Mark 15:12 versus Matthew 27:22: was Jesus the Christ for the his accusers?

[Giuseppe]

Mark 15:12 :

12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.

Matthew 27:22 :

“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”

Note the (surprising) difference:

In Mark the scribes and pharisees call Jesus as the king of the Jews.

In Matthew Jesus "is called Christ" obviously "by the people" but not by the scribes and pharisees (who want Jesus dead).

Matthew has omitted the embarrassing "fact" in Mark about who precisely called Jesus as "king of the Jews": the same his accusers.

If the same scribes and pharisees believed that Jesus is the Christ, then why did the same scribes and pharisees kill Jesus (by using Pilate)?

The more simple answer is that Jesus wasn't really the Christ, for Mark.

So the scribes and pharises appeal to Pilate because they want that Jesus seems really the Christ. But even Pilate isn't so sure about is messianic identity.

In Matthew the anonymous people call Jesus as "the Christ", but not the his accusers before Pilate.
So the reader is more persuaded that Jesus was the Christ, afterall, given the fact that only the his enemies didn't call him so.

So, if Jesus is not the Christ in Mark but was such for the his accusers, why then did the latter prefer Barabbas?

The Mark's irony is that they didn't know who was the father of Jesus, just when they were releasing a "Son of the Father" and putting to death their (only presumed) Christ.

[Giuseppe]

So Mark is denying that Jesus is the Christ of the Jews (since he is considered such by the same scribes and pharisees) and in the same time Mark is claiming that Jesus is the Christ of another Father, one not known by the Jews.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In Mark the scribes and pharisees call Jesus as the king of the Jews.

It seems that Pilate is speaking with the crowds in Mark 15:12 (btw the Pharisees are not there). Note that Pilate only claims that they call him king of the Jews.

[Giuseppe]

In Mark the scribes and pharisees call Jesus as the king of the Jews.

It seems that Pilate is speaking with the crowds in Mark 15:12 (btw the Pharisees are not there). Note that Pilate only claims that they call him king of the Jews.

better (per 15:11): the pharisees are behind the crowd. I don't know how this may alter my comment above.

Note the contradiction (an editorial fatigue?) between the people's opinion in the Caesarea Philippi's episode (the people think that Jesus is John the Baptist redivivus) and the people's opinion in 15:12 (the people call Jesus their king). Surely Peter talked in the name of the people when he answered "Tu es Christus".

[Giuseppe]

For Mark obviously Jesus was the Christ (even in a separationist view, it is presumed that after the resurrection the man Jesus and the spiritual Christ become one and the same). What I mean is that there is only a way in Mark for Jesus NOT being really the Christ: he is not the Christ of the god of the Jews.

He is the Christ of an alien, unknown god.

So I think that the entire pun behind the name "Barabbas" is in the his emphasis on the identity of the "Father" : of which Father was Jesus the Son?

The Jews were freeing Barabbas without knowing really "Barabbas", i.e. without knowing the real "Son of the Father".

In the same time, the same Jews were condemning a Christ without knowing really of which god Jesus is the Christ.

Therefore the fugue of Barabbas allegorizes the people's ignorance of the true Father of Jesus: not the Demiurge.