Barabbas appears in each of the four gosples and other writings, always at the same time and always for the same purpose.

Many other incidences are only mentioned in some Gospels, but there are only a few that appear in all. Barabbas is one of these.

Early Greek texts call him Jesus Barabbas.


The term means, Son of the Father.  The crowd is asked who they want to see released they demand Barabbas. Yet a criminal is freed instead of Jesus who, among other things was accused of being the Son of God. (You may accept that Jesus was, but with respect, that is not the issue here).


Give the style of writing for the Gospels and the way so many, seemily important and lesser important points are in some but not in other, it does seem to at least, beg some thought as to why tow people should find themselves, standing for judgement before Pilot, one called Jesus, known as the Son of God, the other called Jesus Son of the Father.

I don't have enough evidence to make any pronouncment myself, but it seems a rather incredable co-incidence, especially since the issue is, otherwise, of little importance.

Not that its important, but...

According to The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Tyndale publishers - Barabbas A bandid (Jn 18:40) arrested for homicidal political terrorism (Mk 15:7; Lk 23:18).  Mark's language could indicate a well-known incident, and the epither 'notable' (Mt 27:16) some reputation as a species of hero.  Th priests , possibily taking up an inital demand from his supporters (Mk 15:, engineered a movement for his release to conter Pilate's intended off of the of Jesus (Mt 27:20; Mk 15:11) and Barabbas became an exemplification of the effects of substitutionary atonement.
The name is a patronymic ('son of Abba').  It occurs as 'Jesus Barabbas; (cf 'Simon Barjonah') in some authorities at Mt 27:16, and Origen in loc, notes this reading as ancient.  It adds pungency to Pilate's offer, 'Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Christ?', but however attractive, this must remain uncertain.

Understand Sarah, but the crimes are inconsistant and some could be interperted as the accusations leveled at Jesus, for example.

When a thological justification was being sought to justify antipathy by Christians toward European Jews, the incident with Barabbas is central to that.

The European Jews actually lived relatively easily in Europe for many hundreds of years, certainly since Roman times. Banking and money lending. They were usually excluded obligations such as warfare and were never enslaved during the early fudal period, which was the fate of the majority of Europeans.

There seems to be quite good evidence from various sources to suggest that Jews had been present in England, since Roman times and continued until 1290 with an edict issued by King Edward 1.

Records during the time of William 1 for example, show he instituted fudalism, excluding some merchants and Jews.

It was only when they began to make lending difficult that they began to experience porblems.

After Edward 1 of England went mad and began attacking everyone, he financed his armies using money from Jews. When that money supply was cut off, he suddenly decided they shouldn't be there at all and expelled most, apart from those he murdered.

Edwards Edit of Expulsion claimed it was the issue of usuary that had caused the explusion, though this was clearly a sham since Jews had been recognised in English law since at least William 1 and every king, including Edward had been happy to borrow their money, paying usuary.

I'm searching for reliable online sources but sadly, almost all seem more preoccupied with hand wringing over persecution. Impressive, though as one who has never persecuted anyone, including Jews, I kinda resent the impositon. But we must live with that. I am loathed to use Wikipedia, even though it is actually not too bad, (provided you avoid the viruses).

I have to say, I have been disappointed by some Wikipedia articles where vitally important sources, without which entire positions are unsubstianted, turn out to be  gossip sites and even forums.

  There were quite a few men named Jesus back then.  As well as a lot of Judases.  Two Judases were in the original 12 disciples, Judas ish-Karioth (Iscariat) and Judas Thaddeus (St. Jude), named after a hero.  Judas Maccabeus was a hero who led the Maccabees to a short lived victory in 165 BCE and restored the original rites to the Hebrew temple.  This is where the celebration of Hannukah comes from. 
  Barabbas was as said in Sarah's post.  Jesus of Nazarene was a pain in the side of the Sanhedrin and putting the Christ Jesus up for a public poll was a device Pontius Pilate used to satisfy the desires of the Sanhedrin and keep the peace.  In one account I read, Pilate asked the crowd "Which Jesus do you want? Nazarenus?  Bar Abbas?"  Remember, Pilate did literally washed his hands of the affair afterward. 
  I often call Wikipedia "Wickedpedia" for the same complaint of some inaccurate info or not enough info.  I have a teacher in my club that said that if he catches any of his students on Wikipedia, that's an automatic points off on the paper.  Wiki to some modern teachers is in the same vein as Cliffs Notes to my teachers in the late 1960's. 

  Joelene

Quote from: spacial on December 10, 2012, 06:39:02 PM
Barabbas appears in each of the four gosples and other writings, always at the same time and always for the same purpose.

Many other incidences are only mentioned in some Gospels, but there are only a few that appear in all. Barabbas is one of these.

Early Greek texts call him Jesus Barabbas.


The term means, Son of the Father.  The crowd is asked who they want to see released they demand Barabbas. Yet a criminal is freed instead of Jesus who, among other things was accused of being the Son of God. (You may accept that Jesus was, but with respect, that is not the issue here).

Perhaps the reason it is listed in all four is that it goes to a choice. Whether Barabbas name is important or not I cannot say as yet,but what is important is that Pilate put before them two choices that were polar opposites to each other. One innocent and one guilty. They chose the guilty one. That I believe is the main point.

Quote from: spacial on December 10, 2012, 07:45:53 PM

When a thological justification was being sought to justify antipathy by Christians toward European Jews, the incident with Barabbas is central to that.

The European Jews actually lived relatively easily in Europe for many hundreds of years, certainly since Roman times. Banking and money lending. They were usually excluded obligations such as warfare and were never enslaved during the early fudal period, which was the fate of the majority of Europeans.

To me it makes no sense as to why that incident is used as justification for antipathy and hatred.
Mulitple factors are not taken into consideration,first Jesus is a Jew,the entire New Testament outside of Luke and Acts is written by Jews,all of the Apostles themselves were Jews.
Second you have two small groups that pushed the issue,first was the religious leaders and the mob,but within the context of those two groups there are certain realities,the whole thing starts in the middle of the night and the trails are coming to a conclusion sometime between 5 and 6 AM (Plus or minus a bit but not much). The evening before Jesus is arrested most likely between 10 and midnight,so all of this is taking place in the dead of night. After Jesus is arrested the disciples scatter. Did the disciples do anything? Certain realities,one they were in Jerusalem for Passover, Jerusalem is not their hometown,and almost all communications are by mouth. Who could they trust? It wasn't like they knew the neighbors,they are visitors for the most part.

On the other hand the Pharisees and Sadducees,had a big head start,they knew where Jesus was. He was taken first to the High Priests house and not the temple,then to Pilate,to Herod and then back to Pilate. It would of been very easy for them to put together a hand picked mob and rile them up enough to voice their choice of either Jesus or Barabbas.

To take the actions of a small number of Jewish people and to say all are guilty of it is just plain wrong. The number of men involved with it could be less than 1,500. How many people does it take to spark a riot,at that time of the morning?

Sorry about that (I learned this from a history teacher of mine,he always could make things come alive and set the background)

Thank you Jolene. You make a good point about names being common. Until the 70s in Scotland, there were almost 40% of young men called James, hence the rather common term, hey Jimmy!. But it would still, normally be, quite a coincidence for two men to be standing for judgement on their lives, both with almost identical names.

However, your point about them being specifically selected by authorities, to demonstrate a point, is well made.

Sarah. Thank you for your comments. The issue which I'm attempting to expand upon is the origins of the antipathy between the Europeans and the European Jews. I do understand that you feel very strongly about the actual death of Christ. I recall, when I was quite young, in the 50s, even into the 60s, that it was generally believed that death on a cross was believed to be a specifically chosen end rather than as a routine. Indeed, I believe that Jehovahs'Witnesses claim that Jesus actually died on a straight pole or a tree, based upon their erronous claims that being nailed to a cross would be almost impossible. In actual fact, such practices are still happening in some countries, Saudi Arabia for example, but also Sudan and I understand others, including Afghanistan. Crucifixion being written into some part of Islamic law.


But the origins of that antipathy was the refusal of the then bankers, who were almost exclusively Jews, to give any more money to the Kings and Princes of the day. The example of Edward 1 are a case in point.

It was alwasy about money.

The crowd calling for the killing of Jesus was no more than playing the mob. Any half decent pop star knows how to do that, not to mention some US Evangelists whoc can con people out of millions, even join in mass suicide!

We can never underestimate the power of the mob and that part of the Jesus story, including the issue of Barabbas, was never more than that.

It was subsequently misconstrued to justify mob violence against the bankers of the day. Hence the origins of anti-semitism.

I will drop out of this conversation, because it is fruitless.

With respect Sarah. the conversation follows on from one we were having in the Meaning of Christmas thread in the Christainity section. I felt it was inappropriate to continue this line in that thread ad so we moved it here.

I'm sorry you don't follow it. The information is readily avilable and can be verified.

Personally I don't agree it is fruitless. Exchanging ideas is the foundation of building knowledge.

Best wishes.

One of the aspects of Barrabbas that I have noticed is more of a similitude of sorts.
Pilate gave the Jews the choice between Jesus Barrabbas and Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was anointed of God and sent by the Spirit as written in Psalms. He had the fullness of the Godhead and all power.
He only did good.
As written in Psalms, the desire of the righteous is only good. (God)

Jesus Barrabas was a thief and robber who committed murder in the insurrection.
When we see the scriptures about Satan we see he was cast out of heaven for committing insurrection.
We see Jesus Barrabbas as the Jesus that was evil and wicked.

The apostle Paul warned about those who preach "another Jesus" and it is written that he preached shewing "from the scriptures" that "this Jesus" is Christ.

Today we see many churches and religious services that have caused more division and confusion than good. Many have limitations that actually can hinder people from being saved, healed, growing and even destroy their salvation when they teach people to blasphemy.

Using all of this we can see (hopefully) that many today have faith in, listen to, follow and trust the wrong Jesus. Jesus Barrabbas in a similitude.

It is also interesting to note that the Lord used similitudes and parables when speaking to people.
He typically took his disciples aside to share the meaning separate from the multitudes. The parable about the seed sown on four types of soil is such. We can see that as well in Psalms where it is written Light (the word, life, seed) is sown for the righteous. (1 Corinthians 1:30 Jesus made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption)
The word being the seed, life and light and the heart of those righteous through Christ being the good soil or ground.

At any rate, that's part of how I see the choice between Jesus Barrabbas and Jesus Christ.
I want to make sure I serve the right Jesus regardless of what the world thinks or chooses.

May God bless.

If Barabbas had not been mentioned, would the whole story have made the same sense?

The story is a perfect picture of the gist of the Gospel. Jesus the Christ was condemned in place of the guilty one,who was set free not because of his merit but because he was pardoned. It would not have made the same sense if it was left out.

Quote from: SarahM777 on December 12, 2012, 12:45:58 PM
The story is a perfect picture of the gist of the Gospel. Jesus the Christ was condemned in place of the guilty one,who was set free not because of his merit but because he was pardoned. It would not have made the same sense if it was left out.

Perhaps, but with respect, that is not the issue. If it were, I'd have posted this thread in the Christianity section.

Now, in response to Del's post, I've posed the question, what would be the effect upon the story in the gospels if Barabbas were not mentioned at all?

If we want to look at this a different way, what is the actual significance of the Barabbas incident, that was not covered by the chanting of Crucify him!? What makes it so important that it is mentioned in each Gospel and other writings? What was it so important to say the name, each time?

The problem with your "What would" or really what if, is ...

It Was Mentioned.

We can't go back in time and remove the reference, so I don't understand your question.

Understand Sarah.

However, what I'm trying to understand is, to what extent is this character so significant that it is necessary to the entire story.

If we were to exclude Mary, Jesus' mother, for example, the story would have a problem. But Joseph, his father only appears in two Gospels with one brief mention in John. His important to the story and the subsequent events is minor. The story remains generally, unaffected by his absence.

Now the Barabbas character appears in all four gospels and in other writings. What would happen to the story line if her were excluded, at least from some.

I agree that Barrabbas was used to show that the Lord died to save guilty people. Guilty of sin in one manner or another.
It is written we all have gone astray and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Where the thief on the cross shows that in like manner some will repent before it is too late (even last minute or deathbed repentance) and some won't Barrabbas shows us why Jesus died. Because man needs a Saviour. A sacrificial Lamb in the Kingdom of God who is holy and righteous altogether. One who has a Kingdom in which nothing unclean can enter.

Sadly too many take such an offering and the pain associated with His death for granted. It is so easy to boast against the branches and forget that the grace displayed at Calvary was so that Gentiles could be saved as well as those who are the chosen people of God. But those are other issues not to drift off into on this thread.

Barrabbas was needful to show the mercy granted us.

I appreciate the way you've used the barabbas story. If you don't mind the observation, very Christain. But surely even you appreciate that your connections are stretching logic?

The Barabbas incident, at best, shows a possible minipulation of a crowd, by selecting two men, with similar names, accused of similar crimes, facing the same fate, both offered, at the same time, to an overly excited crowd with the intention they would select or, it would be claimed they selected the wrong guy.

How we can connect that to the, strangely, annonomous, fellow on a cross beside Jesus, asking for salvation at the very end is, I say with respect to you Del, weak. Very weak.

Barabbas may well have been needful of mercy, but that would apply to almost anyone, including Jesus if you think about it. The guy doesn't speak. He isn't mentioned before or after the incident. Yet he is known by his strangely similar name, while so many other, more significant people, the other two dying beside Jesus for example, who would both  certainly have been identified, are not!

I appreciate the effort Del, but the question remains, who was Barabbas? What is his significance?

With due respect,you are seeing something different but what is it that you see?

Spacial,
I think that one thing that Christians must remember is that everything is in the Bible for a reason. We are to accept it by faith whether it defies logic or not.
The Bible says the word of God are the writings of men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. In the prophets it is even recorded where the Lord told Israel he used similitudes, parables and visions with the ministry of his prophets.
Similitudes, parables and all sorts of types and shadows have even been used by Jesus in the 4 gospels. The seed being the word. The heart being the ground. The eye being the Spirit. Even many more.
I was merely trying to show another type and shadow with the thief on the cross. It was not meant to be seen as shall I say for a loss of words carnal logic. Faith. Spiritual.
I really don't know what else to say as I am unsure as to what you wish to know.
The scriptures hold a very real, clear and special meaning for me with my faith as I am sure they do for others.
Maybe if we knew just what you wanted to see of sorts we could answer.
May God bless.

Sarah. I don't actually see anything in the incident with Barabbas. That is the problem.

I appreciate that you feel i have an agenda, but I assure you, other than expanding knowledge, I don't.

I must also say I appreciate that Del and others like him, see everything in terms of interpertating lessons. I'm sure that is fine, but I am more concerned with the historical relevance. I included the evidence that the systematic persecution of the European Jews didn't begin until over 1200 years after the death of Jesus to demonstrate that the hijacking of the Barabbas incident, by some Middle Ages types to justify their persecution of Jews was as fabricated as their claims that the Bible justified the selling of indulgences or even the ability of Priests to forgive sin. These are now accepted as fabrication, by most. The absense of systematic Jewish persecution, before the 13 century is a matter of historical record. The reasons for the subsecuent persecution, namely money and greed, are I suggest, self evident from the facts.

The incident with Barabbas is significant. Firstly, because his name is given so fully. Second, his name is remarkably similar to his co-condemed not to mention so enigmatic. Thirdly, that there doesn't appear to be any reason for describing the incident at all, let alone including his full name in that way and fourthly, that other, significant figures, such as the two dying beside Jesus, their names are not mentioned, though those names would have been publicised at the time.

Now, Pope Benedict wrote about this in a Book in 2011, Who is Jesus of Nazereth, http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/jesus-of-nazareth/excerpts.htm where he speculates that the incident was arranged by the supporters of Barabas, while the supporters of Jesus stayed away, through fear.

QuoteIn Mark's Gospel, the circle of accusers is broadened in the context of the Passover amnesty (Barabbas or Jesus): the "ochlos" enters the scene and opts for the release of Barabbas. "Ochlos" in the first instance simply means a crowd of people, the "masses". The word frequently has a pejorative connotation, meaning "mob". In any event, it does not refer to the Jewish people as such. In the case of the Passover amnesty (which admittedly is not attested in other sources, but even so need not be doubted), the people, as so often with such amnesties, have a right to put forward a proposal, expressed by way of "acclamation". Popular acclamation in this case has juridical character (cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium II, p. 466). Effectively this "crowd" is made up of the followers of Barabbas who have been mobilized to secure the amnesty for him: as a rebel against Roman power he could naturally count on a good number of supporters. So the Barabbas party, the "crowd", was conspicuous, while the followers of Jesus remained hidden out of fear; this meant that the vox populi, on which Roman law was built, was represented one-sidedly. In Mark's account, then, in addition to "the Jews", that is to say the dominant priestly circle, the ochlos comes into play, the circle of Barabbas' supporters, but not the Jewish people as such.

(I should say, at this point I have not read this whole book and don't own it. Neither will I buy it, not because of any negative judgements or feelings, but rather the subject matter is not within the scope of where I am at this time).

This is an interesting take. But while I'm sure than an accademic such as Pope Benedict will have thought carefully about every possibility, the thought occurs to me that if Barabbas was such a crook, he must have had a lot of supporters to create such chanting that he would be released. Since the supporters of Jesus were so fearful to appear, it seems rather brave of the supporters of Barabbas to have been so willing to appear and expose themselves so openly. That is aside from the point that such an otherwise, disreputable crook to have so many friends that they could drown out the chanting of an entire crowd.

I apolologise if my manner has disturbed some, especially Del. I thank you for the sermon, but am not really interested frankly.

I am curious about this point. It was brought up in a Christmas thread in the Christianity section. It is somehting which I have sought information on before, and met with people along the lines of Del #14, though considerably more, shall we say, adament, but it isn't the information I am looking for at this time.

I will be really grateful for anyone who can provide any positive insight here.

From what I've read, there are at least a couple ways of understanding the definition of the name "Barabbas."  I've seen it translated as you have posted in your OP, and I've seen it translated as "son of his father," which would lessen the significance of the capital-F "Father" that you're offering.  LSJ refers to the declension of "abbas" as being irregular; therefore we can't assume that it is in the nominative case.  There is the possibility of it being in the dative case, which would make the translation "a son to his father" or "a son of the guy who was the instrument of his father-hood."

And if the Jewish leaders who hated Jesus Christ, and who clarified their hatred for Him as being on a religious and therefore political/controlling level (as well as spiritual, from a Christian perspective) simply used the followers of Barabbas as pawns in their political game to have Jesus Christ executed, what of it?  It doesn't have to mean that the followers of Barabbas were any more bold; it just makes them suckers, easily manipulated (probably would've voted Democrat, but that's beside the point ). 

And what red-blooded Jew wouldn't have taken the opportunity to be sanctioned by their leaders to snub their noses at the Roman system?  Here again you'd have the scribes and Pharisees manipulating the crowd. 

And honestly, if you completely remove all spiritual considerations for the reasoning behind the actions of Pilate, the Jewish leaders, and the mob, you'll completely miss the point of Scripture.  The point of the writing of Scripture, whether or not Divine assistance is believed, is to communicate spiritual truths, such as what Del and Sarah have pointed out.  Even if you don't agree with the spiritual conclusions drawn, you'll still miss what the author is trying to communicate if you don't consider it from his [apparent] perspective. 

Why was it so important to mention this character by name, each time?  Because of the spiritual lesson it teaches.  Because the writers were most likely trying to communicate a spiritual lesson.  Because the lesson of substitutionary atonement is illustrated to no little degree by Jesus taking the place of "Everyman" (a.k.a., the guy who was the son of his daddy).