If I had to pick one take on the story, it would be this:
Barabbas and Jesus are the same person. Those who call for Jesus to be freed are - in a literal way - denying Jesus's sacrifice and therefore take their guilt upon themselves.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Open to anyone: Question about Barabbas in the gospels.
- Thread starter Brickjectivity
- Start date
-
- Tags
- barabbas
Barabbas and Jesus are the same person. Those who call for Jesus to be freed are - in a literal way - denying Jesus's sacrifice and therefore take their guilt upon themselves.
Thanks for that insight. I think that the gospels are written to humans, so we should expect there to be irony and all kinds of writing devices. Its not simple. Its a book written with the expectation that we have brains. Am I right?
"Your father the devil," is a complex sentence. I don't have the benefit of a catholic formation class, so to me it looks like something that has to be deconstructed. I translate devil to 'slanderer'. I do the best I can do.
On the other hand there is a concept of devils. There are ideas about both ghosts and demons which could very well be important. I may be over-translating.
You have a very broad knowledge of these early writers. I am jealous.
Indeed, the Bible is to me a human and divine document, so lots of writing devices and even mundane things (like someone asking for their coat be delivered to them) are in it. Not only that it is a high-context book where a lot is just not said, and it's context is the Church.
Mass can be confusing, during my first time (for I converted) a guy came up to me and told me how it worked. I have no idea what he said, but over repeated visits I eventually got the whole structure down. The Church is indeed weird when one looks at it, as always been from even Moses until now.
With "your father the devil," that is what the word means and the "father" bit meaning that they do the same thing. For the Lord Jesus said "you are of your father the devil, and you desire to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he might speak falsehood, he speaks from the own; for he is a liar, and the father of it." This contrasts with Him and His Father for He also said: "truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing from himself except what he sees the Father doing. For whatever that one does, these things also the Son does likewise."
To me this is a clue as to how it is associated with them, for St. Mark says "the one named Barabbas was imprisoned with the rebels who had committed murder in the rebellion," and this whole event with the Lord Jesus was nothing else but a rebellion against God.
My knowledge is not that broad yet but thank you, but the way is accessible to all. Read this book (or some equivalent, the word "Catholic" does not mean "RCC" in it, it was made by a Lutheran/Orthodox guy) which contextualizes them all accurately, then you can read them chronologically or in any order you wish while talking to people educated in them (who follow them, not others) and reading secondary material on them, while praying/fasting to God to give you their mind, which is none other than the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:15-16). Over time knowledge increases and you begin to think like them, which is good because they themselves thought like Christ.
Where I got those quotes from was St. Thomas' Catena Aurea (Golden Chain, for the quotations form a chain/continuous commentary, golden for symbolism of many things), a commentary on the four Gospels made from quotes of the Fathers and those who followed them. Frankly the work is just divinely inspired and you should even begin reading it today in my opinion, and a lecture (the divisions of it) of it daily in my opinion. A Gospel a day keeps the world, the flesh, and the devil away!
All the above said in my opinion of course.
Last edited:
Yes possibly... they do respond to Pilate’s “I wash my hands” with “let his blood be upon us and our children”.
One thought is a way to divide the spirit from the flesh, where the flesh is sacrificed but the spirit lives on.
I'm convinced the whole Jesus myth is symbolic and not in any way a description of an historical event.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Not really. Bar means son. Abba means the father. Barabba means the son of the father. Its not "Son of Rabbas".
His name was Jesus barabbas. Yeshua Bar abba. Yep, his name was also Jesus.
Interesting idea. Kinda the opposite of @Jainarayan 's take. Barabbas is the one who "lives on," so it seems like you're saying that Barabbas represents "spirit" and Jesus represents "flesh." Is that right?
I'm not sure if the whole thing is symbolic, but I do think it's pretty clear that the "Passover pardon" story is a fabrication.
... but in a lot of ways, that makes interpretation more interesting. When someone makes up the story, every detail has been deliberately included in order to express an intended meaning.
And this gets into the whole anti-semitic idea of "Jewish deicide."
I certainly wouldn't reject the idea that early Christians might have included this passage in order to support their idea of "Jewish deicide," but I'm puzzled by why the author would have made their culpable act choosing one "son of the father" over another.
True.
Note also that Abba was also a personal name. For example, the full name of Rav, one of the last Tannaim and part of the first gen. of Amoraim, was Rabbi Abba bar Aivo.
That was my impression, yes.
It may never be known if any element has factual basis, but I can't accept the typical literalist interpretation of the story. I think the more outrageous the story the more satisfying it is for the true believer. They just fail under moderate scrutiny.
Leahpolitan_icecream
Member
I think they got the wrong man and then made it antisemitic
Leahpolitan_icecream
Member
Why do you think it is fake?
Leahpolitan_icecream
Member
Alcuin sounds like an antisemite, what is a Catena Aurea?
What if they got the wrong man?
Me, too. I personally find images of Shiva to be horrific and alien, but they are tame compared to passion plays. I have other problems with passion plays, too; but I won't go into it further.
Alcuin sounds like an antisemite, what is a Catena Aurea?
What if they got the wrong man?
1) So you think. Seems to me as if he is being "fought against without a cause," as the Psalm says.
2) A commentary.
3) In the words of Hopsin:
"Man, everything is “what if?” — why is it always “what if?”
Planet Earth “what if?”, the Universe “what if?”
My sacrifice “what if?!”, my afterlife “what if?!”"
I think it plays out the Christian belief in Jesus’s divinity, his mission from God, his death and resurrection. If Pilate released the other Jesus, the whole story of Christ evaporates. But why use the Jews as the instrument of this, I don’t know... except maybe just plain anti-Semitism. I could say the authors were Jewish themselves but renounced Judaism, wanting to distance themselves from it. But that’s probably overthinking it.
Thank you for the clarification. As you can see I am a bit of an English monster visiting in a land of glass figurines.
There it is in Matthew, and I overlooked it. The other three gospels only say 'Barabbas' though.
Sometimes it just takes me time to grasp what is said I may get it later, but if you're still on though please add some more context. I'm not sure what you mean by saying they got the wrong man. Who got the wrong man, and who made what antisemitic? Help me along with the thought process please.
Parts of gospels could be antisemitic in the original or not. I prefer to think that its been used for antisemitic purposes and is not originally antisemitic. If its originally antisemitic then its completely useless and has to be tossed altogether which seems wasteful of both paper and people.
Actually because it is specifically about the festival of Pesach (which I call Passover), it is not actually a story of Jews accepting blame for Jesus death. It doesn't imply that every Jew is to blame for his death. Rather it means that his blood stays the angel of death. Let me explain.
In the original Passover story being reenacted in Jesus death, the blood of a lamb prevents the death of the people in the house. You put a lamb's blood onto the house, so that the angel of death then ignores your house. Passover (Pesach) is a foreign concept, and I don't really understand why lamb's blood makes the angel of death pass over. It does though in the story. That's the physics of blood used during Passover.
Now in the gospels Jesus is like that lamb. The angel of death ignores the house of the Jews when it sees the blood of the lamb. They aren't being made guilty. The point of the story of saying "Let his blood be on us" is not to accept guilt but to mark their houses such that the angel of death passes them over. Also its figurative. Nobody is putting Jesus blood onto their houses. I never met a Jew who killed Christ.
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.
In addition statements in both Acts and in the gospels make it clear that (even in Christianity) one generation cannot cause another to be guilty. In particular there is a speech in Acts in which Peter (one of the 12 apostles) says that it is his generation of Jews which are in jeopardy. If he thought that all Jews were Christ-killers this would have been a different speech. No, and neither Paul nor Peter ever say that all Jews are guilty. Rather what they say is that if anyone is at fault they did not know better. At most the NT authors consider there to be accidental guilt.
Last edited: