There was a TV series last weekend about Jesus Bar Abbas - the bloke the Jews chose to be released from Roman captivity in preference to the the Christian icon (and Jewish iconoclast), Jesus of Nazareth.
I have a bit of a problem with this story. Bar Abbas was a convicted terrorist and revolutionary who had been fomenting revolt, whereas Pontius Pilate found no guilt in Jesus of Nazareth. The idea that Pilate would even consider releasing Bar Abbas is unbelievable in the extreme - he was Pilate's Osama Bin Laden, for heaven's sake.
There's also the fact Bar Abbas means Son of the Father in Hebrew. Could it be the wrong man crucified?
Watched Bob Geldof on iPlayer last night presenting a programme on WB Yeats. Something to do with the 100th anniversary of the Easter Uprising. "BBC, Bob Geldof, after the watershed - recipe for disaster," thinks I. To give the man his credit, it was a full 40 minutes before he burst into the much anticipated expletives - and we smiled. They then came thick and fast. He must be mellowing in his old age. I feel rather uneasy with this kind of language on TV - standards at the BBC have dropped and I can't see how they justify it - I'm sure if would draw much comment if a newscaster, for example, started effing and blinding after the watershed.
There's also the fact Bar Abbas means Son of the Father in Hebrew. Could it be the wrong man crucified?
Watched Bob Geldof on iPlayer last night presenting a programme on WB Yeats. Something to do with the 100th anniversary of the Easter Uprising. "BBC, Bob Geldof, after the watershed - recipe for disaster," thinks I. To give the man his credit, it was a full 40 minutes before he burst into the much anticipated expletives - and we smiled. They then came thick and fast. He must be mellowing in his old age. I feel rather uneasy with this kind of language on TV - standards at the BBC have dropped and I can't see how they justify it - I'm sure if would draw much comment if a newscaster, for example, started effing and blinding after the watershed.
9 comments:
He could have just been in a riot. They were firm but not very fair, those Romans.
Interesting to me is that the whole "pardon one trouble maker" concept is mentioned nowhere else. Yet it's in all four Gospels which means it has come through at least two independent sources. I bet we find the evidence on that one day.
If it were merely participation in a riot, then surely the prison would have been overflowing. Leniency (except to senators and rich Roman citizens, who were usually exiled to their estates) was not a feature of Roman justice.
I did like the concept of Pilate having an Italian accent for that added touch of authenticity, although it didn't stretch to the other characters.
I guess it would depend upon how many were still standing when the riot ended...
Or maybe he was part of a small riot. There's nothing to say he was some kind of terrorist.
But we still have the conundrum of Bar Abbas, who has already been condemned by the Romans, and Jesus of Nazareth, who is not guilty of any Roman transgression. Doesn't make sense.
But there again, nor does the Atonement nor the Trinity.
Oh I get the Trinity and Atonement. But then I have the right genes.
The guilty one going free while the innocent one dies is kind of the whole point, isn't it? It's such a powerful point it has a truth even if Jesus hadn't existed.
And a weak government keeping just far enough on the right side to keep the populace happy? What, like publishing your tax returns when you've done nothing illegal?
Bread and circuses.
And a consequence of the baying mob.
Post a Comment