Open to anyone: Question about Barabbas in the gospels.

[Stonetree]

I believe that the use of 'Son of . . . can be considered a personal name as in Johnson.

Though in Wiki "Barabbas' name appears as bar-Abbas in the Greek texts of the gospels. It is derived ultimately from the Aramaic בר-אבא, Bar-abbâ, "son of the father"

All that can be concluded about Barabbas (important?) is as he is described in the Gospels; a rebel against Rome, and pardoned by Roman authorities as the choice when Jesus was convicted of treason aga inst Rome for claiming to fulfill prophecy and being the King of the Jews.

I heard a theory that is meant to discredit the Christ. The theory being ' Barabbas is what Jesus called Himself.' The theory implying the trial before Pilate was just fiction. ( Not my opinion)

 

[firedragon]

True.
Note also that Abba was also a personal name. For example, the full name of Rav, one of the last Tannaim and part of the first gen. of Amoraim, was Rabbi Abba bar Aivo.

Haha. Mate. How could I argue with that. You are absolutely right.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you for the clarification. As you can see I am a bit of an English monster visiting in a land of glass figurines.


There it is in Matthew, and I overlooked it. The other three gospels only say 'Barabbas' though.

Jesus is apparently a common name. So that really does not mean much. I mean it doesnt negate anything really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now in the gospels Jesus is like that lamb. The angel of death ignores the house of the Jews when it sees the blood of the lamb. They aren't being made guilty. The point of the story of saying "Let his blood be on us" is not to accept guilt but to mark their houses such that the angel of death passes them over.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that interpretation before.

Makes sense with the allusion to Passover.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Interesting. I hadn't heard that interpretation before.

Makes sense with the allusion to Passover.

It is complicated, since the murderous Roman politician, Pilot, is making them all participate in a perverse version of Passover. He's uncircumcised and not invited to any passover feasts, but he's making them attend his own parody of passover every year. He makes this a show of power. Then he washes his hands as if he is a Levite practicing in the temple. Its all very screwed up, and the people are made to do his dance. They satiate his need for attention to save one life and possibly to save their own lives, too.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

1) So you think. Seems to me as if he is being "fought against without a cause," as the Psalm says.
2) A commentary.
3) In the words of Hopsin:

"Man, everything is “what if?” — why is it always “what if?”
Planet Earth “what if?”, the Universe “what if?”
My sacrifice “what if?!”, my afterlife “what if?!”"

Sometimes it just takes me time to grasp what is said I may get it later, but if you're still on though please add some more context. I'm not sure what you mean by saying they got the wrong man. Who got the wrong man, and who made what antisemitic? Help me along with the thought process please.

Parts of gospels could be antisemitic in the original or not. I prefer to think that its been used for antisemitic purposes and is not originally antisemitic. If its originally antisemitic then its completely useless and has to be tossed altogether which seems wasteful of both paper and people.

What if since they both are sons Jesus lived?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The story recounts a very sinister scenario. The Roman is mocking Judaism, because he is sacrificing a prisoner at Passover (Pesach). In a way he is claiming to have replaced the priests with a perverse priesthood that kills men. He's claiming that killing people is good and brings life, and he's making the public participate. He does it every year in the story, demanding that the people choose a man to live. He can force them to participate, I assume; because they must choose or both will die. But they only get to save one. To save a life they participate. This isn't spelled out in the story, but it seems to be the way things must work in that situation and explains what motivation a Roman might use to get the people to participate in a ritual which mocks their way of life.

You won't see that in the movies. In the movies the Jews always participate willingly, even insanely. Its a black mark on us that this has been the case in several films about the crucifixion and in passion plays. We're so spiteful and ready to assume the worst.

Well my question is, just who was the barabbas character rebelling against? The roman government? That government is agreed in our time to have been tyrannical, right? I thought the other 'son of the father' would have been doing the same - or was he acceding, more-so, to the practices you describe, by not rebelling, and allowing his death bring on some kind of supposed renewal

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well my question is, just who was the barabbas character rebelling against?

Let's assume for sake of conversation that he isn't a bandit and that he is a revolutionary. He's the opposite of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ says that if a Roman tells you to carry his luggage the legal amount that you offer to go twice as far. Jesus Barabbas says screw that and screw the Romans.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The Barrabas narrative makes little sense if taken literally, but can make sense if viewed from the perspective of the growing rift between Jews who became "Christian" [that label was not used by the Church itself until later] and the majority who stayed loyal to basic Judaism.

Well in thinking about this, it brings to mind a verse like John 8:44 as being a possible line drawn to the two sons of the father - which I can't accept, because that becomes really too divisive. To my mind, I have a hard time believing anyone should be indicated as having their father be 'the devil.' Not saying that this is really the correct interpretation to be levied on the barabbas character, but others probably certainly would draw that line. This comes again I suppose, to why I stick to a sense of personal spirituality where none of this has to be asked about

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Let's assume for sake of conversation that he isn't a bandit and that he is a revolutionary. He's the opposite of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ says that if a Roman tells you to carry his luggage the legal amount that you offer to go twice as far. Jesus Barabbas says screw that and screw the Romans.

That follows with what Paul would say, I believe, with the idea that you should obey the government. And perhaps with the verses from Jesus about giving to Caesar what comes from him, and for the people to be 'content with their pay.'

I guess an issue is, there are also verses about Jesus being a 'revolutionary,' about wanting to get people to listen more directly to a God, I had thought, than they would listen to any government. There it might get very confusing, for me at least. Because we can see, anyone can see, from our standpoint in history, how governments throughout history have been less than divine in their law or behavior promotion. I mean had just read a short biography of Nero, for example

 

[Brickjectivity]

What if since they both are sons Jesus lived?

Oh, now I grasp your question. That is a very interesting question. If they killed the wrong man, then that would mean that it was Barabbas who was killed and that Jesus was not. So in that case what if Barabbas died and not Jesus?

There are several implications for catholic atonement which I will explain as clearly as I can, but remember that not everyone sees it this way.

The theology of atonement of humanity (as explained in the NT) says that Jesus is obedient -- even accepting his own death. This means he agrees that he as a human deserves the sentence of death and is obedient in spite of not wanting to die. His obedience shows that humanity is not hopeless, thereby lifting the curse brought upon us by Adam's disobedience. It means we can participate in the divine nature of God as we are. This argument is put forward in Hebrews and is alluded to also in Pauline letters. Its also alluded to in the gospel of John. This is the basis for catholicism. This is all mystical stuff and complicated though.

The real question is can people get along non violently, the crux and evidence that we have attuned ourselves to the divine will. So far we are doing better but are not fully atoned with one another. We still must pray "Let God's will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." God's will is not done on Earth right now. Therefore atonement is not visible, yet. It remains hidden. Therefore to someone who doesn't believe in Christ it appears that Christ's atonement is a failure or sham, but to someone who believes in Christ the atonement is merely hidden and not yet revealed.

There is no sin in denying belief in Christ or in his atonement, at least not for non catholics. It is not visible, right now. Its not easy to see something that is invisible.

There is more to say, but we are getting away from the topic.

So Barabbas is not perfectly obedient, and therefore the atonement has no basis in him. Therefore Christianity would not have the evidence needed to begin. There would be no reason to argue that catholics were atoned with the Jews or that the world could now expect to be united as a family..etc.

 

[Clara Tea]

I notice that 'Barabbas' is not a personal name like 'Peter' or 'John' but means 'Son of Rabbas'. It implies something, but I can't determine what it is. Why not just use the man's name? If his name is 'Jack' then just say 'Jack' not 'Son of Shakespeare' -- unless you are trying to shade your story with connotations from Shakespeare's name! I cannot translate 'Rabbas' and think Lexicons are insufficient to do so. Maybe it means Barrabas doesn't have a personal name, yet. Could it be he's not 13 years old, yet? Whatever the reason is, I'd like some ideas. His name supports one theme or another; but I just don't know yet. The answer is probably in a book somewhere. Anyways, 'Barrabas' appears in all four gospels. This means he is important, and the meaning of his name matters. Why don't I know the meaning?

Clues? Comments? Treasures from the vault? Can the names of quantum particles spell out the name Barabbas? Have you ever met a horse named Barabbas? C'mon and brainstorm.

[Mat 27:16 NIV] 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas.
[Mar 15:7 NIV] 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.
[Luk 23:19 NIV] 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
[Jhn 18:40 NIV] 40 They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

Barabbas | Facts & Significance

It was the custom for Romans to pardon someone before the feast of Passover, and Pontius Pilate chose Jesus Barabbas.

https://rsc-legacy.byu.edu/archived/sperry-symposium-classics/passion-jesus-christ

The website, above, from Brigham Young University (Mormon) says that there were two men, both named Jesus who were to be crucified on the same day. One was called "Son of the father," the other called "Son of God."

Barabbas's full name might have been "Jesus Barabbas." He was accused of murder and insurrection against the Roman government which was in control in the middle east at the time.

Not everyone agrees that Barabbas means "son of God." In Hebrew, "Ben" means "son of," and in Muslim countries "Bar" means "son." So, you will commonly see Jewish names with Bar in it. For example, the writers of the Underdog cartoon, apparently didn't like Jews, so they named their villain Simon Bar Sinister. "Abbas" means God.

Some believe that his name was Barrabbas (note the extra r). That would mean son of rabbas, and rabbas (like rabbis) are teachers. Thus, he would have been "son of the teacher." It is possible to interpret God as a teacher.

Bible, King James Version

According to the University of Michigan website, the King James Version of Matthew 27:40 says "And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." Matthew 27:43 says "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. Matthew 27:54 says "Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Acts 2:22, 23, 36 says "Men of Israel...you nailed [Jesus] to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death...Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."

Yet, two recent popes said that it was a crowd of people, not crowd of Jews who asked Pontius Pilate (Roman soldier) to crucify Jesus. Could it be that the Vatican (Italian....used to be called Roman) changed the story to shed the blame of Romans and blame the Jews? After all, the Vatican has been in charge of the Catholic faith for centuries. Apparently, Romans had the practice of getting approval from the people to do the heinous things like torture and murder. If anyone objected, the wrath of Rome would be on them.

Though Acts says that Jesus was nailed, and there is archaeological evidence (bone scratched by a nail) that some were nailed, it is still debated whether or not Jesus was, instead, tied to the cross (not nailed).

Textual Criticism: An Example from the Gospel of Matthew

The website above says: "Even though the story of Barabbas is mentioned in all four Gospels, only here in Matthew do some manuscripts include the extra name "Jesus" for him.

The website also says: "our earliest copies of these verses come from the fourth and fifth centuries, roughly 300 years after it was written." Note that the bible was written well over 100 years after the death of Jesus, and all of the apostles who are quoted in the bible were long dead.

The website says: "an early Christian writer who discussed these very words [Matthew's account of the crucifixion] in his commentary! Origen was the church’s most significant exegete in the third century."...."Origen used the name "Jesus Barabbas." And "Jesus Barabbas" appearing occasionally in other early versions of Matthew in Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic manuscripts.

The website says: "the Jewish name “Jesus” was a *very* common name. It’s essentially the Hebrew name “Joshua.”"

The website says: "We don’t even know from outside sources that the Romans or Pilate had any kind of regular custom releasing a prisoner at Jewish festivals."

40 years after the death of Jesus, some Jew killed a Roman soldier, so Rome attacked Jerusalem on Passover (a day that they were not prepared), and slaughtered and enslaved.

 

[Clara Tea]

I assume there is a growing rift but am unfamiliar with the specifics. I'm terribly ignorant about much of History. I also don't know much about the Jewish process, and recently I conspired an idea that the Jewish councils may have decided to put the Christians on a multi-century trial. I don't know why, in the first place, there would be a growing rift as opposed to a complete rejection from the get-go. Why were Christians allowed into synagogues? Some have said that it takes centuries for the Jewish process to allow changes, and so maybe that is how it is. Maybe the councils decided they had to give Christianity a chance to prove itself, and so maybe instead of a growing rift there was more of a long trial period. I'd like to hear a learned person's objection to that idea.

Maybe anyone was allowed into a synagogue so that they could learn about God an the bible?

 

[Clara Tea]

If I had to pick one take on the story, it would be this:

Barabbas and Jesus are the same person. Those who call for Jesus to be freed are - in a literal way - denying Jesus's sacrifice and therefore take their guilt upon themselves.

The bible seems to say that Barabbas and Jesus of Nazareth were two different people. The story is that Romans freed one and crucified the other. So there is no evidence that they were the same person.

 

[Clara Tea]

One thought is a way to divide the spirit from the flesh, where the flesh is sacrificed but the spirit lives on.

I'm convinced the whole Jesus myth is symbolic and not in any way a description of an historical event.

Romans crucified many (perhaps thousands) of people, slaughtered whole villages, and enslaved many. The story has an historical ring of truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The bible seems to say that Barabbas and Jesus of Nazareth were two different people. The story is that Romans freed one and crucified the other. So there is no evidence that they were the same person.

What I'm saying is that the story of the Passover pardon is likely a fabrication, and that the name "Barabbas" is likely a deliberate allusion to Jesus.

 

[Clara Tea]

Oh, now I grasp your question. That is a very interesting question. If they killed the wrong man, then that would mean that it was Barabbas who was killed and that Jesus was not. So in that case what if Barabbas died and not Jesus?

There are several implications for catholic atonement which I will explain as clearly as I can, but remember that not everyone sees it this way.

The theology of atonement of humanity (as explained in the NT) says that Jesus is obedient -- even accepting his own death. This means he agrees that he as a human deserves the sentence of death and is obedient in spite of not wanting to die. His obedience shows that humanity is not hopeless, thereby lifting the curse brought upon us by Adam's disobedience. It means we can participate in the divine nature of God as we are. This argument is put forward in Hebrews and is alluded to also in Pauline letters. Its also alluded to in the gospel of John. This is the basis for catholicism. This is all mystical stuff and complicated though.

The real question is can people get along non violently, the crux and evidence that we have attuned ourselves to the divine will. So far we are doing better but are not fully atoned with one another. We still must pray "Let God's will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." God's will is not done on Earth right now. Therefore atonement is not visible, yet. It remains hidden. Therefore to someone who doesn't believe in Christ it appears that Christ's atonement is a failure or sham, but to someone who believes in Christ the atonement is merely hidden and not yet revealed.

There is no sin in denying belief in Christ or in his atonement, at least not for non catholics. It is not visible, right now. Its not easy to see something that is invisible.

There is more to say, but we are getting away from the topic.

So Barabbas is not perfectly obedient, and therefore the atonement has no basis in him. Therefore Christianity would not have the evidence needed to begin. There would be no reason to argue that catholics were atoned with the Jews or that the world could now expect to be united as a family..etc.

Jesus accepted his own death? He had a choice? Didn't Jesus ask God "why hath thou forsaken me?:" That doesn't sound like he accepted it. Was he having a good time on the cross? Were the thorns on his head the latest fashion trend?

Should we go on a murder spree and explain to the judge "he accepted his own death?" I really don't think that a judge would accept our alibi.

I think that there are a lot of lies told about Christianity that are meant make us feel better about the events of the bible.

Another lie is that God is good. If an all-powerful being has the ability to help someone who is suffering with cancer, would they allow them to die in agony? Would a good God allow a predator to eat prey while it is still alive and screaming in agony?

Brickjectivity: "to someone who believes in Christ the atonement is merely hidden."

Believing in Christ is not enough. One must atone. Atonement means that one is sorry for sinning, and that one will try to never sin again. For example, Mafia members often murder, then, being highly religious, go to church for forgiveness...after saying a few "hail Marys" and counting a few strings of rosary beads, they're good to go for the next gangland massacre and robbery. If heaven is filled with Mafioso, what is the point of going? Clearly, one has to atone to get into heaven, and merely believing in Christ is not the same as atonement.

 

[Clara Tea]

Actually because it is specifically about the festival of Pesach (which I call Passover), it is not actually a story of Jews accepting blame for Jesus death. It doesn't imply that every Jew is to blame for his death. Rather it means that his blood stays the angel of death. Let me explain.

In the original Passover story being reenacted in Jesus death, the blood of a lamb prevents the death of the people in the house. You put a lamb's blood onto the house, so that the angel of death then ignores your house. Passover (Pesach) is a foreign concept, and I don't really understand why lamb's blood makes the angel of death pass over. It does though in the story. That's the physics of blood used during Passover.

Now in the gospels Jesus is like that lamb. The angel of death ignores the house of the Jews when it sees the blood of the lamb. They aren't being made guilty. The point of the story of saying "Let his blood be on us" is not to accept guilt but to mark their houses such that the angel of death passes them over. Also its figurative. Nobody is putting Jesus blood onto their houses. I never met a Jew who killed Christ.

Its true that in the many centuries of Christianity many catholics and protestants have claimed and do claim that Jews are Christ killers. Its unfortunate and brain dead in my opinion. The words "Let his blood be upon us" is spoken at Passover and is in that context, alone. Its not about accepting guilt but is about hiding behind the blood.

In addition statements in both Acts and in the gospels make it clear that (even in Christianity) one generation cannot cause another to be guilty. In particular there is a speech in Acts in which Peter (one of the 12 apostles) says that it is his generation of Jews which are in jeopardy. If he thought that all Jews were Christ-killers this would have been a different speech. No, and neither Paul nor Peter ever say that all Jews are guilty. Rather what they say is that if anyone is at fault they did not know better. At most the NT authors consider there to be accidental guilt.

Why does lamb's blood stop God from killing the first born son in the house?

Why does a red stop sign stop cars from entering an intersection? Is there something magical about the red paint? Or, is it a sign (like lamb's blood) that instructs someone?

I suspect that the story of Passover is about the Jewish dietary restrictions, and likely a practice in Egyptian households to give the first born son special food (perhaps shellfish in a poisonous red time, and remember that Orthodox Jews are not allowed to eat shellfish). Very often, Jews survived, while others died, as a direct result of their dietary restrictions.

 

[Clara Tea]

What I'm saying is that the story of the Passover pardon is likely a fabrication, and that the name "Barabbas" is likely a deliberate allusion to Jesus.

Prostitutes (and loose women) were stoned in the days of Jesus if they had babies with someone other than their husbands. So, maybe Barabbas was a "love child" (very common in the 1960's for flower children to have babies by a lot of different men...so perhaps kids were born by other men back in the time of Jesus?). So, instead of an unmarried woman getting stoned, she might have said that God made her pregnant. Thus, the last name of the child would have been God (or Abbas, in their language).

Jesus was a very common name (equivalent to Joshua). Thus, Jesus, son of God would be Jesus Bar Abbas. Bar means "son of" in Arabia, and Ben means "son of" in Jerusalem.

It is strange that a Roman soldier would pardon a condemned prisoner merely because it was a Jewish holiday. Historically, there is no proof of this custom.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think it plays out the Christian belief in Jesus’s divinity, his mission from God, his death and resurrection. If Pilate released the other Jesus, the whole story of Christ evaporates. But why use the Jews as the instrument of this, I don’t know... except maybe just plain anti-Semitism. I could say the authors were Jewish themselves but renounced Judaism, wanting to distance themselves from it. But that’s probably overthinking it.

Jews were the instrument? Do you mean that Jews asked for the crucifixion of Jesus? In Acts, it says that they did, but Acts might have been altered to say that by the Vatican, which is Italian (Roman) and the Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus (and a lot of others). The Vatican might have had motivation to shed Roman blame and create Jewish blame for killing Jesus, though it was very common for Rome to crucify people.