WHERE WE ARE

I am arguing that the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Luke is historically unreliable.

The Passion Narrative in Luke is found in Chapters 22 and 23 of the Gospel of Luke. I am beginning my examination Luke’s Passion Narrative with Chapter 23, which contains the following six parts:

• Part 1: Jesus Before Pilate (verses 1-5)
• Part 2: Jesus Before Herod (verses 6-12)
• Part 3: Jesus Sentenced to Death (verses 13-25)
• Part 4: Crucifixion of Jesus (verses 26-43)
• Part 5: Death of Jesus (verses 44-49)
• Part 6: Burial of Jesus (verses 50-56)

In Part 1 of this series, I argued that the opening section of Chapter 23 (Jesus Before Pilate) is historically unreliable.

In Part 2 of this series, I argued that the second section of Chapter 23 (Jesus Before Herod) is also historically unreliable.

PART 3: JESUS SENTENCED TO DEATH (LUKE 23:13-25)

Of course, all of the previously stated general reasons for doubting the historical reliability of the Gospels apply to Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke:

• The authors of these Gospels were NOT eyewitnesses to the events they describe.
• We know almost nothing about the authors of the Gospels, other than what we can infer from a careful reading of the Gospels that they wrote.
• These Gospels were written decades after the events they describe. Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and it was written about four decades after Jesus was allegedly crucified. Matthew and Luke were written even later, between five or six decades after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus.
• These Gospels were written in GREEK, but Jesus and his disciples spoke ARAMAIC, so somebody at some point had to translate the words of Jesus and his disciples from ARAMAIC into GREEK. This translation was probably done by some unknown early Christian believer(s) before any of the Gospels were written.
• Jesus and his twelve disciples were probably illiterate, and they left no written records about the life, ministry, teachings, and death of Jesus.
• The authors of the Gospels were all Christian believers who were writing the Gospels in order to promote the Christian faith (so they were not neutral and objective historians).
• The Gospels do not indicate the specific sources of their stories and quotes of Jesus and of others. Scholars have to make educated guesses about the sources of the stories and alleged words of Jesus found in the Gospels.
• There were no cameras, no sound recorders, no pens, no pencils, no paper tablets, no newspapers, no magazines, no books (only hand-written scrolls), no printing presses, no public schools, and no public libraries in the 1st century.

An additional general reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Gospel of Luke also casts doubt on the historical reliability of Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke:

• The Gospel of Luke begins with a FICTIONAL birth story and ends with FICTIONAL stories about appearances of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem.

Furthermore, we now also have two more specific reasons to doubt the historical reliability of Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke:

• The first passage of Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke is historically unreliable (see Part 1 of this series).
• The second passage of Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke is historically unreliable (see Part 2 of this series).

So, we have good reason to doubt the historical reliability of Luke 23:13-25 even before we examine the specific content of that passage.

Here is the third passage from the Gospel of Luke Chapter 23:13-25 (Jesus Sentenced to Death):

13 Pilate then called together the chief priests, the leaders, and the people 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people, and here I have examined him in your presence and have not found this man guilty of any of your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. Indeed, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 I will therefore have him flogged and release him.”

18 Then they all shouted out together, “Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!” 19 (This was a man who had been put in prison for an insurrection that had taken place in the city and for murder.) 20 Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, 21 but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” 22 A third time he said to them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death; I will therefore have him flogged and then release him.” 23 But they kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that he should be crucified, and their voices prevailed. 24 So Pilate gave his verdict that their demand should be granted. 25 He released the man they asked for, the one who had been put in prison for insurrection and murder, and he handed Jesus over as they wished.

Luke 23:13-25, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

First, none of Jesus’ disciples were present to see or hear these events.

Second, we have previously seen that there is reason to doubt that there was a trial of Jesus before Pilate. If there was no such trial, then this passage is also fictional, because it describes the ending of the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate.

Third, we have previously seen that there is reason to doubt that Pilate had any hesitation in condemning Jesus to be executed. But in this passage Pilate continues to argue for the innocence of Jesus and to refuse to condemn Jesus to death, giving us another good reason to doubt the historical reliability of this passage in Chapter 23.

Fourth, we have previously seen that there is reason to doubt that Pilate weakly caved into the demand of Jewish leaders and a Jewish crowd to have Jesus crucified.

Fifth, it is an important apologetic goal of the author of Luke to show that neither Jesus nor his followers were enemies or rebels against the Romans and to shift the blame for the execution of Jesus from Pilate and the Romans to the Jewish leaders and the Jewish people of Jerusalem.

SOME JESUS SCHOLARS REJECT THE HISTORICITY OF THE BARABBAS STORY

The Jesus scholar John Crossan clearly rejects the historicity of this story (commenting on the Barabbas story found in the Gospel of Mark):

I judge that narrative to be absolutely unhistorical, a creation most likely of Mark himself, and for two reasons. One is that its picture of Pilate, meekly acquiescent to a shouting crowd, is exactly the opposite of what we know about him from Josephus. Brutal crowd-control was his specialty. Another is that open amnesty, the release of any requested prisoner at the time of the Passover festival. Such a custom is against any administrative wisdom. Philo, for example, writing about a decade later, described what decent governors did for crucified criminals on festive occasions: they postponed the execution until after the festival. Postponement, need it be said, is not amnesty, but postponement is as far as Philo’s imagination can stretch.

Who Killed Jesus? by John Crossan, p.111

Crossan then asks this question: “But if the Barabbas incident did not actually happen, why did Mark create such a story?” He then provides a reasonable answer to this question:

Barabbas was a bandit, a rebel, an insurgent, a freedom fighter, depending always, of course, on your point of view. But Mark was writing soon after the terrible consummation of the First Roman War when Jerusalem and its Temple were totally destroyed in 70 C.E. We saw earlier how the Zealots, a loose coalition of bandit groups and peasant rebels, swept into Jerusalem by the tightening Roman encirclement, fought within the city for overall control of the rebellion in 68 C.E. There, says Mark, was Jerusalem’s choice: it chose Barabbas over Jesus, an armed rebel over an unarmed savior. His narrative about Barabbas was, in other words, a symbolic dramatization of Jerusalem’s fate, as he saw it.

Who Killed Jesus? by John Crossan, p.112

The author of the Gospel of Luke got this story about Barabbas from the Gospel of Mark, so the author of Luke did not create this story out of nothing. However, there is good reason to believe that the author of the Gospel of Mark made this story up, and if so, then this is another fictional event in Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke.

Robert Funk agrees with John Crossan on this point:

Barabbas (son of “Abba,” the Father, or “son of God”) in Mark 15:7 is certainly a fiction…

Honest to Jesus by Robert Funk, p.235

Jesus scholar Gerd Ludemann rejects the Barabbas story as unhistorical (commenting on the Barabbas story in the Gospel of Mark):

The Barabbas story is meant to increase the guilt of the Jews, who prefer a murderer to the redeemer. … The Jewish authorities are also successful in turning the people…against him [Jesus]. The people now even demand (v.11) Jesus’ crucifixion, a request which is certainly unhistorical. Now all Israel stands against Jesus, who according to 11.10 is the one who fulfils its hopes of salvation. The behavior announced by ‘Jesus’ in 12.7 is thus realized.

[…]

The custom of pardoning an individual by a Roman prefect is otherwise unknown and therefore can be ruled out as historical nucleus at this point.

Jesus after 2000 Years by Gerd Ludemann, p.105

A NUMBER OF JESUS SCHOLARS EXPRESS DOUBTS ABOUT THE BARABBAS STORY

Not all Jesus scholars are as skeptical as Crossan, Funk, and Ludemann about the story of Barabbas. However, many Jesus scholars express significant doubts about the historicity of this event. For example, Jesus scholar Gerard Sloyan indicates his doubts and uncertainty about the historicity of this event:

The larger question is, Does the Barabbas tale represent any historical tradition whatever? It is not easy to say. The silence of Jewish and Roman sources on any such Passover tradition of amnesty tells against it. …There is nothing to hinder the possibility that a historical incident like this one was joined to the church’s tradition on Jesus’ condemnation [adding a fictional element to the trial of Jesus]. The appearance of a particular name, Barabbas, favors historicity. Again, it could have been a legendary feature from the beginning (rooted in the Christian claim that Jesus was Son of the Father?). This is an instance of a Gospel story, the theological intent of which is clear, but about which nothing certain can be said beyond the fact of legendary development. As it appears, it is inserted into Pilate’s formal interrogation as a means of highlighting his will to set Jesus free. It is highly unlikely that Pilate would have released a man guilty of crimes of murder and sedition (15:7).

Jesus on Trial (2nd edition) by Gerard Sloyan, p.50-51, emphasis added

In the end, Sloyan decides against the historicity of this alleged event:

It [the Barabbas story] is used in the Gospels for dramatic effect, to highlight Pilate’s friendly neutrality…. Conceivably, the Barabbas tale was developed as a paradigm of the actual guilt of sedition in contrast to Jesus’ innocence of the charge…. Because of the Barabbas story’s persistence in the tradition, it may have some historical foundation, although probably not in the form of the festal pardon and exchange for Jesus that is reported.

Jesus on Trial (2nd edition) by Gerard Sloyan, p.101

Sloyan concludes that the Barabbas story “may have some historical foundation” but that the amnesty of a criminal was not part of the decision or negotiation to crucify Jesus, as the Gospels portray it, and as Luke Chapter 23 portrays the decision to crucify Jesus.

Jesus scholar James Dunn expresses his view that it is difficult to evaluate the historicity of the Barabbas story:

It is frustratingly difficult to assess the historical value of the Barabbas episode, not least since the name is uncannily akin to that of Jesus (Jesus Barabbas; ‘Do you want me to release Jesus Barabbas or Jesus called Messiah?’–Matt. 27.17), and the custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover (Mark 15.6/Matt. 27.15; in Luke 23.17 only as v.1.) is otherwise unknown…

Christianity in the Making, Volume 1: Jesus Remembered by James Dunn, footnote #67 on page 775

Although Dunn does not specifically reject the Barabas story, his stated skepticism about how the Gospels portray Pilate’s behavior imply that Dunn has serious doubts about the Barabbas story, which clearly functions as part of the unhistorical characterization of Pilate in the Gospels as proclaiming the innocence of Jesus and as being very reluctant to order the execution of Jesus:

…they [the Gospels] clearly evidence a strong tendency to shift responsibility for the execution of Jesus away from the Roman to the Jewish authorities.

[…]

…the depiction of Pilate being in effect bullied by the high priest and his counsellors, to execute a man of whose innocence he was convinced, almost certainly owes more to political motivation than to historical recollection. Of course, the policy of excusing Roman injustice is understandable for a movement which soon sought to win converts through the eastern territories of the Roman Empire.

Christianity in the Making, Volume 1: Jesus Remembered by James Dunn, footnote #67 on page p.775-776

THE HIGHLY RESPECTED PASSION NARRATIVE SCHOLAR RAYMOND BROWN REJECTS THE BARABBAS STORY AS TOLD BY LUKE

Raymond Brown thinks there probably was a Barabbas who was released by Pilate at some festival or other, but that this was NOT some sort of negotiation related to Pilate ordering the crucifixion of Jesus. In other words, Brown rejects the historicity of the Barabbas story as told in Mark, Matthew, and Luke:

If we lay aside the custom [of releasing a prisoner during the Passover festival] as a secondary development [i.e. as an UNHISTORICAL addition to the actual events], the historical sub-stratum of the Barabbas incident may have been relatively simple. The following outline could be reconstructed on the basis of the Gospel reports: A man with the name Barabbas was arrested in a roundup after a riot that had caused some deaths in Jerusalem. Eventually he was released by Pilate when a feast brought the governor to Jerusalem to supervise public order. Presumably this took place at the same time that Jesus was crucified, or not far from it, or at another Passover. In any case, this release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, he was found guilty by Pilate, while Barabbas was let go. (As seen in the COMMENT on Mark 15:7, that verse never states that Barabbas rioted or killed. Even if the evangelist judged Barabbas guilty, in a preMarcan stage, closer to the original story, Barabbas’ guilt may not have been established–a fact that would have allowed Pilate to release him.) The storytelling tendency to contrast the release of Barabbas and the crucified Jesus by bringing them together at the same moment before Pilate’s “justice” would have been enhanced if both had the same personal name, Jesus.

The Death of the Messiah, Volume 1, by Raymond Brown, p.819-820

In addition to doubts about there having been a custom of releasing a convicted prisoner during the Passover, Brown also expresses doubts about two other aspects of the Barabbas story in Luke:

Besnier…sees three gambits by the governor before he acceded to Jewish demands for crucifixion: (1) sending Jesus to Herod; (2) appeal to the festal amnesty; (3) offer of a lesser punishment, e.g., whipping. …This theorizing ignores that gambits 1 and 3 are found only in Luke (dubiously a primary source for history), and the historicity of gambit 2 is highly debated.

The Death of the Messiah, Volume 1, by Raymond Brown, footnote 59, p.820

Thus, Brown expresses doubts about the historicity of these three aspects of the passage in the Gospel of Luke that we are examining (Luke 23:13-25), and Brown does NOT believe that a crowd of Jews was offered the choice to have either Jesus or Barabbas released, as the Gospel of Luke asserts.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the eight general reasons for doubting the historical reliability of the Gospels, and in addition to the general reason for doubting the historical reliability of the Gospel of Luke (i.e. it begins with a fictional birth story and ends with fictional resurrection appearance stories), we have various specific reasons to doubt the historical reliability of Luke 23:13-25 (Jesus Sentenced to Death):

• The opening passage of Chapter 23 about the trial of Jesus before Pilate (verses 1-5) is historically unreliable, casting doubt on the reliability of the rest of this chapter.
• The second passage of Chapter 23 about Jesus before Herod (verses 6-12) is also historically unreliable, casting further doubt on the reliability of the rest of this chapter.
• Jesus’ disciples were not present to see or hear this alleged event.
• It is doubtful that there was a trial before Pilate, but if there was no trial of Jesus before Pilate, then this passage is basically fictional.
• It is doubtful that Pilate repeatedly proclaimed Jesus to be innocent as this passage suggests.
• It is doubtful that Pilate weakly gave in to the demands of a Jewish crowd, against his own judgment.
• As with the trial before Pilate, Luke is clearly motivated by the apologetic purpose of shifting blame for Jesus’ death from Pilate to the Jewish leaders and crowd.
• Some Jesus scholars reject the historicity of this passage.
• A number of Jesus scholars express serious doubts about the way that Pilate is portrayed here as weak and influenced by the Jewish crowd, implying they have significant doubts about the historical reliability of this passage in Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke.
• Raymond Brown rejects the Barabbas story as told in Chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke.

For these reasons, we may reasonably conclude that the third passage of Chapter 23–Luke 23:13-25 (Jesus Sentenced to Death)–is historically unreliable.