Open to anyone: Question about Barabbas in the gospels.

[Clara Tea]

That business about the Jews killing Jesus doesn’t sit well with me either. He was condemned under Roman law, by a Roman authority. However, I’m not so sure about the Jews using his blood as protection or some sort of blessing. I would think they’d have to see him as someone or something of importance, which I don’t think they did. I think the “let his blood be upon us” is more of a “yeah ok whatever, just get this over with”. After all, that crowd wasn’t his followers, but probably people who didn’t want to **** off Pilate any more. I think this story is open to many interpretations, allowing people to take away what strikes them. I’m not comfortable with coincidences, I think there are things at work we don’t at times understand.

No.....the lamb's blood was definitely not to symbolize the blood of Jesus, and it definitely had nothing at all to do with Jesus or his crucifixion. Passover happened long before the life of Jesus.

Proof:

Passover started when Moses threatened the Egyptian pharaoh in

Passover Fast Facts | CNN

The link above says that Moses's exodus (from Egypt) was circa 1200's BC (long before the life of Jesus Christ).

Passover in the Hebrew Bible

The website, above, says that the celebration of the holiday of Passover began around the 5th century BC (which is hundreds of years after the exodus, and hundreds of years before the life of Jesus.

It was celebrated on the 14th day of Nissan (not a Japanese car).

The website also says that the Passover Papyrus from Elephantine (held at the Egyptian Museum of Berlin) doesn't mention anything about Passover except that it was celebrated. This website concludes that subsequent editors detailed eating a lamb and smearing its blood as a sign to God to "pass" "over" their house when he punishes Egyptians.

Exodus 12:9 says that Moses was commanded to roast (not boil in water) the lamb. That would mean that the old testament was written after the time of Moses.

Lacking full proof, I'd say that you are right about being open to many interpretations.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The website, above, is a scholarly treatise on this issue (Jesus Barabbas).

Thanks for that link which I have now read. Dirk Jongkind thinks that 'Jesus Barabbas' should be changed in Mathew to just 'Barabbas'. His argument is that it impossible to determine whether it is in the original and that he thinks the committee is wrong to include it in the popular scripture.

Some think the variant reading may have appeared because of confusing spelling in Matthew, but oppositely it could also be that the first part of an original full name 'Jesus Barabbas' was left out. They could try to get an opinion by looking at external texts, but Jongkind says it wouldn't be enough to make a perfect decision. He thinks they must settle for a guess.

So the scholars are guessing, mostly.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don’t know much about this, but if I where to bet I´ll say that names where originally just nicknames.

I imagine an Ancient Hebrew claiming .….. Yey, “I was forgived by God” I did something wrong but God forgived me.

So people start to call him “forgived by God” (John) ………. Then people liked how John sounded and named their people that way even if the had no idea what the name means,

I personally have no Idea what the name of my daughter means, I just selected that name because it sounds nice.

My parents and siblings consider the meaning of the name but don't think of them as verbs. The names mean pretty things or good things. It may not be the same in Jewish families, because they are commanded to teach their children the law day in and day out. There is a compelling reason that they might chose to name their children after aspects of the laws, to teach them. I don't know though.

Suppose for example I keep adding to my child's name. First I name them 'Michael'. Then after they learn how to talk I start calling them 'Michael Joshua'. Then next year 'Joshua Benjamin'. Then the following year 'Benjamin Joseph', right/ And then if I am displeased with them I might say their whole name: 'Michael Joshua Benjamin Joseph' what are you doing? Leave your sister 'Mariah Tamara Beulah Elizabeth Deborah Sarah' alone right now! Sit down. But I'm probably stretching creatively here.

 

[Clara Tea]

I've always thought his name meant "son of the father" and because the Israelites wanted him and not the actual Eternal Son of the Father the Church just reeled in the irony of it all so hard it became a huge inside-meme and so that's why we have it in all four Gospels.

Perhaps also a play on "your father the devil" or the "snake-illegitimates" thing that comes up, because the Lord Jesus was called illegitimate and His Father was God Himself.

Editing in Patristic comments which will be more helpful:

St. Ambrose of Milan: "Not unreasonably do they seek the pardon of a murderer, who were themselves demanding the death of the innocent. Such are the laws of iniquity, that what innocence hates, guilt loves. And here the interpretation of the name affords a figurative resemblance, for Barabbas is in Latin, the son of a father. Those then to whom it is said, You are your father the Devil, are represented as about to prefer the true Son of God the son of their father, that is, Anti-Christ."

St. Alcuin of York: "The name Barabbas signifies, The son of their master; i.e. the devil; his master in his wickedness, the Jews’ in their perfidy."

St. Hilary of Poitier: "At the desire of the Priests the populace chose Barabbas, which is interpreted ‘the son of a Father,’ thus shadowing forth the unbelief to come when Antichrist the son of sin should be preferred to Christ."

These are the main comments in St. Thomas' Catena Aurea on the Gospels which connect the name to the event and give an explanation of why it happened. Basically what I said but more clear/better. Irony and typology.

All the above said in my opinion of course.

The Christian faith is derived from the Jewish faith. You can see from St. Alcuin's (of York) comment, that he is antisemitic. Christians choose to "bear false witness" against Jews because of fear that their parishioners will change to the Jewish faith. So, Jews are called wicked (without any facts to back up that outrageous and inflammatory insult).

Clearly, the God of the Jews is the God of the Christians. Clearly, all are God's children. Clearly, God wants all of his children to get along, so God absolutely must be against such bigotry.

Just to clarify...."St. Hilary of Poitier" isn't "Harry Potter."

 

[Clara Tea]

Thanks for that link which I have now read. Dirk Jongkind thinks that 'Jesus Barabbas' should be changed in Mathew to just 'Barabbas'. His argument is that it impossible to determine whether it is in the original and that he thinks the committee is wrong to include it in the popular scripture.

Some think the variant reading may have appeared because of confusing spelling in Matthew, but oppositely it could also be that the first part of an original full name 'Jesus Barabbas' was left out. They could try to get an opinion by looking at external texts, but Jongkind says it wouldn't be enough to make a perfect decision. He thinks they must settle for a guess.

So the scholars are guessing, mostly.

The bible, itself, refers to him as Jesus Barabbas. Are you saying that the bible was altered and not the true word of God? If all that we know of God is from the bible, and the bible is wrong, how do we know that God exists? How can we follow wrong advice if the advice in the bible is wrong?

 

[Clara Tea]

My parents and siblings consider the meaning of the name but don't think of them as verbs. The names mean pretty things or good things. It may not be the same in Jewish families, because they are commanded to teach their children the law day in and day out. There is a compelling reason that they might chose to name their children after aspects of the laws, to teach them. I don't know though.

Suppose for example I keep adding to my child's name. First I name them 'Michael'. Then after they learn how to talk I start calling them 'Michael Joshua'. Then next year 'Joshua Benjamin'. Then the following year 'Benjamin Joseph', right/ And then if I am displeased with them I might say their whole name: 'Michael Joshua Benjamin Joseph' what are you doing? Leave your sister 'Mariah Tamara Beulah Elizabeth Deborah Sarah' alone right now! Sit down. But I'm probably stretching creatively here.

If you have the same "good night John Boy" tradition as the Waltons, I'm surprised that you get any sleep. Imagine how long it would take to say good night at the Waltons house now (some 70 years of bearing 8 kids per family).

Traditionally, names conveyed origin and parenthood, like John, son of John, or John of Patmos.

Italians tortured Jews to death if they didn't covert to their religion "of peace." They were called conversos if they converted. This lends credence to the idea that Galileo Galilee was from Galilee (what is now Israel), and therefore was Jewish.

When I see a name like Jesus Bar Abbas (Jesus, Lion, in Arabic). I wonder if his father was known (or someone hid the real name of the father). Why? Perhaps he was born out of wedlock (a stoning offense). So, if we say that the "love child" was God's son, maybe people would not stone the mother?

But, that would make him a lion illegitimate child.

 

[Clara Tea]

Thanks for that link which I have now read. Dirk Jongkind thinks that 'Jesus Barabbas' should be changed in Mathew to just 'Barabbas'. His argument is that it impossible to determine whether it is in the original and that he thinks the committee is wrong to include it in the popular scripture.

Some think the variant reading may have appeared because of confusing spelling in Matthew, but oppositely it could also be that the first part of an original full name 'Jesus Barabbas' was left out. They could try to get an opinion by looking at external texts, but Jongkind says it wouldn't be enough to make a perfect decision. He thinks they must settle for a guess.

So the scholars are guessing, mostly.

Dr. Who (Tom Baker) said "one good guess is worth a cartload of certainties."

 

[Lain]

The Christian faith is derived from the Jewish faith. You can see from St. Alcuin's (of York) comment, that he is antisemitic. Christians choose to "bear false witness" against Jews because of fear that their parishioners will change to the Jewish faith. So, Jews are called wicked (without any facts to back up that outrageous and inflammatory insult).

Clearly, the God of the Jews is the God of the Christians. Clearly, all are God's children. Clearly, God wants all of his children to get along, so God absolutely must be against such bigotry.

Just to clarify...."St. Hilary of Poitier" isn't "Harry Potter."

There is no proof of being derived from anything, those called Jews self-identify as not having the same deity as us, and I'll just ignore these false accusations against the Saint. Your opinion is noted.

 

[oldbadger]

I notice that 'Barabbas' is not a personal name like 'Peter' or 'John' but means 'Son of Rabbas'. It implies something, but I can't determine what it is. Why not just use the man's name? If his name is 'Jack' then just say 'Jack' not 'Son of Shakespeare' -- unless you are trying to shade your story with connotations from Shakespeare's name! I cannot translate 'Rabbas' and think Lexicons are insufficient to do so. Maybe it means Barrabas doesn't have a personal name, yet. Could it be he's not 13 years old, yet? Whatever the reason is, I'd like some ideas. His name supports one theme or another; but I just don't know yet. The answer is probably in a book somewhere. Anyways, 'Barrabas' appears in all four gospels. This means he is important, and the meaning of his name matters. Why don't I know the meaning?

Clues? Comments? Treasures from the vault? Can the names of quantum particles spell out the name Barabbas? Have you ever met a horse named Barabbas? C'mon and brainstorm.

[Mat 27:16 NIV] 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas.
[Mar 15:7 NIV] 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.
[Luk 23:19 NIV] 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
[Jhn 18:40 NIV] 40 They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

Hi....
It was usual for Norther Jews to be called 'son of'.... Bar.
Bartholomew? Barnabus? etc.....?

How did you get 'son of rabbas' from 'barabbas'?
'Bar' is Eastern Aramaic for son.
'Ben' was Western Aramaic (Levite) for son. (BenHur?)

So this person was probably a Jewish peasant of the Northern Provinces. Yes?
So ...... how did you get 'rabbas' from 'abbas'?
I think Jesus Barabbas was a nickname..... Jesus son of the father.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi....
It was usual for Norther Jews to be called 'son of'.... Bar.
Bartholomew? Barnabus? etc.....?

How did you get 'son of rabbas' from 'barabbas'?
'Bar' is Eastern Aramaic for son.
'Ben' was Western Aramaic (Levite) for son. (BenHur?)

So this person was probably a Jewish peasant of the Northern Provinces. Yes?
So ...... how did you get 'rabbas' from 'abbas'?
I think Jesus Barabbas was a nickname..... Jesus son of the father.

Some other people in the thread already addressed this. Some have pointed it out.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The bible, itself, refers to him as Jesus Barabbas. Are you saying that the bible was altered and not the true word of God? If all that we know of God is from the bible, and the bible is wrong, how do we know that God exists? How can we follow wrong advice if the advice in the bible is wrong?

That's far beyond the scope of the thread and I am not trying to say anything about what is the true word of God or whether scripture is in a right/wrong category or about the nature of reality. I don't want to get into a discussion about those things, not right now. They're interesting, and I have strong views about them which I don't wish to defend against all comers.

 

[Brickjectivity]

When I see a name like Jesus Bar Abbas (Jesus, Lion, in Arabic). I wonder if his father was known (or someone hid the real name of the father). Why? Perhaps he was born out of wedlock (a stoning offense). So, if we say that the "love child" was God's son, maybe people would not stone the mother?

I tentatively associate it with Jesus rejection of the teacher-student model. He says that the Pharisees search over land and sea for a good student only to ruin their student. He picks disciples but doesn't teach them and tells them he isn't going to teach them everything they'll need. His disciples are chosen seemingly in the worst possible way. To me its significant that barabbas name might mean 'Son of the father' or 'Son of the teacher'.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Dr. Who (Tom Baker) said "one good guess is worth a cartload of certainties."

Ancient people through good guesses and reason alone figured out one of the hidden properties of the world: atoms. They couldn't confirm what they had guessed. Their knowledge never spread far and wide.

 

[oldbadger]

Some other people in the thread already addressed this. Some have pointed it out.

I just wanted to add to everything.
The mention of Barabbas has always intrigued me.
The gospel writers included accounts which hardly helped their main theme imo.
They could have explained about this brigand without mentioning his name, for example. But they must have bound to.
Barabbas can be inserted into every part of the story of that last week perfectly.
He came to Jerusalem with his supporters
He was triumphed in to the city
He layed waste to the temple bazaars and picketed the temple courts over three days.
He confronted the priests and officials.
He was later arrested tried and convicted.
He was crucified but.....
The people loved him so much that they demanded his release.
He was taken down after only a few hours and survived. (Josephus saved a friend in exactly this way)
He was released under the supervision of Joseph of A (maybe)?
Later, when he was taken North to Sidon port for eviction he met with his friends once more.
Some say he went to Kashmir.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I just wanted to add to everything.
The mention of Barabbas has always intrigued me.

He's a bad boy like Judas.

The gospel writers included accounts which hardly helped their main theme imo.

What is the IQ of a gospel writer on a scale from 1 to 10 ? Can their theme be larger than their story? Maybe the theme is other or is difficult to pick up on.

They could have explained about this brigand without mentioning his name, for example. But they must have bound to.
Barabbas can be inserted into every part of the story of that last week perfectly.

That is a diverting observation. Yes I can see what you're talking about. I hadn't even thought of it. I merely thought that he must be important since he's in all four and since he seems to be the scapegoat in Pilot's play.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I notice that 'Barabbas' is not a personal name like 'Peter' or 'John' but means 'Son of Rabbas'. It implies something, but I can't determine what it is. Why not just use the man's name? If his name is 'Jack' then just say 'Jack' not 'Son of Shakespeare' -- unless you are trying to shade your story with connotations from Shakespeare's name!

On the trail of more clues, turn to Acts 13, and we can see more of this happening. I happened to be randomly reading that the other day. In it, there is someone with another bar-name, Barnabas, and then another interesting character, who is 'Bar-Jesus.'

 

[oldbadger]

He's a bad boy like Judas.

The world was and is full of bad folks. Looking back, can you remember friends or colleagues that let you down?

What is the IQ of a gospel writer on a scale from 1 to 10 ?

Probably 8-10. In any case, they could write. Even the author/s of G-John, although their earliest copies were full of errors...throughout, they could write, and build a story from collected memoirs.

Can their theme be larger than their story? Maybe the theme is other or is difficult to pick up on.

It's easier to review now, in the light of so much discovery about so much.

That is a diverting observation. Yes I can see what you're talking about. I hadn't even thought of it. I merely thought that he must be important since he's in all four and since he seems to be the scapegoat in Pilot's play.

Maybe the authors were so scared of the unknown, so superstitious, that they felt bound to include unhelpful subject matter?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The world was and is full of bad folks. Looking back, can you remember friends or colleagues that let you down?


Probably 8-10. In any case, they could write. Even the author/s of G-John, although their earliest copies were full of errors...throughout, they could write, and build a story from collected memoirs.


It's easier to review now, in the light of so much discovery about so much.


Maybe the authors were so scared of the unknown, so superstitious, that they felt bound to include unhelpful subject matter?

I'd like to pursue this in a different thread. There's a something in your post I don't like but that doesn't mean its without merit.

 

[oldbadger]

I'd like to pursue this in a different thread. There's a something in your post I don't like but that doesn't mean its without merit.

No probs.