Your reading (a traditional reading insofar it makes Barabbas only a symbol of generic sin, apostasy, militant messianism, etc, with or without the midrash from the two goats of Leviticus 16) has to be not mutually exclusive with what has been proposed by Stahl/Couchoud and resumed by Magne so:
translated:
Put simply, the Barabbas episode is the transposition on paper of a real conflict that opposed the adorers of Jesus from the people, among them, who wanted that Jesus was identified with the Jewish Messiah. It is a simple reading and I don't understand why one should reject a such reading, that has the merit, inter alia, to explain why in the Passion story the 'correct' Jesus is called 'Christ'/king of the Jews' not one, but a lot of times.
Y a-t-il ironie dans le fait que les Juifs rejettent Jésus prétendu messie et réclament Jésus Barabbas, c'est-à-dire Jésus Fils du Père, que le sanhédrin a condamné comme blasphémateur? Le récit ne serait-il pas plutôt la transposition d'une opposition à la messianisation, ou "christianisation", du Seigneur Jésus, Fils de Dieu, au sein du mouvement qui plus tard, à Antioche, prendra le nom de christianisme? "Fils du Père" est le titre que revendique Jésus en appelant Dieu son Père. Il lui est attribué dans la Deuxième Epître de Jean (v. 3), et chaque jour encore des milliers de voix pieuses l'acclament "Filius Patris" dans la récitation liturgique du Te Deum et du Gloria in excelsis.
translated:
Is there irony in the fact that the Jews reject the so-called messiah Jesus and wanted free Jesus Barabbas, that is, Jesus Son of the Father, whom the Sanhedrin condemned as a blasphemer? Would the story not rather be the transposition of an opposition to the messianization, or "Christianization", of the Lord Jesus, Son of God, within the movement which later, in Antioch, would take the name of Christianity? “Son of the Father” is the title that Jesus claims when calling God his Father. It is attributed to him in the Second Epistle of John (v. 3), and every day still thousands of pious voices acclaim him Filius Patris in the liturgical recitation of the Te Deum and the Gloria in excelsis.
Put simply, the Barabbas episode is the transposition on paper of a real conflict that opposed the adorers of Jesus from the people, among them, who wanted that Jesus was identified with the Jewish Messiah. It is a simple reading and I don't understand why one should reject a such reading, that has the merit, inter alia, to explain why in the Passion story the 'correct' Jesus is called 'Christ'/king of the Jews' not one, but a lot of times.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Sun Feb 18, 2024 9:31 am