The Barabas Substitution: A Heresy

The Barabas Substitution: A Heresy
         Aesthetics may be the actual ground on which people make decisions about ethical questions.  As evidence, there is little to nothing reasonable about the acceptance of claims made in so called sacred texts.  The various adornments with which the faith-based ideas are perpetually laden are the hallmark of what would, in the secular world, be called “theatre” or simply “art”.  Incense, robes, lighting, chanting etc.; it is these hypnotic elements which have biased the developing minds of so many toward the indoctrination of false or subjective truths over and above the clear and demonstrable fruits of reason and skepticism, but more dangerously the sense of certainty with regards to the conclusive nature of their particular hereditary orthodoxy.
         It is nigh on impossible to repudiate claims hypnotically rendered through daily and weekly ritual without appealing to the same techniques.  This calls to mind some ravenous atheist feverishly applying Geller-esque techniques to roomfuls of evangelicals, but of course dogma is the enemy of the dialectic.  It’s the process of indoctrination and the impact such a murky process has on free thought which seems the most egregious crime to someone who has made and is making an effort to understand and respond to religious dogma.  None the less, an appeal to certain more sober aesthetic principals could serve as a bridge from the smoky safety of an accepted and affirmed faith to a clearer sense of at least how ethically and metaphysically superfluous is religion.  To that end, a heresy:

         In the story of the Passion most commonly related on Easter Sunday at Catholic mass rests a tantalizing brief depiction of the most important character in the story of the Nazarene.  When the Christ is brought before the gathered crowd it is suggested that he is offered up for salvation from the Cross along with the known murderer Barabas.  Little is said about the man other than his guilt. 
         This story is related, in the Easter Mass, through a kind of skit whereby the congregants are called to take the part of the crowd in choosing (for whatever reason) to release Barabas instead of Christ.  In this scene of political selection there are many opportunities for confusion, many questions left unanswered even by tradition, let alone text.  I offer that this kind of narrative mystery is quite apart from the accepted metaphysical mysteries meant to be taken as the paradoxical basis of true faith.  The reason for obscurity in these matters, so close to the foundation of this particular faith is that a more reasonable depiction of events that proceed from the Barabas conflation is actually more remarkable than what a burgeoning cult would need to render believable in order to establish through, metaphysical claims, its temporal authority. 
         Think for a moment of the Roman soldiers, depicted as hateful toward the gathered Jews.  It’s clear from the story of the last Seder that the crucifixion occurred just after Passover.  It is suggested that the authority being granted to the crowd is some kind of capitulation to their faith, an ecumenical play for Jewish sympathy.  How is this to be reconciled with the proceeding disgraces a la crowns of thorns, taunts etc.?  The motivation of the soldiers ought not to be altered from the beginning to the end of the story.  If it was a deprecatory taunt, it was from the beginning.  Thus Barabas, a murderer, and Christ, a welcomed religious leader, are compared, judged to be equal by the Pagan soldiers and thus equally worthy of death.  The crowd’s choice, if it can be defined as such, should strike the imagination in exactly the same way that the reaction of a modern mob might.  Any imagined coherence of verdict should be weighed against the known effect produced by hundreds or thousands of people attempting to communicate with an authority figure in public.  Examples of this are prevalent.  Add to this the fickle whims of the soldiers, the dehumanizing view of their captives and the result can only be uncertainty about the outcome. 
         This uncertainty is often the basis for perceived miracles and the proceeding events set the stage potently.  One man, Jesus or Barabas, is sent to his excruciating death before the public, the other man enters the public.  One man is acquitted of his crimes; the other assumes the legal weight of both presumed criminals.
         If Jesus dies we are left with Barabas, who watches on as his sins are redeemed and in the eyes of all he is cleansed.  He sees in the ritual execution the fulfillment of the Nazarene’s teachings.  It’s reasonable to assume a certain curiosity about the life of the heretical rabbi, which has been taken by the Roman soldiers as to account for his own.  What is left for a convicted murderer but to take up the cause and perhaps the appearance of the prophet whose gift of sacrificial life spared Barabas, thus a resurrection.  The appearance of a man claiming, with all the conviction an eleventh hour pardon might elicit, to be a recently deceased public figure, who’d himself prophesied his own resurrection would be enough to, in the words of modern media, “give the story traction”.  Seventy years later the books are compiled.  Add details as are fitting: defiling the tomb, replication of stigmata, appearance to apostles and subsequent disappearance from history (read ascension). 
         If Barrabas is crucified we are left with Jesus, who watches as his teachings of empathy are lived before his eyes.  He watches as he is brought back from the dead by the sacrifice of another.  A fitting detail here about the forgiveness of the soldiers or the appeal to an absent father could serve to cement in the mind of Christ the truth of his teachings, thus a resurrection.  Add details.
         How does the story benefit from the injunction of a miracle?  What is to be added to the understanding sacrifice by the addition of resurrection?  The answer is nothing.  There is nothing about the very human notion of redemption that can be communicated effectively by the addition of metaphysics (whether they are true or false).  The Barabas substitution offers a clearer picture of how mankind can benefit from the struggle of good ideas like forgiveness and empathy against bad ideas like racism and ritualized public murder.