Barabbas ?

[Pray4Life]

Now, please remember in the interest of charity no “you are an idiot” replies

I remember reading, hearing over and over how Barabbas was either a generic violent criminal or a robber. Today’s reading at Mass said something along the lines of him participating in murders during a revolt or something like that. I’m confused about how somebody would get “robber” out of that. Are there multiple translations of this passage, or a particular “pious belief” about what Barabbas is supposed to have done? Is he both of those things (murderer and robber)? I’m sure if the Bible says murderer during revolt then he must have done that, I’m just wondering where I got this other idea from, if it has any merit, if one of the other Gospels uses that term and that’s where I heard it!, if different Church-accepted translations of the Bible specify his crime differently depending on nuances in translation…not because it is a particularly crucial detail, I’m just curious. Maybe I have just been misunderstanding it this whole time. I was raised KJV only. But for all I know it says the same thing in King James English and I totally spaced it. Thanks for any ideas.

 

[NHInsider]

The Wikipedia entry on this is actually pretty good:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

The suggestion is that “terrorist” might be the modern equivalent.

The term “bandit” used in John is the term Josephus used for revolutionaries. I think the suggestion is that he was a man with a cause (probably overthrowing Rome) who would use any form of violence to forward that cause. Thus he had probably been found guilty of murder (even if by instigating, not as the actual killer) but was probably guilty of other crimes as well.

Obviously the irony is that the same people who had been following Jesus and cheering Him just a few days earlier would now call for the release of someone who had demonstrated his violence instead.

 

[Nita]

Here is the RSV translation of the verse mentioned by NHInsider:

John 18:40 They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barab’bas!” Now Barab’bas was a robber.

 

[Eucharisted]

Bar-Abbas was a revolutionist, who sought the freedom of Israel from foreign power via a violent revolution. Thhe Zionists pictured the redemption of Israel as a bloody revolution, so it’s possible that Bar-Abbas was a Zionist. However, the Zionists weren’t the only Jews who waged battles against Rome; some individual Jews did as well. So there is an equal possiblity that Bar-Abbas was not a Zionist.

Some scholars believe Bar-Abbas was Jesus, and this claim they say is true because Bar-Abbas means “Son of the Father,” but this claim is found to be false when you remember why Jesus was being condemned: becaused He claimed to be the Son of God. Now, if the people who wanted Him killed for blasphemy - for claiming to be the literal Son of God - were suddenly advocating for His release, than that would mean they were insane. It is true that the charge of blasphemy was not enough to sway Pilate to condemn Jesus to death, but that was why the mob and Saddueces had brought Jesus to him.

There isn’t much known about Bar-Abbas, save what is recorded of him in the canonical gospels, but, based on the fact that some Greek texts say his first name was Jesus, it is believed that he claimed to be the Messiah. This could be supported by the fact that the kings of Israel were called sons of God and that the Messiah, who would the true and lasting son of God, was believed to save Israel from destruction (hence, if Bar-Abbas did claim to be the Messiah and his first name was Jesus, his full name would be like a play on words, and he would be like an alter ego of Jesus in the sense that he claimed to be the Messiah and wanted to redeem Israel through a violent revolution, whereas Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and wanted to redeem Israel through His violent death).

 

[Steven_John]

Real good topic

I understood him to be a brigand, against rome for the the liberation of the people of Israel.

The same cause of Jesus (pbwh) but different method.

In this light how cunning was pilot, offering people a choice between on that was a threat to rome and one perceived as a threat to rome and those who held the power base of people they were both wanting to save.

look at the peoples choice and we ca really see who had control of this realm b4 the crucification.

 

[juliamajor]

Bar-Abbas was a revolutionist, who sought the freedom of Israel from foreign power via a violent revolution. Thhe Zionists pictured the redemption of Israel as a bloody revolution, so it’s possible that Bar-Abbas was a Zionist. However, the Zionists weren’t the only Jews who waged battles against Rome; some individual Jews did as well. So there is an equal possiblity that Bar-Abbas was not a Zionist.

Some scholars believe Bar-Abbas was Jesus, and this claim they say is true because Bar-Abbas means “Son of the Father,” but this claim is found to be false when you remember why Jesus was being condemned: becaused He claimed to be the Son of God. Now, if the people who wanted Him killed for blasphemy - for claiming to be the literal Son of God - were suddenly advocating for His release, than that would mean they were insane. It is true that the charge of blasphemy was not enough to sway Pilate to condemn Jesus to death, but that was why the mob and Saddueces had brought Jesus to him.

There isn’t much known about Bar-Abbas, save what is recorded of him in the canonical gospels, but, based on the fact that some Greek texts say his first name was Jesus, it is believed that he claimed to be the Messiah. This could be supported by the fact that the kings of Israel were called sons of God and that the Messiah, who would the true and lasting son of God, was believed to save Israel from destruction (hence, if Bar-Abbas did claim to be the Messiah and his first name was Jesus, his full name would be like a play on words, and he would be like an alter ego of Jesus in the sense that he claimed to be the Messiah and wanted to redeem Israel through a violent revolution, whereas Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and wanted to redeem Israel through His violent death).

Not Zionists-thats a modern word- Zealots the term

 

[patg]

The allegorical sense would appear to be the best way to look at Barabbas - as a symbolic reference expressing the Jews rejection of Jesus. This is strongly suggested by the fact that there is no reference in any Jewish scripture, writing, or history to indicate that this practice ever occured, *much less *that it was a “common” practice. There is likewise no mention of it in any Roman writings.

 

[NotWorthy]

The allegorical sense would appear to be the best way to look at Barabbas - as a symbolic reference expressing the Jews rejection of Jesus. This is strongly suggested by the fact that there is no reference in any Jewish scripture, writing, or history to indicate that this practice ever occured, *much less *that it was a “common” practice. There is likewise no mention of it in any Roman writings.

I’ve got to disagree. Luke was rather particular in his history. This could easily be a custom that Pilot had. It certainly doesn’t have to be a common custom.