Steven Carr

Mark's Gospel contains the character Barabbas.

John's Gospel contains the character Barabbas.

Can we conclude that John's Gospel is independent of Mark's Gospel?

Duvduv

Interestingly enough, in rabbinic sources there were a number of rabbis in the Talmud with the name Bar Abba, such as R. Chyya bar Abba and R. Shmuel bar Abba. But not from the firs century at all. And it is not a first name.
One can only assume the later gospel writer liked the name because it echoed the idea of the Son of the Father as in Jesus.
I am surprised scholars haven't picked up on this detail of the dating of the name.

Juststeve

Steve Carr:

You cannot conclude that Mark and John are independent based on the presence of Barabbas in both book. The conclusion of independence is based on the many dissimilarities that are obvious if you read the books side by side.

The presence of the same character in two independent sources suggests that both writers had heard about Barabbas somewhere, but not necessarily from the same place. Thus two independent attestation to the presence of Barabbas.

Steve

PhilosopherJay

Hi Seven Carr,

I would only conclude that Barabbas (Son of the Father) was the name of a character in the original tale. It suggests to me that the whole passion was based on a comical tale in which Pilate was tricked by the Jews into releasing a Robber King/Christ (Jewish anti-tax gang leader).

My best reconstruction of the original tale is this. Pilate arrested a father of a Robber King. After his arrest, Pilate promised the father that he would free him and give him 30 pieces of silver if he revealed his son to his soldiers. The father betrayed his son with a kiss. Pilate gave the father 30 pieces of silver. The father did not want it known that he had betrayed his son for money, so the cruel, but clever Pilate pretended to create a new annual ceremony, where Pilate would release one Jewish criminal in a show of mercy. This way Pilate would show himself as a merciful man and not reveal that the father had betrayed his son for money. The father expected to be let go, but the Jews, encouraged by their leaders who had discovered the double-dealing, shouted for "Barabbas" (Son of the father) to be let go. Pilate thought that the man's name was Barabbas and ordered a Roman officer to release Barabbas and ordered the man's kin to be crucified with the sign "King of the Robbers" next to him. The officer who spoke Aramaic and understood that Barabbas meant "the son of the father," obeyed Pilate's orders and released the son, the Robber King, and crucified the father who had betrayed him. The last words of the dying father was "My God, why did I betray my son?"

This explains the whole fictional annual release story, why the name Barabbas was used, and why Barabbas was released.

This amusing anecdote formed the core for the whole passion story.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

But it's worth questioning WHEN the Barabbas segment was included, since we see that nowhere is there a source indicating the name "Bar Abba" before the third century either in Palestine or Babylonia. One Amora in Palestine in the early period was R. Yirmiyahu Bar Abba in the mid 3rd century. A little before him was R. Hiyya Bar Abba at the end of the second century.

Although there were Tannaim rabbis known as Abba son of so-and so, there were none called "Bar Abba." So doesn't it stand to reason the name came up long after the first century?

Steven Carr

How does that work then? If A contradicts B, then A has never heard of B?

Steven Carr

So how do you know they are independent, if you have no idea where they heard it?

Solo

I would not choose Barabbas for proof that John knew Mark.

Most graduating cadets of a Police Academy investigating one gospel writing for evidence that it knew another, would conclude that the John's script fakes just way too much of stuff of Mark to be considered an independent witness at the scene.

A good police academy cadet would see immediately that we have the same psalter read into the murder scene. The soldiers casting lots for Jesus' garments is one piece of solid evidence that John was drawing not on a real story but on an OT prophecy being fulfilled by a gospel. A straight "A" cadet would conclude that visualizing the crucifixion scene by adding scriptural details to it was an art form that the Police Academy knows starts with Mark. So, it would not be swayed by John's adding another psalm reading into the sketch. This of course would not be the case with the space cadets in the NT Academy which still operates with 2nd century CE methodology, which does not know the difference between an elbow and a hole in the ground, i.e. cannot tell evidence from wishing upon the Omnipotent.

Of course, someone like Bart D. Ehrman M.Div, Phd, Idi OT, would take the man at 19:35 who had given testimony as another "independent" witness of the happenings at the scene. Definitely not a smart cadet, who knows Q is not evidence but wishing upon the Omnipotent (to produce it).

Good police work would also catch an obvious piece of John's dependence on Mark in Jn 2:20-21:

The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he spoke of the temple of his body.
This of course is a saying every cop knows comes from Paul (give me a pass on that, there appears to be some tradition for that as well) : 1 Cr 6:19-20 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own. you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

This saying is an integral part of the ironical malentendu in the charge against Jesus before Sanhedrin in Mark 14:58 : "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"

No, irrespective of the lack of textual agreement (or even placement within the chronology and scene), John's outing of Paul's body-temple parallel as the gospel background is simply too strong circumstantial evidence for John knowing Mark (all synoptics ?) for any police investigator to miss.

Then there are the intercalations of between Jesus' trial and Peter's denials, which John takes over from Mark. Way too much of a literary ploy, to be considered coincidental.

At any rate, this is all immaterial, since the cock in question was identified and we have a signed confession by him to the effect that Mark was wrong about two crows, and and that the contract specifically said to hold crowing until Peter denied Jesus the third time.

Best,
Jiri

Juststeve

Steven:

You are making this way to complicated.

If A contradicts B then A is not dependent on B. A may have heard of B but did not follow B. Therefore A is not dependent on B with regard to the issue on which contradiction occurs. If you contradict me you may have heard of me but your idea is not dependent on mine so far as they contradict.

With regard to Mark and John a parallel reading of those Gospels demonstrates that most of what is found in John is not in Mark. This may amount to contradiction, such as the date of the crucifixion, or to just new material, like the raising of Lazarus. With regard to those portions of John, and others, we can be certain that John did not get them from Mark, my notion of independence.

Where there are common elements in two narratives that may be evidence of dependence if the commonality is extensive and has the appearance of plagiarism, using that term in the general nonlegal sense. That two accounts mention Barbabas could be evidence of dependence but could as well be evidence that both authors heard of Barabbas independently. Where as in the case of Mark and John Barabbas is embedded in radically different narratives I suspect independence.

Steve

Duvduv

The Amora of the Palestinian Talmud, Rabbi Tanhuma Bar Abba,is also mentioned in a late mish-mash story of Toldoth Yeshu. One can only wonder why the author of this Toldoth would mention him, but wouldn't it be interesting if the gospel were taking a swipe at him as he is integrated into this story of Jesus and and lived in the fourth century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanhuma_bar_Abba
http://www.oocities.org/nephilimnot/...n_pandera.html
After being buried, a gardener took his body and hid it in a ditch in his Cabbage patch [12]. His disciples failed to find the body in the tomb they told Queen Helen that he had risen from the dead, and so she wished to put to death all the Sages of Israel. Rabbi Tanhuma Bar Abba [5] - [possibly simile to Barabbas], however, found the body, which was then tied to a horse's tail and dragged to where the Queen was. Nevertheless, Yeshu's disciples spread the story of Jesus amongst the Gentiles. These disciples included 12 apostles who were said to be arduous persecutors of the Jews.