Barabbas "Son of the Father"?

[summa8447]

Richard Carrier (atheist/Mythisist theory of Jesus) states that Barabbas Means Son of the Father. Wiki confirms this. Anyway, he says that the Jews released scapegoats (I know this is true) into the wild to carry away the sins of Israel. In Leviticus 16 we read about the release of the scapegoat followed by the expiatory sacrifice. According to Carrier, Barabbas is a made up name that means Son of the Father, who is released as the scapegoat. Then Jesus (who Carrier of course believes is mythological not historical) also Son of the Father is the sacrifice for atonement for the sins of Israel.

Q: I wonder if anyone has ever heard anything like this?

Although Richard is atheist I found this interesting as well as a few others which I don’t have time to type until later.

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/
richardcarrier.info/jesus.html

Summa8447

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Yes. I actually am reading a book by the Pope that just covered this.

Barabbas is referred to as a robber. The thing is, the Greek word for “robber” had taken on a verys pecific meaning by the time of Christ. It referred to a political revolutionary; an insurgent. This also makes sense out of the fact that he is referred to as a “murderer” in another gospel. Chances are, he killed somebody in a political uprisal. Evidence suggests he may have even been the leader, as the name he took on for itself was quite similar to Jewish reactionary groups when uprising against Rome, who took on names for themselves with messianic connotations.

In essence, Barabbas was the “anti-messiah.” He was the political messiah that would “topple” the Roman presence; he was the messiah the Jews were expecting. His name even means “son of the father.” Then you have Jesus, the mirror opposite view of the messiah. The Jews essentialy make their choice of who they will have as their savior, and it isn’t Jesus.

This is a paraphrase, but if you like the post, thank our Holy Father Benedict. I totally jacked his info

 

[Eucharisted]

“Jesus of Nazareth” is an amazing book.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Dude, I know. I was blown away by some of the insights in that book by the Holy Father.

 

[summa8447]

Yes. I actually am reading a book by the Pope that just covered this.

Barabbas is referred to as a robber. The thing is, the Greek word for “robber” had taken on a verys pecific meaning by the time of Christ. It referred to a political revolutionary; an insurgent. This also makes sense out of the fact that he is referred to as a “murderer” in another gospel. Chances are, he killed somebody in a political uprisal. Evidence suggests he may have even been the leader, as the name he took on for itself was quite similar to Jewish reactionary groups when uprising against Rome, who took on names for themselves with messianic connotations.

In essence, Barabbas was the “anti-messiah.” He was the political messiah that would “topple” the Roman presence; he was the messiah the Jews were expecting. His name even means “son of the father.” Then you have Jesus, the mirror opposite view of the messiah. The Jews essentialy make their choice of who they will have as their savior, and it isn’t Jesus.

This is a paraphrase, but if you like the post, thank our Holy Father Benedict. I totally jacked his info

Thank you, that’s very interesting. What’s the book by the Pope called?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Jesus of Nazareth. It covers Jesus’ life up to a certain point in his ministry, then hopefully the Pope will come out with a continuation.

It is phenomenal, I highly recommend it. I bought it then avoided it because I thought it would be a dry read, and that was the biggest mistake I’ve made in awhile. Read it; you won’t be disappointed.

 

[Jacafamala]

That’s interesting. I thought Barabbas was symbolic of all of us. I don’t remember where I got that. He is set free, while Christ pays for his sin.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The scapegoat was killed by being pushed off of a cliff. Did this happened to Barabbas? No.

I think the significance of the story is the citizens of Jerusalem choose a fake Son of God over the True Son of God (Jesus).

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I’m going with the Pope on this one…

 

[summa8447]

The scapegoat was killed by being pushed off of a cliff. Did this happened to Barabbas? No.

I think the significance of the story is the citizens of Jerusalem choose a fake Son of God over the True Son of God (Jesus).

No, but I think that’s taking the symbolic message to too much of a literalistic end.
Summa8447

 

[patrick457]

Richard Carrier (atheist/Mythisist theory of Jesus) states that Barabbas Means Son of the Father. Wiki confirms this. Anyway, he says that the Jews released scapegoats (I know this is true) into the wild to carry away the sins of Israel. In Leviticus 16 we read about the release of the scapegoat followed by the expiatory sacrifice. According to Carrier, Barabbas is a made up name that means Son of the Father, who is released as the scapegoat. Then Jesus (who Carrier of course believes is mythological not historical) also Son of the Father is the sacrifice for atonement for the sins of Israel.

Q: I wonder if anyone has ever heard anything like this?

Although Richard is atheist I found this interesting as well as a few others which I don’t have time to type until later.

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/
richardcarrier.info/jesus.html

Summa8447

I’ll tackle this from the literal POV as the spiritual sense is already touched upon.
Indeed, many commentators note the irony in the name “Bar-Abbas”, noting the similarity of Abbas with 'Abba. This irony becomes much more stronger when we note that several Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel have Iēsous Barabbas, “Jesus Barabbas” - which is believed by a number of scholars to be more likely the original reading, with Iēsous being deleted either accidentally or on purpose (this makes Pilate’s rather specific introduction of “Jesus who is called ‘Anointed’/Christ” in verse 22 makes better sense if Barabbas also had the same name; otherwise, a mere ‘Jesus’ would be sufficient).



The name need not be invented, as the use of 'Abba as a proper name is attested in 6th- or 5th-century B.C. texts, in one near-contemporary funerary inscription from near Jerusalem (ca. 110 BC-100 AD) and in rabbinic literature*. Some believe, meanwhile, that Barabbas should be reconstructed as bar-Rabban (‘son of the teacher’ or ‘son of the master’).

*For example, the 3rd century Talmudist Rabbi 'Abba Arika, Samuel of Nehardea (aka Samuel bar-'Abba), Nathan bar-'Abba, and Hiyya and Simeon bar-'Abba.

There was in fact a story/joke/pun in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakoth 18) which goes:

Come and hear: the father of Samuel had some money belonging to orphans deposited with him. When he died, Samuel was not with him, and they called him, ‘The son who consumes the money of orphans’. So he went after his father to the cemetery, and said to them [the dead], “I am looking for Abba.” They said to him, “There are many Abbas here.” “I want 'Abba bar-'Abba,” he said. They replied, “There are also several 'Abbas bar-'Abba here.” He then said to them, “I want 'Abba bar-'Abba the father of Samuel; where is he?” They replied: “He has gone up to the Academy of the Sky.”

Finally, as a minor nitpick, if we take the 'Abba in bar-'Abba to mean “father”, should not the name be more correctly rendered as ‘son of father’, since there is no article involved (something like “Bar ha’Abba”?)

 

[Ismael]

Richard Carrier (atheist/Mythisist theory of Jesus) states that Barabbas Means Son of the Father. Wiki confirms this. Anyway, he says that the Jews released scapegoats (I know this is true) into the wild to carry away the sins of Israel. In Leviticus 16 we read about the release of the scapegoat followed by the expiatory sacrifice. According to Carrier, Barabbas is a made up name that means Son of the Father, who is released as the scapegoat. Then Jesus (who Carrier of course believes is mythological not historical) also Son of the Father is the sacrifice for atonement for the sins of Israel.

Q: I wonder if anyone has ever heard anything like this?

Although Richard is atheist I found this interesting as well as a few others which I don’t have time to type until later.

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/
richardcarrier.info/jesus.html

Summa8447

If there is a miracle of stupidity in this world it is how in hell they could give a PhD to richard carrier… I mean some things he states are moronic even for laymen who did not study history, but he is supposed to have gotten a phd in (greco-roman) history.

Of course he probably realized he was no good as a scientist and decided to get in the much more rewarding (no doubt monetarily) ‘Jesus-bashing’ business.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I have not read anything from Richard Carrier directly, but have seen him referred to as an authority by internet warriors on a more than infrequent basis. One common trend I see is the argument that such and such New Testament thing draws from such and such Old Testament or rabbinic thing: This proves Jesus is a fictional amalgamation of prior figures. Such arguments have little actual force because they beg the question, namely, assuming that Jesus can’t be real, much less divine, and, therefore, could not have really done these things (therefore, he wasn’t real), as if that were the only explanation. To the Christian, this is simply typology, which is explicit in the very pages of the New Testament, and Christ fulfilling all these types and prophecies is indicative that he truly was the Christ.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The first I read about Barabbas as son of the father was in Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazerath. It was a great book. He also mentions, (perhaps in another book of his I read (on the apostles)) that Bartholomew might also be parsed as son of Ptolomy. It is thought the Ptolomy dynasty of Egypt were actually of Greek origin. So perhaps Bartholomew, Phillip and Andrew all had partial Greek ties.

 

[patrick457]

The first I read about Barabbas as son of the father was in Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazerath. It was a great book. He also mentions, (perhaps in another book of his I read (on the apostles)) that Bartholomew might also be parsed as son of Ptolomy. It is thought the Ptolomy dynasty of Egypt were actually of Greek origin. So perhaps Bartholomew, Phillip and Andrew all had partial Greek ties.

Not necessarily. I don’t think a Greek-ish name necessarily implies Greek origin - this is a very flawed analogy, but it’s kinda like thinking a guy named Mike or Patrick must be American or Irish or something solely on the basis of their names.

 

[followingtheway]

I’m going with the Pope on this one…

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Not necessarily. I don’t think a Greek-ish name necessarily implies Greek origin - this is a very flawed analogy, but it’s kinda like thinking a guy named Mike or Patrick must be American or Irish or something solely on the basis of their names.

Hi Patrick,

I did not say his name Bartholomew meant he was of Greek origin. I said the Ptolomy dynasty was thought to be of Greek origin. I could be wrong on that part of history, but I remember learning that somewhere.

I said Bartholomew may infer Greek or Egyptian family ties because names were passed down or taken for honor among other things. Also, I qualified it by saying “perhaps” because I recognize it is conjecture.

---

it’s kinda like thinking a guy named Mike or Patrick must be American or Irish or something solely on the basis of their names
—]
Most caucasian Americans do have a little Irish or Italian in them In any case, we’re talking of small close knit cultures of antiquity where people were known by who their parents were and where they were born. Many modern cultures like the USA are different. Part of this is because we have different family and social structures than what existed in antiquity. We almost never live with large extended families, and religion and tradition are not as valued.

The co-mingling of marriages (and names) happened in antiquity, but I think it was much more rare, unless there was a good reason. Jews tended to marry Jews and give their kids Jewish names. Even today there is pressure on orthodox Jews to do the same. Rome and Alexandria were great examples of melting pot cosmopolitan areas that enjoyed something like a modern interchange, but I think there are several reasons we can suppose their Greek names were descriptive of their ties. Even Josephus changed his Jewish name to Flavius(not a pharoah like ptolomy but emperor) because of his ties to the emperor.

Firstly, we know from the story of the birth of John the Baptist that everyone had expectations on the name following their predecessors. Just as I was describing above. i.e. So even in that story, there is a legacy normally attached to a name.

Secondly, when the Greeks came to talk with Jesus, they instead talked with Phillip and Andrew. The only two apostles with Greek names. They likely acted as translators. It also makes perfect sense that you approach those of your culture, and who speak your own language.

 

[patrick457]

Hi Patrick,

I did not say his name Bartholomew meant he was of Greek origin. I said the Ptolomy dynasty was thought to be of Greek origin. I could be wrong on that part of history, but I remember learning that somewhere.

Yes, the Ptolemaic dynasty (aka the Lagides) is Greek*. Ptolemy I Soter (a Macedonian) was one of Alexander the Great’s generals and deputies - in fact, a close childhood friend of his - who was appointed satrap of Egypt after Alexander’s death in 323 BC during the Partition of Babylon. Soon the Egyptians accepted the dynasty Ptolemy founded as the successors to the pharaohs, and they ruled Egypt until the Romans came in 30 BC.

• I’m not going here over the controversy on whether Macedonians are Greek or not.

Most caucasian Americans do have a little Irish or Italian in them In any case, we’re talking of small close knit cultures of antiquity where people were known by who their parents were and where they were born. Many modern cultures like the USA are different. Part of this is because we have different family and social structures than what existed in antiquity. We almost never live with large extended families, and religion and tradition are not as valued.

Just an aside, but there’s one thing I kinda find fascinating about you Americans. (Yes, folks, I’m actually not from what you would call a ‘Western’ country - if you can’t tell. ) You always seem to mainly identify yourselves by your ancestral origins - Irish, Italian, Spanish, or whatever - and not by the country where you are born in.

 

[patrick457]

I said Bartholomew may infer Greek or Egyptian family ties because names were passed down or taken for honor among other things. Also, I qualified it by saying “perhaps” because I recognize it is conjecture.

The co-mingling of marriages (and names) happened in antiquity, but I think it was much more rare, unless there was a good reason. Jews tended to marry Jews and give their kids Jewish names. Even today there is pressure on orthodox Jews to do the same. Rome and Alexandria were great examples of melting pot cosmopolitan areas that enjoyed something like a modern interchange, but I think there are several reasons we can suppose their Greek names were descriptive of their ties. Even Josephus changed his Jewish name to Flavius(not a pharoah like ptolomy but emperor) because of his ties to the emperor.

Firstly, we know from the story of the birth of John the Baptist that everyone had expectations on the name following their predecessors. Just as I was describing above. i.e. So even in that story, there is a legacy normally attached to a name.

Now here’s an interesting thing. Greek and Latin names were pretty uncommon in 1st century Palestine. In one estimate, only 14.5% of known named Palestinian Jews from the period between 330 BC to AD 200 had Greek names, while only 3% had Latin names - and even then, we must take into account that our pool of known individuals is heavily weighted towards the social elite. So it’s possible that these statistics are misleadingly high, and that an even smaller proportion of people had ‘foreign’ names.

Most of the people from that era whose names we know are male: on the literary side, Josephus’ emphasis on politics results on him focusing mainly on men (the women he does mention are mainly connected with political figures). On the archaeological side, ossuaries (boxes the bones of deceased individuals are stored after the flesh had decomposed), our main source of inscriptions for the period - and we don’t have in the way of that, especially for the 1st century - do not record women’s names. Even in later synagogue and burial inscriptions, women are usually only mentioned in conjunction with a male relative.

We don’t know exactly why Philip, Andrew and Simon (Peter) are named as they are. (Shim’on aka Simeon “He [God] has heard” is a Jewish name, there’s also a highly-similar classical Greek name: Simōn “flat-nosed”.) A possibility is that Philip’s parents named him after Philip the tetrarch. If we believe John’s gospel, Philip (and Andrew and Simon) are all from ‘Bethsaida’. One such place is mentioned by Josephus: he speaks of a village called Bethsaida located “in lower Gaulanitis” (War 2.168) which Philip, the tetrarch of Gaulanitis, raised to the rank of a polis and renamed Julias (after Livia - aka Julia Augusta - the wife of Caesar Augustus and mother of Tiberius) in AD 30/31. So it’s possible that Philip’s parents chose that name because of its raised profile under the tetrarch or even in honor of him, though because we do not know exactly when Philip was born we cannot determine this. (And there’s also the controversy of whether the Bethsaida of the gospels is identical with Bethsaida Julias or are two separate locations.) Josephus also mentions two other 1st-century Philips from this general area: one was an officer of Agrippa II, whose father was from the city of Gamla - also in the territory associated with Philip the tetrarch (Life 46.179; War 2.421, 556; 4.81); the other was from the village of Ruma in the Lower Galilee (War 3.233). The use of Philippos seems to have been a short-lived fad though: the name is virtually unattested in the tombs of the contemporary Jewish town of Beit She’arim (founded by Herod the Great during the 1st century BC), what Josephus called Besara, for one.

Andreas meanwhile is a more uncommon name: we only have two known 1st-century parallels from Palestine (both of which are in ossuary inscriptions), none in the 1st century Diaspora, and only rarely in the Diaspora outside the 1st century.

 

[patrick457]

Secondly, when the Greeks came to talk with Jesus, they instead talked with Phillip and Andrew. The only two apostles with Greek names. They likely acted as translators. It also makes perfect sense that you approach those of your culture, and who speak your own language.

That may be so - that “the Greeks” came to Philip possibly because he had a Greek name - but look at its context in John: these two have are presented in that gospel as having a special role in bringing people to Jesus. At the beginning of John’s gospel Jesus finds Philip (1:43-44) after calling Andrew and Simon Peter (1:40-42). Here the pattern is reversed: the ‘Greeks’ come to Philip, who tells Andrew, who comes with Philip to Jesus. In fact, even before that, in John’s version of the feeding of the five thousand, Philip speaks first, followed by Andrew, who introduces the young boy with the food to Jesus. John all in all puts a huge emphasis on these two.

One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

===

Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not be enough for each of them to get a little.” One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?”

===

Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.