PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I just wanted to add a few more points to this hypothesis that Bar-abbas was just another name for Jesus.

This supports the thesis that Jesus and Barabbas were a single individual in the earlier narrative.

Once we understand this, we have to ask about Mark's line 15.7: And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas.

The only insurrection that Mark tells us about is the insurrection in the Temple:

There are more interesting details in John's Gospel. Jesus violently attacked people with a whip of cords and talked about destroying the temple:

Note that Jesus' answer does not make sense as an answer to the question "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" Rather, it makes more sense as a command to the Jews, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." If the Jewish question about the sign is put as part of the response, the passage becomes more logical:

2.16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade." 2.17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me." 2.19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.2.20 The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" The Jews then said to him, "What sign have you to show us for doing this?"2.21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.2.22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Disrupting businesses, beating people and talking about [or commanding] the destruction of the temple, is certainly evidence of an insurrection. Here is the insurrection that Mark says Barabbas was arrested for. It is no wonder that, as the text of Mark says, "11.18And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him;"

But where is the murder that Barabbas/Jesus is alleged to have committed?

The only violent incident comes at the time of Jesus' arrest:
Note that the scene ends with everybody fleeing. This makes no sense as the soldiers did not come to arrest anybody but Jesus. Could this have originally been an escape scene that took place before the temple scene?

It is quite significant here, I think, that Mark connects an act of violence to Jesus being in the temple. Of course, he says that Jesus acted peacefully in the temple and did nothing there to be arrested. Perhaps Mark is deliberately misleading us. Note how John treats the arrest:

It makes no sense that Peter would not be arrested after cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant. The detail of saying it was the right ear and giving the name makes no sense either. The saying, "Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me" also seems too metaphorical for the specific circumstances.

I propose that the violent action makes more sense coming from Jesus himself as he is the one arrested and coming at the end of the Temple insurrection scene. The earlier version probably said something along these lines:


Mark naturally did not want Jesus associated with such a vile crime, so he rewrote the scene in John and changed its position in the text, while writing his own version of the Gospel.

If the High Priest whom Jesus killed was, in fact, Jesus' own father, his last words on the cross, "Why, father have you abandoned me?" become much more ironic and understandable.

The original tale would have been a moral tale condemning extreme zealousness in religion. By eliminating the reason for Jesus' arrest, Mark cleaned up Jesus' reputation, but made the crucifixion incomprehensible.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

andrewcriddle

There are also a few Greek manuscripts that read Jesus Barabbas. One complication is that this reading is found only in Matthew not in Mark (or Luke or John.)

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for bringing up this point.

I found this interesting article online which notes that the Matthew manuscript used in Caesarea by Origen in 240 C.E. had the Jesus Barabbas name. Apparently, the ones he knew earlier in Alexandria did not. http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch4.htm

My guess would be that earlier Mark and John manuscripts also had the name. These copies weren't circulated to branch churches in Caesarea, but the gospel of Matthew was. The Mark, John and Matthew copies that stayed in Alexandria were all corrected to eliminate the word Jesus before Barabbas. When Origen went to Caesarea, he found the older Matthew manuscript, and knew that it was older than the Alexandrian corrections, so he used it. He defended the Alexandrian corrections, not on the basis of the age of the manuscript, but with the strange notion that the name Jesus had never been associated with anything evil. Luke was written after the corrected Matthew, Mark and John editions, and thus never had the term.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

avi

n.b. Herbert S. Fine is a nom de plume of Jerry Siegel. Another of his pseudonyms was Joe Carter, origin perhaps, of the erroneous reference above to "Joel Siegel".

Thank you very much Philosopher Jay, for teaching me that Bar Abba represents "son of the father" in Aramaic.

Your input to this forum is much appreciated.
regards,
avi

grip_daddy

The third hour from sunrise is specific but not the "morning" referred to in verse 1. Somehow my native language helps me understand the bible language loosely.

I could say, "I have not eaten anything since morning. The only time I put something in my stomach was at 9AM". If someone could inquire further, he could have realized that I meant, "I have not eaten anything since 4AM when I woke up".

I am just against this notion that the crucifixion events started at sunrise, something that can only be inferred.

Solo

The figure of (Jesus) Barabbas, I think originates with Mark who used it as a literary tool to contrast Jesus (of Nazareth's) innocence. The literary intent of Barabbas, an insurrectionist and a murderer, whose release the Jews clamoured in preference to Jesus', is ironic and in keeping with the Isaiah-Paul's motto, 'the last shall be first'.

To me, the decisive element here would be Mark's description of Barabbas as being bound with co-insurrectionists. Jesus was taken alone.

Jiri

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jiri,

Note that Matthew says nothing about Barabbas being captured with other prisoners, but points out that he was famous: (27:16)"And they had then a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas." Luke also says nothing about Barabbas being captured with other prisoners, but credits him with insurrection and murder: (23:19) "a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city, and for murder."

There is also some ambiguity in Mark. Take the American Standard Translation of the passage: (15:7) "And there was one called Barabbas, lying bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder." Mark may not be talking about other men participating in a single insurrection, Mark may be suggesting that Barabbas is bound like all the prisoners throughout history who have committed a murder during an insurrection. Under this interpretation there need not be any other prisoners in prison at the same time as Barabbas.

Even if we reject this and presume that Mark is talking about other prisoners with Barabbas, there is no reason to believe him. The agreement of the synoptic gospels is that he committed murder during the insurrection. Neither Matthew nor Luke follow Mark in saying that he was bound with other prisoners.

Also note that insurrections would not be common historical events. There might be one every six months or year or two, but it is unlikely that two would occur within a short period of time. On the other hand, consider that justice was particularly swift at the time, and doubtless anyone caught committing murder during an insurrection would be executed in a matter of days. We know that Jesus committed an insurrection in the Temple, why should we postulate that a second man named Jesus committed a second insurrection? The narratives, taken as a whole, do not lead us to believe that, especially since "Son of the Father" is simply an epithet for Jesus, like "King of the Jews."

On the supposition that Jesus Barabbas was another man, we have to ask why he has the same name and epithet as Jesus? The story never explains this absurdity. On the supposition that the earlier narrative intended them to be the same man, and Mark created an alternative character, we have a clear an reasonable answer to the riddle.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

Joel Siegel was a film critic for many years on the ABC television network. I remembered that Siegel was the name of Superman's author, but I simply forgot that Jerry was Siegel's first name. I substituted the film critic's name which was more familiar to me.

Thanks for the comment about the imput.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Solo

I don't think there is much of a question about whether Matt & Luke are textually dependent on Mark for the Barabbas character. Matthew omits the description of him as murderer as he is the least "Paulinist" of the synoptics, and the charge against Barabbas then perhaps seemed a bit too hyperbolic. Luke keeps it, I believe for the reasons I indicated.

Mk 15:7
ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν
was and one called Barabbas with the insurrectionists

δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν
bound who in the insurrection murder committed

I don't see such interpretation would work with the text. The reference is to a particular riot or insurrection.

Matt & Luke simply wanted to make the people's decision one-against-one. I see it more as a question of composition than correcting a mistake in a historical account.

'stasis' need not be an attempted overthrow of existing authority which is what 'insurrection' connotes. It could describe a violent disorder, a riot. (see e.g. Acts 19:40). The uproar may have happened outside of Jerusalem.

I think I explained that. Mark simply uses Barabbas as a prop to dramatize the 'fulfilling' of the script written up for Jesus. Barabbas represents the lowest of the common low life (the plurality of prisoners intended), and yet - the people choose him over a man who does nothing but good and for whom they sang hosannas but a few days before. Richard Carrier pointed out the pattern in Mark's Easter narrative of people acting in it "contrary to expectation": Simon of Cyrene takes up the cross where Simon Peter would be expected to, Jews turn on Jesus and a Roman centurion declares him divi filius, lowly women are at the crucifixion where the disciples should be. The offer of Barnabbas as option to Jesus falls also into the "impossible" deed/event category, because if true would have exposed Pilate to a charge of treason to Rome and the emperor.

In another thread, I responded to Andrew, who thinks that the Barabbas story in John is closer to an older "tradition" than Mark. I pointed out that John seems to be aware of the "maiestas" issue:

Jn 19:12 From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”

So, the author of John's gospel is aware that Pilate couldn't let Jesus go because that would be an insult to Rome. (Actually, Pilate could have declared Jesus furiosus and thereby not deserving the max for the insult - which of course would not work theologically). Naturally, then, the idea of offering a murderous rioter to appease the crowd would have seemed silly, and not paradoxal, to John and the Barabbas' crime had to be changed. That would seem to me the more natural evolution of the Barabbas tradition.

And then again, Mark closes the gospel with the women running away from the tomb in panic and not telling anything to anyone.

In both cases, I believe, we are dealing with a special sort of creativity.

Cheers,
Jiri

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jiri,

Please note that Pilate tries to release Jesus at least five different times:
[This is the first time Pilate tries to get rid of the Jesus case]

[At this point, Pilate has Jesus whipped. He then turns Jesus over to the Jews. Since the Jews has asked Pilate to "Give us Barabbas," this makes absolutely no sense unless Barabbas is also Jesus King of the Jews.]

4Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." 5When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!"
[This is the second time that Pilate is handing him over to the Jews.

[Pilate's ruse of handing them the man they desired, "Jesus Barabas doesn't work. They still want to crucify him. This is the third time that Pilate tries to turn him over to the Jews]

[Jesus says that Pilate is not to blame, but the Jews. Pilates tries for at least the fourth time to set Jesus free, but the Jews insist.

[Pilate recognizes Jesus as the King of the Jews. Even here, John doesn't want to say that Pilate had Jesus crucified, but simply says that he handed him over to them. Note that he has made a reversal of the situation. The Jews hand Jesus to Pilate and Pilate hands him back to the Jews. The structure of the scene is perfect.]

The argument that John is making here is that Pilate is not to blame for the crucifixion of Jesus, the leadership of the Jews is. Pilate is entirely innocent in the affair. He tries repeatedly to release Jesus, but the Jewish leadership won't let him.

Because John has already established Pilate's innocence, Mark does not feel a need to. His major change is to bring the Jewish multitude into it and blame them for aiding the Jewish leadership in the crucifixion of Jesus.

It is reasonable to conclude that the reason that John must argue for Pilate's innocence is that the text that he has before him holds Pilate entirely responsible for the execution of Jesus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

[QUOTE=Solo;5834666]