chimaira

hello mister kirby .


I rest my question, because nobody answered me,

it was said to me that "Barabba" wanted to say in Hebrew "wire of the father" and that in the Gospels it east say that it is barabba and not Jesus who at summer crucifié in the place of Jesus, could you inform me on that if you want?

Thank you.

Peter Kirby

I am told that "Barabbas" in either Hebrew or Aramaic means "son of the father."

Here is the story in the NT.

Mark 15
6 But at [the] feast he released to them one prisoner, whomsoever they begged [of him].
7 Now there was the [person] named Barabbas bound with those who had made insurrection with [him], [and] that had committed murder in the insurrection.
8 And the crowd crying out began to beg [that he would do] to them as he had always done.
9 But Pilate answered them saying, Will ye that I release to you the King of the Jews?
10 for he knew that the chief priests had delivered him up through envy.
11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd that he might rather release Barabbas to them.
12 And Pilate answering said to them again, What will ye then that I do [to him] whom ye call King of the Jews?
13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14 And Pilate said to them, What evil then has he done? But they cried out the more urgently, Crucify him.
15 And Pilate, desirous of contenting the crowd, released to them Barabbas, and delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged him, that he might be crucified.

J.D. Crossan sees in the story of Barabbas a condemnation of the Jews who chose insurrection: "In Greek the technical term for such a rebel bandit is lestes, and that is exactly what Barabbas is called. He was a bandit, a rebel, an insurgent, a freedom fighter - depending always, of course, on your point of view. But Mark was written soon after the terrible consummation of the First Roman-Jewish War in 70 C.E., when Jerusalem and its Temple were totally destroyed. We already saw how the Zealots, a loose coalition of bandit groups and peasant rebels forced into Jerusalem by the tightening Roman encirclement, fought within the city for overall control of the rebellion in 68 C.E. There, says Mark, was Jerusalem's choice: it chose Barabbas over Jesus, an armed rebel over an unarmed savior. His narrative about Barabbas was, in other words, a symbolic dramatization of Jerusalem's fate, as he saw it." (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 143)

There was an apocryphal tradition that someone else was crucified in the place of Jesus, but I am not aware that Barabbas was identified as this person. Hippolytus of Rome, in a tract formerly attributed to Tertullian under the title Against All Heresies, writes of the second century Basilides: "Afterwards broke out the heretic Basilides. He affirms that there is a supreme Deity, by name Abraxas, . . . Christ, moreover, he affirms to have been sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms, he says, are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies."

I'm not sure that I really understood your question, but I hope this helps.

best,
Peter Kirby

chimaira

Thank you Mr Kirby for the response, which lights me about "barabbas", in the Gospel for Marc Jesus to crucifié summer and not barabbas, me I believed that barabass by its Hebrew name "son of the father" had been crucifié in the place of Jesus. Thank you for your answer.

lpetrich

Is the name Barabbas somehow symbolic?

"Son of the Father" would be trivial unless there was some very special father being referred to.

Since "the Father" is used as a term for God in the New Testament, and since Jesus Christ is supposed to be the Son of God, could this "Barabbas" be some sort of storyline alter ego?

MortalWombat

James Still has an article here called The Absurd Life: Barabbas and Christ for those who are interested. In it, he mentions that Jesus Barabbas is probably the original name of Barabbas in the gospel, and the Jesus was later edited out. Also, he references Hyam Maccoby (Revolution in Judaea. New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1973) as suggesting the possibility that Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas are actually one and the same.

CX

I wonder what everyone thinks of the text evidence for IHSOUN BARABBAN in Matt 27:16. NA27 indicates that IHSOUN is omitted in the majority of what it considers reliable witnesses and is found in only a handful of witnesses. It includes it in the critical texts, but marks it with brackets indicating that it is "conjectural". I've seen reference to Origen's discussion of this issue, but have not gone to the trouble of looking it up as yet. Additionally there is the subjective text critical explanation that it is more explicable that pious scribes would omit IHSOUN rather than someone adding it, which certainly does seem compelling.

If it happens the IHSOUN BARABBAN is the original reading is it really as significant as some would have us believer given the ubiquity of the name Joshua (IHSOUS)? The whole thing seems rather murky to me.

Haran

It is interesting to note that "Jesus Barabbas" does not appear to be found anywhere else except Matt. 27:16/17, not even in Mark (which is said to be the earliest gospel).

I believe that the insertion of Jesus here makes perfect sense for docetists, especially those who used Matthew (e.g. the Ebionites).

chimaira

"Arabe, Hebrew do not write the vowels, but if these are written in a way, she can change the direction of a word to see even of a sentence, the favoring equation "Judas Bar Judas = Jésus" support same manner, the equation " Bar Judas = Barabbas or Bar Abbas" (Sons of the father). "Returned from egypt with the secrets that it counted to exploit, Barjuda déclara clearly that it was Bar Abba "Sons of the Father" Meschia "Messie" Ieaou shâna bones " Signs year of ieou" Ieoushoua "Savior" and Mâran "Lord" (Arthur Heulhard, the Christian lie) Pounce Pilate delivers Bar Abbas to the Jews, and puts back them just as well Bar Abbas as Jésus, it puts back them Jésus Bar Abbas,, in two times since asBar Abbas in two, and does two sentences of the unique suggestion given by the historic truth. (Massed Daniel, jésus-christ L"énigme).



"They had then, a famous prisoner, called Bar Abbas" (Mt 27,16). In some old manuscripts, Barabbas is called Jésus Barabbas. "Bar" meaning in Hebrew, "Sons" and "Aba" meaning on the other hand two well different things. In fact, according to the grammarians, "Aba" transcrit by an "aleph" as initial, give "Jésus, sons of the father" and transcrit by a "heith" as initial, gives on the other hand "Jésus, hidden son". Who to choose therefore between these two Jésus?



It seems in any case that the Biblical texts were very skillfully climbed.

CX

Indeed it is curious. Further I find your conjecture to have some merit. Could you elaborate?

Vorkosigan

Yet, most of the Mark manuscripts are late. There would be nothing strange about Jesus Barabbas dropping out of later editions of Mark, while being retained in manuscript lines of Matthew whose origins are earlier than the Mark-s we have. In short, suggestive, but not conclusive is the way I read this.

Vorkosigan