Kosh

I wonder if this could be an early aplogetic. Since some have theorized that the jesus mythology grew up around a rebel leader, it would make since that this would be woven into the Gospels as a "cover".

"No, uh, that was, uh, another guy that was a rebel. yeah, that's it! Barabbas! that was his name! Yeah, that's the ticket. And Pilate let him go! Yeah! You're remembering the wrong guy!"

Mageth

What translation is that? Most translations of John I looked at simply say Barabbas was a robber or criminal. Which brings up questions, since John was the last Gospel written and his description of Barabbas doesn't exactly sync with that of the synoptic Gospels. Was there intent by the writer of John to "discount" the description of Barabbas as some sort of rebel / rebel leader, perhaps to make it appear that the person released instead of Jesus was a worthless common criminal rather than someone who some of the Jews might have seen as some kind of hero or political prisoner?

BTW, "Barabbas" means "Son of a Father (or Master)" or something similar. I'm not sure how much to make of that, but it sounds a bit like Jesus' designation as God's Son.

And for completeness, we should include Matthew:

Mat 27:16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.

"Notable" may also be interpreted as "notorious", and indicates some local fame for Barabbas. I seriously doubt if a "robber" (as Barabbas is portrayed in John) would be all that "notable". So, while Matthew doesn't give the more detailed description that Mark and Luke do, it is more in line with them than with John, IMO.

JoyJuice

That was from the NIV, the default version at the Gateway Bible site. Interestingly enough, it was believed that Barabbas's first name was: Jesus.

Amos

Good point but if it was metaphor why look for a body as evidence?

Amos

Barabbas was "Jesus-son-of-man" set free before "Jesus-son-of-Jew" was crucified . . . and died for had he not died he would have been the second imposter of Mt.27:64 to say that Jesus-son-of-Jew was an imposter before he died and therefore needed to die to set "son of man" free."

Doctor X

Some of the textual witnesses support "Jesus Barabbas" while the majority do not. I tend to consider it the more appropriate reading since it is quite difficult to deal with--more likely to "clean up" than "create" difficulties. However, a number of the "big witnesses" do not have it. The "best" witness is Codex Koridethi which is 7th-9th century. What it interesting about Koridethi is that it was written by a scribe who did not know Greek! Thus, one can make the argument that he would not know to remove "Jesus" from "Jesus Barabbas."

. . . or . . . he would not know if he was writing complete garbage!

Origen apparently also witnesses this reading.

Anyways, what is the point? In my opinion [He has "opinions?'--Ed.] Mk frequent demonstrates how people mistake understanding "who" or "what" Junior is--particularly the disciples. "Jesus"--as others have demonstrated on other threads--is ultimately a Latinization of a very common name. I think he was trying to show "they saved the wrong one." They saved a "Jesus," they saved a "Son of the Father," who was a secular insurrectionist--for Mk, Junior is more than this "Messiah"--someone expected to re-establish the earthly kingdom.

Another thing to remember is the story is completely made up. First, Pilate would never let an insurrectionist go free. Period. Second, the "tradition" of "let one slob go" never existed. Third, if it did, there is not reason to expect the Romans to follow it! Remember, the point of a Triumph was for the guy getting to eventually sacrifice his prisoner at the end. The Romans had a long tradition of intolerance to challenges.

The story fits with other stories in Mk. Later authors adapted it as necessary.

--J.D.

CX

This has been long thought by some scholars to be a literary invention. The word used to describe Barabbas implies an inssurectionist not a simple criminal. The theological implications should be obvious to anyone. The jews are to choose between a military revolutionary as messiah or the unexpected pacifisitic son of god. The story tells us they choose wrong. They pick the military "Jesus". Jews in the period expected a military leader and king as messiah who would throw off the yoke of Roman occupation. They did not expect an apocalyptic prophet claiming to be the literal son of god who was executed by the authorities.

Doctor X

Once again, you are more succinct, CX . . . I'M NOT PLAYING ANYMORE!!!

Picks up ball and runs away. . . .

--J.D.

Amos

. . . or they were good at fogging things up for generations to come.

JoyJuice

You know upon further review in regards to Barabbas, we have Jesus crucified for being a nuisance to the Sanhedrin and crucified in 12 hours flat. We have two simple thieves crucified right next to him. We know from history Pilate is a ruthless maniacal ruler with no compassion nor tolerance for the subjected Jew, who punishes them harshly and swiftly leaving them to rot as a deterrent. Given this, why is Barabbas, a Jewish insurrectionist revolting directly against Pilate and Rome charged with murder still alive? This whole scenario regarding Barabbas seems to indicate, well, I don’t want to say fantasy, but perhaps religious invention, in which the point to be made often is at odds with historical truth.