Jesus, Barabbas, & the Crowd as Figures in Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology (Matthew 27:15–26)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Jesus, Barabbas, & the Crowd as Figures in Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology (Matthew 27:15–26)

Post by MrMacSon »

.
https://www.academia.edu/40871034/Jesus ... 020_125_53

Hans M. Moscicke, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233

Does Matthew craft a typological correspondence between Jesus and Barabbas and the two goats of Yom Kippur?

As on the Day of Atonement—the one day on the Jewish calendar when lots were cast over two goats, one goat “for the Lord”and one goat “for Azazel” (Lev 16:7–10, 15–22)—so it seems to be in Matt 27:15–26. Two figures identical in appearance yet starkly juxtaposed, Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Messiah, are presented to the crowd. Jesus Barabbas, the scapegoat, is released living, and Jesus the Messiah, the immolated goat, is put to death. But there are several problems with this interpretation.

First, it is unclear how Barabbas functions as a scapegoat in this typology. Second, it is uncertain how this Yom Kippur narrative relates to Matthew’s innocent-blood discourse, which climaxes in the proclamation, “His blood on us and on our children” (27:25). Third, the function of Pilate’s hand washing (27:24) in the typology is ambiguous.

To solve these riddles, I submit that, in his context of intra-Jewish sectarian conflict, Matthew inverts the Day of Atonement ritual for polemical effect, extending Barabbas’s role as scapegoat to the populace gathered before Pilate in a satirical rendition of the Yom Kippur ritual. Matthew has the gentile governor transfer the pollutant of blood guilt off his hands and onto the people, who, with their children, are destined to bear a curse, suffer exile, and inhabit a new wilderness in 70 CE.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus, Barabbas, & the Crowd as Figures in Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology (Matthew 27:15–26)

Post by Giuseppe »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:21 am But there are several problems with this interpretation.
true. A lot of problems.
First, it is unclear how Barabbas functions as a scapegoat in this typology. Second, it is uncertain how this Yom Kippur narrative relates to Matthew’s innocent-blood discourse, which climaxes in the proclamation, “His blood on us and on our children” (27:25). Third, the function of Pilate’s hand washing (27:24) in the typology is ambiguous.
I agree.
To solve these riddles, I submit that, in his context of intra-Jewish sectarian conflict, Matthew inverts the Day of Atonement ritual for polemical effect, extending Barabbas’s role as scapegoat to the populace gathered before Pilate in a satirical rendition of the Yom Kippur ritual.
I agree. Note that Tertullian accused, as a modern conspirazionist, the secret alliance of Jews and Marcionites against proto-Catholics. Hence no wonder that Jews want Barabbas free: they are allied with who adored the Jesus of Marcion, Bar-Abbas being the latter's parody beyond any reasonable doubt.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Jesus, Barabbas, & the Crowd as Figures in Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology (Matthew 27:15–26)

Post by MrMacSon »

Jesus as the Scapegoat and the Immolated Goat of Yom Kippur

(an excerpt from A. Orlov, Atoning Dyads: Two Goats of Yom Kippur in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation [forthcoming])

https://www.academia.edu/11838317/Jesus ... t_for_YHWH

.
Barabbas and Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew

… The appropriation of the two goats’ typology to both human and otherworldly characters continued on into early Christian traditions. Although it received its most lucid and unambiguous expressions in second - and third-century Christian writings, especially in the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, some scholars have suggested that traces of the goats typology, as applied to human subjects, can be noticed as early as the canonical gospels.

Matthew 27:15-26 is one text where the typology can be possibly found:
Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?" For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him."

Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." Pilate said to them, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?" All of them said, "Let him be crucified!" Then he asked, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!"

So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." Then the people as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified. (NRSV).
Here, the Jewish crowd demands that Pilate release Barabbas and crucify Jesus. Scholars note that it is difficult to ascertain the historicity of the release of a prisoner in this manner.Raymond Brown purports that "…there is no good analogy supporting the historical likelihood of the custom in Judea of regularly releasing a prisoner at a/the feast [of Passover]."

Scholars often assume that this episode is present in the gospel for "theological-literary reasons".3 Some details of the story appear to be linked to various Jewish sacerdotal traditions, and more specifically to the realities of the Yom Kippur ritual. Thus, it has been noted that the Barabbas episode can be illuminated by a comparison with the lottery of the goats that occurred on the Day of Atonement.

3 Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 167. Berenson Maclean notes that “…for these reasons many scholars have concluded that while a Barabbas may have been released by Pilate, the story as we have it in the gospels is a literary creation.” Berenson Maclean, “Barabbas, the Scapegoat Ritual, and the Development of the Passion Narrative,” 310

These sacerdotal allusions did not escape notice from early Christian exegetes. For example, Origen attempts to interpret the Barabbas narrative in light of the scapegoat ritual. In his Homily on Leviticus 10:2 he offers the following striking cultic interpretation of the Barabbas passage:
Nevertheless, since the word of the Lord is rich and, according to the opinion of Solomon "must be written on the heart" not once but also twice and "three times," let us also now attempt to add something to what was said long ago to the best of our ability, that we may show how "as a type of things to come" this one he-goat was sacrificed to the Lord as an offering and the other one was sent away "living."

Hear in the Gospels what Pilate said to the priests and the Jewish people: "Which of these two do you want me to send out to you, Jesus, who is called the Christ, or Barabbas?" Then all the people cried out to release Barabbas but to hand Jesus over to be killed. Behold, you have a he-goat who was sent "living into the wilderness," bearing with him the sins of the people who cried out and said, "Crucify, crucify." Therefore, the former is a he-goat sent "living into the wilderness" and the latter is the he-goat which was offered to God as an offering to atone for sins and he made a true atonement for those people who believe in him.

But if you ask who it is who led this he-goat "into the wilderness" to verify that he also was washed and made clean, Pilate himself can be taken as "a prepared man.''Certainly he was the judge of the nation itself who sent him by his sentence "into the wilderness." But hear how he was washed and made clean. When he had said to the people, "Do you want me to release to you Jesus,who is called the Christ," and all the people had shouted out, saying, "If you release this one, you are not a friend of Caesar," then it says "Pilate demanded water and washed his hands before the people, saying, I am clean from his blood; you should see to it." Thus, therefore, by washing his hands he will appear to be made clean.

Here, both Jesus and Barabbas are compared to the two goats of the atoning rite. As was the case with the patriarchal brotherly pairs that we have already explored, both members of the male dyad found in the Gospel are endowed with peculiar functions and traits that relate to the cultic animals of the atoning ritual. Thus, according to Origen’s interpretation, Jesus assumes the role of the immolated goat that must be “offered to God as an offering to atone for sins.” In contrast, Barabbas is given the role of the scapegoat—the one sent "living into the wilderness."The release of Barabbas is, therefore, equated with the release of the scapegoat into the desert.

Another striking sacerdotal feature found in Origen’s interpretation is the portrayal of Pilate as a cultic servant. It is not entirely clear if Pilate is to be understood here as a high priest who, according to mishnaic testimonies, was responsible for making the goats’ selection, or if he is merely understood as a handler of the scapegoat who leads the animal into the wilderness. One of the key cultic elements to the passage, according to Origen, is Pilate’s hand-washing. This purification ritual can relate to either the washing done by the high priest after his handling of the scapegoat or to the handler(s) who accompany the animal into the desert. This again makes it unclear what specific cultic role Pilate is performing. What is significant, however, is that he is indeed functioning in some cultic role.

[continues ...]

Further on ...

.
Jesus as the Immolated Goat in the Epistle to the Hebrews

With reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews, it has become common in scholarship to highlight Jesus’s portrayal as the high priest of the Yom Kippur rite. What has escaped notice,however, is Jesus’s possible identification with the goats of the atoning rite. Because the text possesses such a complex Christological agenda that attempts to reinterpret the atoning ritual in light of the Jesus story, it makes it all the more difficult for scholars to establish allusions to the goats’ typology in the Epistle.

In preceding scholarly interpretive endeavors, some features of the Yom Kippur ritual have received enormous attention, while other characteristics have been,for the most part, ignored. This is likely because the Epistle itself seems to hone in on a limited number of aspects of the atoning rite. It has been previously noted that the Epistle mainly“focuses on the blood ritual of the Day of Atonement and not the whole feast….”

Moreover, some reinterpretations found in the Epistle attempt to bring in familiar cultic motifs, but with novel conceptual dimensions.

It has also been suggested that Jesus's sacrifice is described in terms that are inconsistent with the blood ritual(s) outlined in Leviticus. Hebrews’ strong emphasis on the atoning power of blood is significant for our study.Because of the prominent role the blood ritual holds in this text, it has been suggested that the Epistle might attempt to portray Jesus as the immolated goat, an animal whose blood was so significant in the purgation ritual on Yom Kippur.

In relation to the blood motif, Berenson Maclean has suggested that the identification of Christ as the immolated goat “has a very early precedent in the Book of Hebrews. Without any mention of the scapegoat, the author of Hebrews presents Jesus' death in light of the goat's sacrifice in the purgation ritual …. Christ's entry into Holy of Holies in Heb 9:11- 14 is explicitly modeled upon the high priest's presentation of blood in that inner sanctuary.” She further argues that “although Hebrews does not mention the pair of goats, the implication is that Christ's blood corresponds to that of the immolated goat.” Berenson Maclean then concludes that “Jesus' death must have been modeled on the goat's sacrifice in the purgation ritual.”

If Jesus is indeed identified with the immolated goat in the Epistle to the Hebrews in some fashion, it is possible that the allusions to the goat are present not only in the later chapters of the Epistle – those that deal explicitly with the priestly traditions and the blood rituals – but also in the early chapters of the text. These early chapters have often escaped the notice of those who try to discern possible allusions to the immolated goat imagery. One of the intriguing cultic loci in this respect appears to be situated in the first chapter of the Epistle ....

....

The affinities of Heb 1:3-4 with Yom Kippur traditions have been often noted in previous studies. However, scholars have not investigated this narrative closely for its possible allusions to the other cultic animal of the atoning rite: the goat for YHWH. This passage, however, appears to possess several striking details that evoke the memory of the immolated goat ritual and especially the version of this cultic ordinance reflected in the Mishnah. It is surely significant that this compilation of Jewish legal traditions were codified close to the time that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. The first important detail that reflects the immolated goat tradition is the purification of sins, which we have already briefly noted. It is well known that the goat for YHWH played a significant role in the purification rites performed on the Day of Atonement ...

....

The affinities of Heb 1:3-4 with Yom Kippur traditions have been often noted in previous studies. However, scholars have not investigated this narrative closely for its possible allusions to the other cultic animal of the atoning rite: the goat for YHWH. This passage, however,appears to possess several striking details that evoke the memory of the immolated goat ritual and especially the version of this cultic ordinance reflected in the Mishnah. It is surely significant that this compilation of Jewish legal traditions were codified close to the time that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. The first important detail that reflects the immolated goat tradition is the purification of sins, which we have already briefly noted. It is well known that the goat for YHWH played a significant role in the purification rites performed on the Day of Atonement.

[continues ...]
.

Further on again -

.
Jesus as the Scapegoat and the Immolated Goat in Second- and Third- Century Christian Materials

While the connections with the Day of Atonement imagery are only implicitly hinted at in certain New Testament texts, they are unambiguously expressed in second- and third-century Christian writings. These texts openly attempt to weave the details of Jesus’ Passion and his second coming into the very fabric of the Yom Kippur rite. In these Christian re-appraisals, Jesus was simultaneously depicted as the scapegoat of the atoning rite, who took upon himself the sins of the world during his Passion, as well as the goat for YHWH, which is demonstrated most clearly by his glorious Parousia. In what follows, we will overview, outline, and highlight the sacerdotal reappropriations and reinterpretations of the Yom Kippur ritual by three important early Christian authors.

....

By way of conclusion to this section, let us again underline the similarities between the reinterpretations of the goats typology as they are found in the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin, and Tertullian along with the conceptual developments that we found in the Old and New Testaments. Not unlike the aforementioned biblical developments, these early Christian writings attempted to intertwine the imagery of the two goats chosen during the Yom Kippur ceremony,and they applied this conceptual amalgam to Jesus. ...

...

There is one last significant way that these early Christians reappropriate the Yom Kippur imagery and apply it to Jesus. They depict the two emblematic animals of the Yom Kippur ceremony as the two manifestations of Christ: one in its suffering and the other in its victory. Justin effectively summarizes this idea when, at the beginning of his passage, he suggests, “ identical goats which had to be offered during the fast (one of which was to be the scapegoat, and the other the sacrificial goat) were an announcement of the two comings of Christ.”

That both of the goats’ features in this complex amalgam are applied to one human character is surely reminiscent of the Joseph story explored earlier. There, as here, the human character simultaneously stands for both the scapegoat and the immolated goat ....
.

Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:43 am, edited 9 times in total.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Jesus, Barabbas, & the Crowd as Figures in Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology (Matthew 27:15–26)

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:21 am .
https://www.academia.edu/40871034/Jesus ... 020_125_53

Hans M. Moscicke, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233

Does Matthew craft a typological correspondence between Jesus and Barabbas and the two goats of Yom Kippur?

As on the Day of Atonement—the one day on the Jewish calendar when lots were cast over two goats, one goat “for the Lord”and one goat “for Azazel” (Lev 16:7–10, 15–22)—so it seems to be in Matt 27:15–26. Two figures identical in appearance yet starkly juxtaposed, Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Messiah, are presented to the crowd. Jesus Barabbas, the scapegoat, is released living, and Jesus the Messiah, the immolated goat, is put to death. But there are several problems with this interpretation.

First, it is unclear how Barabbas functions as a scapegoat in this typology. Second, it is uncertain how this Yom Kippur narrative relates to Matthew’s innocent-blood discourse, which climaxes in the proclamation, “His blood on us and on our children” (27:25). Third, the function of Pilate’s hand washing (27:24) in the typology is ambiguous.

To solve these riddles, I submit that, in his context of intra-Jewish sectarian conflict, Matthew inverts the Day of Atonement ritual for polemical effect, extending Barabbas’s role as scapegoat to the populace gathered before Pilate in a satirical rendition of the Yom Kippur ritual. Matthew has the gentile governor transfer the pollutant of blood guilt off his hands and onto the people, who, with their children, are destined to bear a curse, suffer exile, and inhabit a new wilderness in 70 CE.

How about this:

Jesus Barabbas represents the Herodians.
Jesus the Messiah figure represents the Hasmoneans
The crowd are the Herodians that want Herodian rule not Hasmonean rule.
Pilate, the Roman, lets the crowd have their way.

It's the Herodian, Herod, who is the criminal here. Responsible for the execution of Antigonus - and other Hasmoneans in 37 b.c. Killed Hyrancus II in 30 b.c. Killed his Hasmonean wife, Mariamne, in 29 b.c. Killed his two Hasmoneans sons of Mariamne around 7 b.c.

I really don't think the gospel writers were aiming to place some sort of blood libel on the Jews.....no way. Herodian Jews - another matter altogether...
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Post Reply