must check out every "parallel" claim yourself, directly, from the original source, never believing what any mystic or debunker tells you, even the alleged scholars who parade their credentials and expect you to take their word for it about all the "Messiahs" who predated Jesus, who rose from the dead, etc. etc. There are far too many charlatans peddling these wacko theories, even some having official credentials from legitimate institutions. It's no longer possible to take anyone's word for any of it. When you check it out yourself, reading the original text from the time in question, checking each fact one by one, you can judge the credibility yourself, directly.
Because the character of Barabbas may have been invented for allegorical purposes . . .
No, he could not have been. Because there's nothing in the description of him that fits any allegorical purpose. Only a distortion of him, as he's described, could turn him into this scapegoat of the Yom Kippur ritual, not the original character in
Mark, where he's a violent rebel and criminal.
. . . (or at least been depicted in fictional ways, if historical), it casts doubt on whether this story ever actually took place.
No, it strengthens the story as being a real event, because there's no explanation why Barabbas would be depicted as a criminal unless he really existed and was in fact a criminal, which then explains why we have this reported scene of him, describing him as a criminal but being released. If this character was invented as a symbol, then why did the inventors depict him as a guilty violent criminal? What symbol did they have in mind?
If there's no reason for the inventor to depict him this way, as a violent criminal, then this violent criminal character must not have been invented, because the inventor could only have depicted him that way for a reason, to serve the inventor's purpose. If no such purpose or reason can be identified, then it couldn't be an invention, because the inventing act is something intentional by the inventor -- it's a voluntary act, done for a reason or purpose. So the Barabbas character the writers gave us must have been a real historical figure they had to use because the facts dictated this to them, who were not inventing the character but reporting what really happened.
How could Barabbas represent something (the scapegoat) which is not criminal but an innocent victim being punished for someone else's crime? and being led away to a place of suffering rather than being set free as Barabbas was? And even though the
Matthew writer softened the description of Barabbas as a criminal, even his character is set free rather than led off to be punished as a scapegoat would be.
The question really has to be: Why was Barabbas released if he was guilty? while instead an innocent person was executed in his place?
You can try to make an allegory out of the scene, but if so you have to explain the allegory's connection to the basic scene depicted in the text, not attach a symbol to it which contradicts the scene, as the scapegoat symbol contradicts it. The scapegoat interpretation does not fit the scene, because obviously the Barabbas character is not any scapegoat -- which would be an innocent victim -- but is presented as a violent criminal who deserved to be punished.
Such allegorical characters, therefore, are another historical-critical problem for . . .
No, there's no allegorical character here, and thus no "problem" for anything.
. . . for the Gospels’ reliability.
No, their reliability is further supported by the fact that there is no allegory here which can explain the scene, and so the scene must be factual. If there's a real allegory somewhere, then let's have it -- this scapegoat nonsense is not it. That no one can provide any such allegory to explain the scene is a further indication that the origin of it is fact, rather than fiction or symbolic mysticism.
No one can explain what the allegory is. It makes no sense to say that
Mark would introduce a criminal murderer character to serve as an innocent scapegoat figure.
Perhaps the Gospels do contain some allegory. But we need a real example of it, not this phony misrepresentation of the Barabbas scene. If you want to make Barabbas into a symbol, you must relate it to something which represents violence and crime and guilt, plus also a guilty person being set free.
You can argue that the
Matthew account partly changes the Barabbas scene to add some Jewish symbolism and play down the criminality of Barabbas. That extra symbolism, or those extra details -- Pilate washing his hands -- might be fictional, but the original story they are added to is not fiction. It's the
Mark version which is primary, to which
Matthew perhaps adds something (but not added in
Luke or
John).
The Barabbas character in
Mark is a rebel and murderer, not an innocent scapegoat, even though the
Matthew version tries to modify it to make Barabbas less criminal. So the original Barabbas figure had to be a violent criminal and not an allegory, and the credibility of the basic original story is not undermined by the possible addition of an allegorical/fictional element in
Matthew.
Scholar Jennifer Maclean discusses Barabbas’ role as an allegorical character further in “Barabbas, the Scapegoat Ritual, and the Development of the Passion Narrative.”
Here's a Jennifer Maclean quote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...onor_of_palm_sundaywhat_happened_to_barabbas/
There is no external evidence for any tradition of the Romans releasing a prisoner at Passover, and the release of violent insurgents is historically very unlikely.
So this one part is dubious -- there's no way to determine the origin of this reported "custom" to release a prisoner. Maybe it's fiction. But that doesn't make the Barabbas character a fictional scapegoat symbol. It's impossible for a scapegoat symbol to be represented by a violent criminal murderer character deserving to be executed but being released. Possibly the prisoner release explanation is an added fiction to explain why Barabbas was released, and so we don't know the real reason. But the notion that Barabbas is a scapegoat symbol is nonsense, because there's nothing about this character connecting him to the scapegoat symbolism.
Something like the prisoner-release custom could easily be fiction, being only an attempt to explain the release of Barabbas, or the motive/reason for this. The motive is not easily observed and could be unknown. But the observed event of this criminal being released cannot be explained as fiction.
Maclean quote continued: Mark seems to have invented it as a plot device in the service of what most scholars think was probably a scapegoat allegory.
No, "most scholars" don't think something so nutty. Though the
Matthew account seems to put some Yom Kippur symbolism into it, the earlier version
Mark does not. No self-respecting "scholar" can really think the original
Mark version is presenting Barabbas as a Yom Kippur scapegoat symbol.
If the original
Mark character is an allegory, it cannot be a scapegoat allegory, because he could not be both an innocent scapegoat and also a violent criminal. If it was supposed to be a scapegoat allegory, then the character invented would be an innocent victim, probably someone falsely accused. Which is the opposite of what Barabbas is described as.
If the character is invented, then the inventor has the liberty to make him be whatever fits the allegory, but the
Mark author makes this Barabbas character a violent criminal, which does not fit the Yom Kippur scapegoat allegory. If there is an allegory here, you have to come up with something other than this one. This scapegoat allegory totally distorts the Barabbas character into something the inventor did not intend (if this character is an invention).
Why didn't the inventor of Barabbas make this character to be an innocent victim who was falsely accused, which would have fit the Yom Kippur goat symbol? That he instead made him to be a guilty violent criminal shows clearly that this character was not invented as an allegory to the Yom Kippur scapegoat, despite esoteric visions of Origen or Maclean and others.
It's true that both these pundits are respected scholars, but some scholars on a crusade have a way of going off the deep end, with their psychic visions. We must question these and not take them on their authority as scholars -- the Barabbas as scapegoat simply cannot be derived from the
Mark account, no matter how you twist it, and though a few pundits are driven to such nuttiness, they have to be rejected, despite their impressive credentials in a few cases.
Yes, there are some Christians who get a warm fuzzy feeling by comparing the Barabbas scene to the 2-goats ritual of Leviticus 16, but most do not need this fuzziness, which rejects the clear wording of
Mark that Barabbas was a guilty violent criminal who was unjustly set free to return to his crimes, not to be led off to banishment or punishment as the scapegoat was. The dissimilarities are too striking and contradictory -- you have to throw out
Mark,
Luke, and
John as false, and assume only the
Matthew version is correct.
Dissimilarity of Barabbas and the Yom Kippur scapegoat
And even the Mt version contradicts the scapegoat interpretation, because Barabbas is set free, not led away to be punished. And the two goats are equally guilty and equally condemned, neither of them "set free" or given any kind of reprieve, as Barabbas is. If this were a scapegoat ceremony symbol, what sense does it make to place them before the crowd and ask which one they want released? That wasn't done with the two Yom Kippur goats, as if one of them was being favored by being led off to the wilderness to die, while a raging crowd clamors for the other to be condemned, as if the condemned one loses in the contest and is made worse off (like being "voted off the island" in that goofy TV show, or like the show "Queen for a Day" where the audience picks a winner).
No, in the Yom Kippur ritual, both goats are punished, both rejected even though they are both innocent victims. And there's no contest to choose a winning goat which is set free and a losing goat which is mocked by observers and butchered.
In the Barabbas scene one prisoner is condemned while the other is chosen to be set free, and Pilate pleads with the crowd to reconsider this unjust outcome, as one is being mistreated while the other is wrongly being liberated without any condemnation -- one clearly innocent and the other one guilty. This is totally dissimilar to the Yom Kippur scene of two equally innocent goats.
In a true Yom Kippur scapegoat scenario, there is no choice to favor one goat over the other, as if one is getting off or being "set free" while only the one to be ritually sacrificed is condemned. No, both goats are equally condemned, and there's no point in pleading for the innocence of one rather than the other, or for releasing one rather than the other. The scene of Pilate "washing his hands" from his feeling of guilt for yielding to this unjust outcome has no correspondence to the Yom Kippur ritual, where there's no unjust decision to condemn the wrong goat, as both goats are equally guilty or innocent and will suffer condemnation and death.
If the Barabbas scene had been intended as a Jewish scapegoat symbol, we'd see Barabbas led away and thrown over a cliff, or banished to a wilderness of some kind where he would starve. Obviously nothing like that happened to him, but he was "released" or set free to go unpunished, as implied clearly in all four accounts.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
