Open to anyone: Question about Barabbas in the gospels.

[Jainarayan]

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.

That business about the Jews killing Jesus doesn’t sit well with me either. He was condemned under Roman law, by a Roman authority. However, I’m not so sure about the Jews using his blood as protection or some sort of blessing. I would think they’d have to see him as someone or something of importance, which I don’t think they did. I think the “let his blood be upon us” is more of a “yeah ok whatever, just get this over with”. After all, that crowd wasn’t his followers, but probably people who didn’t want to **** off Pilate any more. I think this story is open to many interpretations, allowing people to take away what strikes them. I’m not comfortable with coincidences, I think there are things at work we don’t at times understand.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jews were the instrument? Do you mean that Jews asked for the crucifixion of Jesus?

No, I mean why put the blame on them, why make them the “bad guys” except that the authors had an anti-Semitic leaning, which I said.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

[Heb 5:7 NIV] 7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

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.

The historicity of the gospels is in question, but I am not debating it. I'm saying that in the story such & such happens. Some think the story is fact and some think it is fiction, but I'm saying what does Barabbas have to do with it and why in all four gospels is he so important as to receive a mention. There have been some helpful replies.

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

Perhaps, however the catholics probably had a more inclusive approach than non-catholics. A typical Jewish person must learn all about the Torah and do all kinds of things to improve themselves, and when they go to the synagogue they are deserving of particular honor. If they have worked hard, studied hard and mastered important subjects such that they become a resource, then they are accorded honor. Its just like what happens in most places. The more accomplished receives greater honor. This is not how things work in the early church scriptures, such as in James. James has it that everyone should have equal honor. Paul asks where is the scribe and says God has made the wisdom of the wise foolishness. It is a different approach that I think would chafe a bit for Jewish people used to the normal way of doing things. The presence of catholics would probably change the experience of a synagogue -- the feel of it. It might be very difficult to accept.

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

I don't personally imagine blood to have any power, but perhaps it is by the same mechanism through which Abel's blood cries out from the ground -- a mysterious one that is not explained to anyone whom I have ever heard of. I can imagine possible magical or technological methods, but the main thing here is that in the story of the escape from Egypt, the people had to put lamb's blood on their door sills. Then they were spared. So in that case they let the lamb's blood be upon them and their children who were in the house with them, so that their lives would be spared. The mechanism is a variable to me. It matters but in other conversations. I mean it matters when discussing the nature of sacrifice and blood and things like that.

 

[firedragon]

No, I mean why put the blame on them, why make them the “bad guys” except that the authors had an anti-Semitic leaning, which I said.

Many theories on this. Nothing concrete. Some churches took Pilate as a saint but the Romans record him as such a tyrant. A blood thirsty tyrant. But for some churches, he is a saint.

This conflict cannot be reconciled reasonably.

 

[Harel13]

Bar means "son of" in Arabia, and Ben means "son of" in Jerusalem.

"Bar" means "son of" in Aramaic, so it meant "son of" anywhere Aramaic was spoken. In Arabia, Arabic was spoken. They had "Ibn".

 

[Brickjectivity]

...However, I’m not so sure about the Jews using his blood as protection or some sort of blessing. I would think they’d have to see him as someone or something of importance, which I don’t think they did. I think the “let his blood be upon us” is more of a “yeah ok whatever, just get this over with”. After all, that crowd wasn’t his followers, but probably people who didn’t want to **** off Pilate any more.

Its that and worse. Pilot is forcing everyone to participate in a parody of multiple sacrifice types at once. Lives are at stake, so they participate. If a life is at stake then they are compelled to act, and this is a hostage situation. Pilot has two hostages condemned to die, but the people can save one if they participate.

 

[firedragon]

"Bar" means "son of" in Aramaic, so it meant "son of" anywhere Aramaic was spoken. In Arabia, Arabic was spoken. They had "Ibn".

Bar Nasha.

 

[shunyadragon]

That business about the Jews killing Jesus doesn’t sit well with me either. He was condemned under Roman law, by a Roman authority. However, I’m not so sure about the Jews using his blood as protection or some sort of blessing. I would think they’d have to see him as someone or something of importance, which I don’t think they did. I think the “let his blood be upon us” is more of a “yeah ok whatever, just get this over with”. After all, that crowd wasn’t his followers, but probably people who didn’t want to **** off Pilate any more. I think this story is open to many interpretations, allowing people to take away what strikes them. I’m not comfortable with coincidences, I think there are things at work we don’t at times understand.

Even though I believe Barabbas but who?, possibly a minor figure, was likely a real person, but there are contradictions in the story. The Jews did not likely have any authority concerning Roman authority and Law concerning the fate of Jesus Christ not Barabbas if sedition and rebellion against Rome were the effences. It is historically accepted Jesus Christ was convicted and executed by Crucifixion under Roman Law for claiming to be the King of the Jews and inciting rebellion against Rome. Under Jewish Law the punishment would have been stoning to death. Some believe the accounts were to a degree constructed to shift the responsibility for the execution of Jesus Christ to the Jewish authorities. It is possible that Barabbas was pardoned by Jewish authorities under their limited legal authority doe minor offences like rebelling against or not complying with Jewish religious law. If he was convicted under Roman Law he would not have been pardoned,

 

[leroy]

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.

All names have meaning for example my name (Daniel) means judged by God or something like that Peter means rock, John means forgived by God, ETC.

He was just a guy named Barabbas and his name had that particular meaning.

 

[Brickjectivity]

All names have meaning for example my name (Daniel) means judged by God or something like that Peter means rock, John means forgived by God, ETC.

He was just a guy named Barabbas and his name had that particular meaning.

Hmm, yes. In addition the meaning could be thought of as a verb and a command and not only as a definition with nouns and adjectives. Don't know what you'll think of this but:

Just saying that "God forgives" seems a little bit impersonal in its English expression, because it leaves out that I am being conformed to the image of God and am expected to forgive like God does. Perhaps since I'm not from the original culture of this language I have been missing the point of the names due to language barrier. So I'm trying out this idea of verbs for names. I think I'm onto something.

I don't have to be responsible or listen to a name which is only nouns and adjectives. Its nice sounding, because it says something like "God has great attributes" or "God really is cool." But I tend to think I am missing the point of the name. Maybe the translation is killing it.

If it were me naming my child I wouldn't bother just describing God in their names. I'd be trying to guide them in how to behave. They'd learn not only that God is just but that they are to be just, and that would be something their name would remind them of. I'd be teaching them the law in 1 more way: through their name. I might even give them lots of names, like as many as they could remember.

People are made in the image of God, and also God dwells in us. The name which speaks of God might be a command, too.

 

[leroy]

Hmm, yes. In addition the meaning could be thought of as a verb and a command and not only as a definition with nouns and adjectives. Don't know what you'll think of this but:

Just saying that "God forgives" seems a little bit impersonal in its English expression, because it leaves out that I am being conformed to the image of God and am expected to forgive like God does. Perhaps since I'm not from the original culture of this language I have been missing the point of the names due to language barrier. So I'm trying out this idea of verbs for names. I think I'm onto something.

I don't have to be responsible or listen to a name which is only nouns and adjectives. Its nice sounding, because it says something like "God has great attributes" or "God really is cool." But I tend to think I am missing the point of the name. Maybe the translation is killing it.

If it were me naming my child I wouldn't bother just describing God in their names. I'd be trying to guide them in how to behave. They'd learn not only that God is just but that they are to be just, and that would be something their name would remind them of. I'd be teaching them the law in 1 more way: through their name. I might even give them lots of names, like as many as they could remember.

People are made in the image of God, and also God dwells in us. The name which speaks of God might be a command, too.

I don’t know much about this, but if I where to bet I´ll say that names where originally just nicknames.

I imagine an Ancient Hebrew claiming .….. Yey, “I was forgived by God” I did something wrong but God forgived me.

So people start to call him “forgived by God” (John) ………. Then people liked how John sounded and named their people that way even if the had no idea what the name means,

I personally have no Idea what the name of my daughter means, I just selected that name because it sounds nice.

 

[Eyes to See]

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.

Pardon me as I am late to the party and see there are 4 pages already. So perhaps someone already pointed this out to you.

The very first scripture you quote here gives you Barabbas' name. It is Jesus. He was called Jesus Barabbas.

Jesus is the Greek name for Joshua. And they both mean "Jehovah is salvation" and it was a very common name, and still is.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Pardon me as I am late to the party

Its ok. I deserve to be told.

 

[metis]

The very first scripture you quote here gives you Barabbas' name. It is Jesus. He was called Jesus Barabbas.

That's not at all likely since people back then in eretz Israel did not have surnames. To indicate which "Jesus" it was, one typically attached where he was from [Jesus of Nazareth] or whom his father was [Jesus ben Joseph].

 

[Eyes to See]

That's not at all likely since people back then in eretz Israel did not have surnames. To indicate which "Jesus" it was, one typically attached where he was from [Jesus of Nazareth] or whom his father was [Jesus ben Joseph].

Interesting. I did a look at some other translations and most do not say "Jesus Barabbas."

Rotherham Matthew 27:16

• 16Now they had at that time a distinguished prisoner, called Barabbas.

King James Version Matthew 27:16

• 16And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
  
  

Byington Matthew 27:16

• 16And they had then a conspicuous prisoner known as Jesus Bar-Abbas.
  
  

American Standard Version Matthew 27:16

• 16And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.

Found an interesting page that talks about the textual differences and some speculation on the meaning of it:

Was Barabbas' given name Jesus?

A quote I found of interest:

"Here is a textual problem in Matt 27:16 & 17 as to whether the name of the criminal was just "Barabbas" or "Jesus Barabbas". The USB5 regards the most probable reading as "Jesus Barabbas" but is far from certain. For the extensive reference, see UBS5.

For the sake of this question, let us assume that the correct text is "Jesus Barabbas". The irony of the choice between "Jesus Barabbas" and "Jesus Christ the Son of the Father" is total.

JESUS

"Jesus" is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew "Joshua" which means "the LORD is salvation", or "The LORD saves". There is a direct reference to this in Matt 1:21 -

She will give birth to a Son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus,d because He will save His people from their sins.”

BARABBAS

Barabbas is Aramaic for "Son of my Father" or "Son of the Father".

CHRIST/MESSIAH

Christ is the Greek for "anointed one". The word "Messiah" is Hebrew with the same meaning.

Irony

Pilate was no fool and understood this well and mocked the Jews by putting a stark question to them:

Do you want me to release to you either:

• Jesus Barabbas [= The savior who is the son of the father] - and a criminal who had been involved in a political insurrection, John 18:40.
• Jesus Christ [= The Savior who is the Anointed One, who is also the Son of the Father, 2 John 3] - a man (John 19:5) who was holy, innocent, blameless, set apart from sinners (Heb 7:26)

To complete the irony, Pilate set a sign over the cross.

Pilate also had a notice posted on the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19:19)

Thus, when the Jews insisted that Barabbas be released and Jesus be crucified, they selected a false messiah and crucified the true Messiah."

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

I meant, during a poisonous red tide (the shellfish would have been tainted, and Egyptian kids, who might have eaten that food, would have died, while Jews, with dietary restrictions, would not have.

 

[Clara Tea]

That's not at all likely since people back then in eretz Israel did not have surnames. To indicate which "Jesus" it was, one typically attached where he was from [Jesus of Nazareth] or whom his father was [Jesus ben Joseph].

Which means that Nazareth would have been like a surname (even stronger, since it also indicates origin). They also used "ben" or "ibn" or "bar" in the middle east to designate "son of." Thus, Christ would have been Jesus, son of Joseph, of Nazareth (plenty in this to distinguish him from Barabbas).

 

[Clara Tea]

Interesting. I did a look at some other translations and most do not say "Jesus Barabbas."

Rotherham Matthew 27:16

• 16Now they had at that time a distinguished prisoner, called Barabbas.

King James Version Matthew 27:16

• 16And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
  

Byington Matthew 27:16

• 16And they had then a conspicuous prisoner known as Jesus Bar-Abbas.
  

American Standard Version Matthew 27:16

• 16And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.

Found an interesting page that talks about the textual differences and some speculation on the meaning of it:

Was Barabbas' given name Jesus?

A quote I found of interest:

"Here is a textual problem in Matt 27:16 & 17 as to whether the name of the criminal was just "Barabbas" or "Jesus Barabbas". The USB5 regards the most probable reading as "Jesus Barabbas" but is far from certain. For the extensive reference, see UBS5.

For the sake of this question, let us assume that the correct text is "Jesus Barabbas". The irony of the choice between "Jesus Barabbas" and "Jesus Christ the Son of the Father" is total.

JESUS

"Jesus" is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew "Joshua" which means "the LORD is salvation", or "The LORD saves". There is a direct reference to this in Matt 1:21 -

She will give birth to a Son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus,d because He will save His people from their sins.”

BARABBAS

Barabbas is Aramaic for "Son of my Father" or "Son of the Father".

CHRIST/MESSIAH

Christ is the Greek for "anointed one". The word "Messiah" is Hebrew with the same meaning.

Irony

Pilate was no fool and understood this well and mocked the Jews by putting a stark question to them:

Do you want me to release to you either:

• Jesus Barabbas [= The savior who is the son of the father] - and a criminal who had been involved in a political insurrection, John 18:40.
• Jesus Christ [= The Savior who is the Anointed One, who is also the Son of the Father, 2 John 3] - a man (John 19:5) who was holy, innocent, blameless, set apart from sinners (Heb 7:26)

To complete the irony, Pilate set a sign over the cross.

Pilate also had a notice posted on the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19:19)

Thus, when the Jews insisted that Barabbas be released and Jesus be crucified, they selected a false messiah and crucified the true Messiah."

There is no evidence that Jews accepted Jesus Barabbas as The Messiah.

I think that it is likely that Romans usually asked crowds if they should kill someone. I suspect that "no" would result in their entire family (or village) being tortured then killed. Rome was a brutal place where crucified people were screaming or dead on many roadsides. Rome killed whole villages. History records that if one Roman soldier was killed, entire villages were slaughtered. So, the Romans likely tried to shed the blame to other people by asking them if they approved of the execution. Romans, in reality, were as guilty as sin.

Though Acts says that Jews approved of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, two recent popes wrote that there is no evidence of this. Could Acts have been written (or redacted) by Romans who ruled the Vatican?

 

[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.

Jesus Barabbas Matthew 27 – Tyndale House

The website, above, is a scholarly treatise on this issue (Jesus Barabbas).

 

[metis]

Which means that Nazareth would have been like a surname (even stronger, since it also indicates origin).

I wouldn't go as far as saying "stronger" as such distinctions were done to separate one "Jesus" from another "Jesus" [English translation], which actually was a fairly common name in eretz Israel 2000 years ago. The use of "ben" would actually have been "stronger" because family was so very important in such a patriarchal society, thus giving honor to the father.