What if Jesus Rather than Barabbas had been Saved?
If Jesus had been pardoned and set free, how might history have been changed?
A constant form of debate in Christian theology stems from the contradictions between the four canonical Gospels. One of the stories that is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is the story of the Passover pardon (or Paschal Pardon), where the crowd in Jerusalem chose the criminal Barabbas to be freed by Pontius Pilate instead of Jesus. In Matthew (27:15), Barabbas is a ‘notorious prisoner,’ in John (18:40) he is referred to as a bandit, and in Mark (15:7) and Luke (23:19) it is said that he was involved in riots against Roman rule and was a murderer.
As with all religious texts, it is hard to separate myth from fiction, parable from history, teaching from truth. Nevertheless, scholars have tried to discover whether Barabbas really did exist, and whether he was pardoned instead of the upstart Christ who was growing a rebellious threat to Roman hegemony in the region.
Max Dimont (1999) thinks not. He argues that this story doesn’t make sense from a Roman perspective, since the idea that a powerful conquering force like the Romans could be cowed into releasing a dangerous criminal because a crowd of unarmed civilians call for it doesn’t make much political sense. Similarly, he argues that the Paschal Pardon tradition, where dangerous and condemned prisoners are released around Passover, is only found in the gospels.
However, other scholars (Evan and Wright, 2009) argue that there is evidence to support the tradition of the Paschal Pardon around this time and in this region, citing Roman historians such as Levy, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger. Of course, whether or not the Passover Pardon tradition was really used in first century Judea does not obviously prove the existence and pardon of Barabbas.
Though there is at least evidence that the name Barabbas was being used in the region at the time, with a grave being found in 1970 dating back to the first century BCE with the name Barabbas engraved upon it.
All in all, there is very little historical evidence either way. The story of Barabbas is mentioned in all 4 gospels, but if one doesn’t consider the gospels as historical works (and there are pretty strong arguments not to do so) then the remaining evidence is woefully limited at best.
But equally, with the story at least featuring (unlike many others) in all four gospels, it has at least some prima facie plausibility. Let’s assume it is roughly right. In particular, let’s assume, as two of the four gospels explicitly claim, that Barabbas was a known and convicted anti-Rome rebel. And now, let’s assume just one little tweak to how history plays out. One little tug at a thread in the rug of human history that has been woven over the last two millennia. A tug that unravels a truly astonishing amount.
In short, what if Barabbas were real - and what if he had NOT been saved, but a certain Jesus ‘Christ’ had instead felt good fortune, on that famous day, near Calvary…