I remember reading once about how the entire story about Jesus and Barabbas being presented to the crowd and Barabbas being chosen and the entire "his blood shall be on our hands!" was born from a mistranslation: namely, that the name Barabbas simply means 'son of the Father' (bar-Abbas) in Hebrew, and is not an actual given name. However, it could have been en epiphet, and one likely used by Jesus, such that when the crowd yelled for 'Barabbas!', they were actually clamoring for the release of Jesus.
How true is this, /his/? If true, wouldn't this negate the entire "the Jews killed Christ" as well as most of the blood libel? Secondly, it seems quite convenient that this mistranslation would absolve the Romans, because let us remember, most of the converts to Christianity ended up being Romans/Greeks and not Jews.
Nice try Jew. You're still going to hell for eternity.
>>1296550
>>>/pol/
>>1296556
That's not true. We say "triggering" too.
>>1296541
That seems exceptionally unlikely given how hard Pilate tried to get Jesus off the hook.
>>1296541
You should check out Hyam Maccoby, who makes similar claims, but backs it up with a good deal of scholarship.
Remember:
The oldest manuscripts of Mark go even further, mention that this is "Jesus Barrabas", not just "Barrabas", and has Pilate making sure when he addresses the crowd that there was no mistake which Jesus he's talking about.
There's also 0 independent corroboration of any sort of passover pardon. And that it goes against everything we know of Pilate from other sources to honor such a custom even if it did exist.
Again, referring to Maccoby, but there's a very real possibility that
>Jesus comes to Jersualem, not in the spring near Passover, but near the fall, which makes his curse of the fig tree actually make sense.
>Gets locked up for a number of reasons, probably due to some sort of conflict with the Sadducees.
>Put on sham trial in front of the high priest.
>But the high priest doesn't have any legal authority to execute people, and the Sanhedrin is largely dominated by Pharisees, who wouldn't mind setting someone like him free. (don't forget Acts claim of Gamaliel, one of the most prominent pharisees, suggesting a wait and see approach.)
>Try to palm Jesus off to the Romans to actually execute him, since the Sadducees won't go that far.
>Meanwhile, his followers are demanding the release of their leader.
>Pilate doesn't give a shit, eventually executes Jesus around Passover time.
Remember when the Gospels were published. This wasn't a society that afforded freedom of the press, and the Christians were a weird disturbing cult out of the east. Putting the blame on the Jews is ctually probably less about blaming the Jews per se, but NOT blaming the Romans, who could have stamped down considerably harder than they did on Christians, especially in the early days when the cult was weaker.
But seriously OP, check out Revolution in Judea.
>>1296596
This seems like Christian revision, I could be wrong but it doesn't seem in Pilate's character. Pilate didn't give a single fuck about the Jews and Jesus was nothing but a particularly bothersome one who was causing quite a bit of trouble in one of Rome's most contentious provinces. Makes more sense that he'd just want to kill the bastard and get it over with.
>>1296565
That started in ironic mockery of tumblr's use of it. Then it stopped being used ironically and became common nomenclature. That is how most things happen on /pol/.
>>1296541
The second guy's name was a pseudonym as it just means "Son of the Father". He was involved in some sort of rebellious act where someone was murdered. He was guilty.
Jesus was innocent.
The crows yelled for Jesus' blood, and yelled to let the zealot free.
The Jews did call a curse down on their heads, but they only murdered Jesus in their hearts.
Nobody could have killed Jesus. He came to die. He lay down His life and died, and He picked it back up again.
If Jesus didn't want to die, He would still be on that cross today.
>>1296621
The Jews said if he didn't crucify Jesus they'd tell Caesar that he wasn't loyal to Caesar, letting a King flourish in occupied territory.
>>1296621
Have you not read the bible? Pilate tried his best to find an excuse to find a crime - any crime - that Jesus had committed but the only thing Jesus had done was piss off the Sanhedrin by claiming to be the son of God. Pilate refused to use Roman authority to kill someone for something that wasn't a crime under Roman law but the Sanhedrin threatened to start a civil war if he didn't kill Jesus so his hand was forced - but before he would do that he made it abundantly clear that the Jewish authority was responsible for the death and the Jewish authority assented; Pilate literally and metaphorically washed his hands of the entire affair. He even put "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" on the cross against the protestations of the Sanhedrin and warned them not to touch it.
He didn't want to kill Jesus but had no choice (hell, even his wife spoke in Jesus' defense) and he obviously resented being used as a catspaw.
>>1296681
The same idiots today saying such things were not in Pilate's character in centuries past were saying Pilate did not exist.
>>1296711
I can't even parse that sentence, let alone understand it.
>>1296681
Oh great, we're going back to the "the Bible says so so your argument is wrong" defense.
>>1296996
Do you have evidence for a conflicting version of events?
I'm not even a Christian.
