I really don't get what Giuseppe is trying to pull out of the Barabbas and Pilate story.
The crucifixion accounts are riddled with all kinds of incongruities, to the extent that some of them were already remarked upon in the work of several ancient authors. .........although seeming to be straightforward historical narrative, are unveiled by a closer scrutiny to be contrived.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 49). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
Pilate released Barabbas and hands Jesus over to be crucified. The 'good' man - Pilate finds no fault in him - and the 'bad man', Barabbas let go free.
This story, as Bermejo-Rubio says is
'riddled with all kinds of incongruities'.
One can go back and forth debating the Greek words used in the gospel text - but these words won't give a historically based explanation of the story.
At the same time, however, they incite the crowd to ask Pilate for the release of a certain Barabbas, who is unambiguously depicted as a man convicted of sedition. Mark 15:7 affirms that he “was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection,” thereby linking Barabbas with people convicted of bloodshed. The Fourth Gospel is likewise explicit, describing him as a lēstēs (a “brigand,” with the meaning of “insurgent”).31 Irrespective of whether the evangelists realized the contradiction embedded in the scene they have depicted, its problematic character is too obvious for any attentive reader.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 44-45). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
Viewing the account not as history but as a historical reflection, or remembrance, the releasing of Barabbas, the letting go of a seditionist, would indicate that the sedition was not fully put down during the time of Pilate. As Bermejo-Rubio wrote:
At the same time, however, we can be confident that the contention that “Under Tiberius all was quiet” should be carefully nuanced. In the phrase “relative peacefulness” the adjective has a specific weight. Given the scarce extant evidence we cannot be sure of the kind of resistance carried out in these episodes and whether their main characters were hardline anti-imperialists or not, but the simplest explanation for the abovementioned scraps of evidence is that an ideology of active resistance was already at work within the prefects’ period.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 124). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
The historical events of 37 b.c. indicate that the seditious ideology did not end with the Roman execution of Antigonus. Herod going on to kill 64 of his party. And, of course, the seditious ideology continued up to 70 c.e. and beyond.
If as I maintain, the gospel account is a a reflection of a historical event but is not itself a historical event - then Pilate seeking to wash his hands of Jesus would indicate that Rome was not responsible for the execution, crucifixion, of a 'king of the Jews' during the time of Tiberius and Pilate.
As for an assumed play on the name *Pilate* by the gospel writers - for what purpose? Pilate, re Philo, was a governor of Judaea in the time of Tiberius.
Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed
governor of
Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to
Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod,........And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of
Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him!
https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/tex ... ook40.html
Attempting to remove the name of Pilate from the gospel passion story for an unnamed governor of Judaea ? Whatever the timeframe of Pilate during the time of Tiberius (consensus late Daniel Schwartz early) the gospel writers placed him in the time of Tiberius. Did Pilate go under a different name or did he even exist ?(it seems, apart from the Pilate stone, there is no official Roman document detailing his time in Judaea) If one wanted to go that route - then it's both Philo and Josephus one must tackle. As it is, Pilate is in the gospel storyline - hense it's that storyline, in and off itself, that needs examination - not just any Greek words used in connection to Pilate.
Anyway, I'm waiting for someone to set out in simple terms the argument about Pilate that is being attempted in this thread.
Giuseppe - the gospel story is a crucified Jesus on terra-firma in the time of Pilate and Tiberius. If one has opted for this story not being historical - that it's Jesus figure is not a historical figure - there are basically two choices for the road forward. Run with wild imagination towards a celestial, outerspace, crucifixion - or read a history book on Jewish/Hasmonean history. One road has prospects that can help in understanding the gospel story - the other road is a dead-end, a cul de sac.
