The reason the crowd choose Barabbus...

[Quagmire]

Denigrating scholarship no doubt makes you feel more comfortable with opinions devoid of it.

The only people who consider an attempt to put something in perspective an act of denigration are those who have an unrealistic reverance for the topic. Exactly like some religious people who become upset when someone tries to interpret the Bible allogorically.

How can anyone expect to develope a balanced perspective on any topic if he affords more wieght to certain aspects than they deserve and dismisses everthing else as fluff?

It seems, just like any religious literalist, you approach all this in a certain way and you can't imagine how or why anyone might attempt to approach it differently.

What I find most telling about your rendering of 'Barabbus' is not simply that the spelling is faulty, but that the relationship between Barabbas and bar Abbas has been deemed noteworthy by everyone from Origen to Maccoby.

Both of whom were approching the gospel storys as history. We're talking about possible allogorical interpretations here.

Again, you're doing what religious literalists do; getting hung up on the names of charactors and the possible historocity of the stories themselves and ignoring whatever message they might be trying to convey.

The 'Barabbus' spelling strongly suggests complete ignorance of this relationship and the fact that this character is referred to as "Jesus bar Abbas" in many important early text variants.

See above.

If you would stop and think about it for a moment, you would see that the possible similarities between Jesus of Nazareth and "Jesus" Bar Abbas just serve to highlight the contrast. And for sake of allogory the contrast is the only thing that really matters here.

One would expect that one who presumes to instruct us on "[t]he reason the crowd choose Barabbus" would know more ... :yes:

Lol! Jay, how can we expect you to present any reliable interpretations of the intentions of ancient scholars when you don't even seem to be able to grasp the intentions of most of the people you're sharing these forums with?

I don't come here to "instruct" anyone. I come here to have my ideas tested and my papers graded. Not by you though since you seem to be consistently confused about what class you're sitting in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, you're doing what religious literalists do; getting hung up on the names of charactors and the possible historocity of the stories themselves and ignoring whatever message they might be trying to convey.

Actually, I think the name "Barabbas" may be extremely siginficant, myself. I think it hints at a duality between Barabbas and Jesus that, if intentional on the part of the author, would make it unlikely that he was chronicling a historical event.

 

[Quagmire]

Actually, I think the name "Barabbas" may be extremely siginficant, myself. I think it hints at a duality between Barabbas and Jesus that, if intentional on the part of the author, would make it unlikely that he was chronicling a historical event.

Personally, I think for the sake of the allogory, the duality is apparent enough from the story itself.

The name may give us a useful clue if we're trying to figure out the historocity of all this, but like I say, for the purposes of this thread I don't see the historocity as being particularly important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The name may give us a useful clue if we're trying to figure out the historocity of all this, but like I say, for the purposes of this thread I don't see the historocity as being particularly important.

Hmm. I think it's rather important to consider historicity when trying to interpret its meaning. There's quite a bit of possible subtext in this and other Biblical stories. If the story is allegorical, then we can allow ourselves to assign quite a bit of meaning to this subtext. If the story is strictly historical, then we may be able to conclude that the subtext is unintentional and therefore perhaps disregard it.

 

[Quagmire]

Hmm. I think it's rather important to consider historicity when trying to interpret its meaning. There's quite a bit of possible subtext in this and other Biblical stories. If the story is allegorical, then we can allow ourselves to assign quite a bit of meaning to this subtext. If the story is strictly historical, then we may be able to conclude that the subtext is unintentional and therefore perhaps disregard it.

You can make a determination about the author's or compiler's original intention, but part of my belief is that stories often have meaning over and above what the author intended (or was even aware of). Ancient people, and everyone since, had a subconscious just like we do.

Authors often relate some incident (fictional or otherwise) that has deeper connotations then the author himself is consciously aware of. As with any artist, all he may be consciously aware of while he's creating something is that he feels moved to do so by some deeper part of himself.

Over an above that I also believe that events themselves usually (always?) have some kind of moral attached to them. If any moral or principle we derive from fiction or myth is valid and has practicle applications, it would only follow that those applications will have been literally played out in some event at some point.

 

[blackout]

All of Life quite naturally has allegory "built into it".
All things speak on a multifaceted number of levels.
They just do. It's wonderful and fascinating.
Why fight it?!

 

[Quagmire]

All of Life quite naturally has allegory "built into it".
All things speak on a multifaceted number of levels.
They just do. It's wonderful and fascinating.
Why fight it?!

Exactly how I see it New. Nicely summed up.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Denigrating scholarship no doubt makes you feel more comfortable with opinions devoid of it.

What I find most telling about your rendering of 'Barabbus' is not simply that the spelling is faulty, but that the relationship between Barabbas and bar Abbas has been deemed noteworthy by everyone from Origen to Maccoby. The 'Barabbus' spelling strongly suggests complete ignorance of this relationship and the fact that this character is referred to as "Jesus bar Abbas" in many important early text variants.

One would expect that one who presumes to instruct us on "[t]he reason the crowd choose Barabbus" would know more ... :yes:

One can't expect anyone who would bring up a topic to discuss to know everything about it. That's why it's up for discussion.

How do the different spellings affect the character? How do they change the meaning?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hmm. I think it's rather important to consider historicity when trying to interpret its meaning. There's quite a bit of possible subtext in this and other Biblical stories. If the story is allegorical, then we can allow ourselves to assign quite a bit of meaning to this subtext. If the story is strictly historical, then we may be able to conclude that the subtext is unintentional and therefore perhaps disregard it.

Utter horse hockey.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You can make a determination about the author's or compiler's original intention, but part of my belief is that stories often have meaning over and above what the author intended (or was even aware of). Ancient people, and everyone since, had a subconscious just like we do.

Authors often relate some incident (fictional or otherwise) that has deeper connotations then the author himself is consciously aware of. As with any artist, all he may be consciously aware of while he's creating something is that he feels moved to do so by some deeper part of himself.

Over an above that I also believe that events themselves usually (always?) have some kind of moral attached to them. If any moral or principle we derive from fiction or myth is valid and has practicle applications, it would only follow that those applications will have been literally played out in some event at some point.

I think this point is evident in almost all of Biblical text.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One can't expect anyone who would bring up a topic to discuss to know everything about it.

Of course not. But one can expect those who would initiate a discussion to promote their own interpretation to be at least minimally knowledgeable about the topic.

How do the different spellings affect the character? How do they change the meaning?

You tell me ...

• "Barabbus" suggests nothing.
• "bar Abbas" means 'son of the father'.
• "Jesus bar Abbas" means "Jesus, son of the father".

 

[love]

My thoughts start in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Mark 14:27 Jesus said, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. When Peter protested Jesus said to him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the **** crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice.
I think Jesus at this time was having His most human emotions. Mark14:38 The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. I don't think it was the physical pain that He knew He must endure, but the rejection of the people He loved so much. Mark 14:34 My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
When the crowd was moved to choose Barabbas, though it had to be for scripture to be fulfilled, His heart was broken. Mark14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scripture must be fulfilled.
As He hung on the cross suffering pain, humiliation, and mortal death He prayed. Father forgive them, they know not what they do.

 

[Quagmire]

Of course not. But one can expect those who would initiate a discussion to promote their own interpretation to be at least minimally knowledgeable about the topic.

One would think that someone taking the time to post in a thread might spend 3 seconds trying to understand what the actual topic of said thread might be. (actually, one wouldn't think that, all things considerred, but one can hope).

You tell me ...

• "Barabbus" suggests nothing.

• 
  
  Really? It suggests to me that perhaps the author of the OP was hoping to avoid the usual mish-mash of wild, inconclusive and (for the purposes of this thread) completely irrelevant theories attached to some minor (and also irrelevant) details of all this that generally do nothing for the conversation aside from take it off topic.

 

[logician]

The death and crucifiction of the supposed Jesus or course is a myth, and the idea that there was a tradition of releasing a prisoner of the people's choice is pure poppycock.

 

[Quagmire]

The death and crucifiction of the supposed Jesus or course is a myth, and the idea that there was a tradition of releasing a prisoner of the people's choice is pure poppycock.

We're not discussing historocity here, we're discussing possible interpretations of the story's meaning.

 

[logician]

We're not discussing historocity here, we're discussing possible interpretations of the story's meaning.

I think the meaning of the story is obvious, *edited by staff*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please stay on topic and be civil.

Thanks

 

[logician]

Strangely enough, I think my post got deleted, at least it was saved by a response.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We're not discussing historocity here, we're discussing possible interpretations of the story's meaning.

No, you are promoting 'possible interpretations' that constitute little more than shallow psycho-babble, as if the text were some private inkblot provided for your amusement.

 

[Quagmire]

No, you are promoting 'possible interpretations' that constitute little more than shallow psycho-babble, as if the text were some private inkblot provided for your amusement.

That's exactly what it is Jay.