The So-called ‘Privilegium Paschale’ in Light of Jewish Sources

How to cite this article: Ze’ev Safrai, “The So-called ‘Privilegium Paschale’ in Light of Jewish Sources,” Jerusalem Perspective (2026) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/35651/].^[1] 

As is well known, prior to the crucifixion of Jesus, Pilate offered the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem the option of releasing one of the prisoners who was about to be executed. This episode appears in all four Gospels.^[2] 

In Matt. 27:15, Mark 15:6, and Luke 23:17, no explanation is given for the governor’s practice of releasing a prisoner, which in scholarly literature is referred to as the Privilegium Paschale, though it is described as a customary procedure of the governor (καθὼς ἐποίει; Mark 15:6, 8). In John 18:39, however, Pilate stresses: “You have a custom” (ἔστι δὲ συνήθεια ὑμῖν). It is clear that the release was carried out by Roman authority, yet only John’s Gospel claims that the custom originated among the Jews and was adopted by the Romans. The Gospel of John is known for its relatively limited knowledge of Jewish law compared to the Synoptics, yet it consistently emphasizes Jewish legal practice. In reality, such a custom in Jesus’ time would necessarily have been implemented by Roman officials, but John underscores its Jewish character.

Scholars have long debated the historical reliability of this narrative.^[3] Many argue that the entire description of releasing a single prisoner is fictional; others view it as historically plausible. Naturally, no independent sources allow us to determine whether the events described in the New Testament actually occurred (and why not accept them at face value, perhaps with literary embellishments?). The real question is whether the descriptions reflect an accepted practice or are purely imaginative.

Some scholars have argued that Barabbas’ pardon was legally valid under Roman law, citing cases from Roman jurisprudence that seem analogous. For example, they mention Pliny’s report of prisoners whose punishment was commuted without a formal decision.^[4] In my view, such parallels are a red herring.^[5] There is no legal system without the possibility of pardon or mitigation of a sentence; such a situation is inconceivable. The mere fact that a legal procedure for pardon existed in the Roman system does not prove the Romans had a formal custom of releasing a single prisoner at the request of the crowd.

I do not claim that Pilate judged Jesus and Barabbas according to Jewish law.^[7] In general, Roman law guided Pilate’s decision. Under Roman law, one who claimed to be the Messiah is not a criminal, but one who claimed to be an alternative king certainly is. Yet the entire matter of issuing a pardon was not legal. If the governor adopted the Jewish custom of festival pardon, it was a concession, not a legal requirement, intended to reduce tension with the Jewish populace. This fell well within the emperor’s delegated authority to provincial governors.

1. I wish to thank Joshua Tilton, the editor of JP, for his considerable assistance in refining this article. ↩
2. Matt. 27:15–26; Mark 15:6–14; Luke 23:17–25; John 19:39–40. ↩
3. See the survey in John Curran, “Pilate, Barabbas, and the Privilegium Paschale: Law and Leverage in Roman Judaea,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47.4 (2025): 501-525; R. L. Merritt, “Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104.1 (1985): 57-68. ↩
4. Pliny, Letters 10:31-32. The emperor opposes leniency, but his main argument is that there is no legal basis for it, and that the leniency was not granted formally. This implies that a legal procedure for pardon or partial pardon did exist. ↩
5. David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, eds., The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 256-267; Craig A. Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 452. ↩
6. Title image, based on the Rosanno Gospels illustration, designed by Katia Motzeva. ↩
7. Curran, “Pilate, Barabbas, and the Privilegium Paschale,” 501-525; Kaius Tuori, The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). ↩