Talk:Barabbas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Am Interested In James, The brother of Jesus and his power over the masses. First Is James Barabbas? As I believe He is One In The same.

Read this entry and James the Just and you'll see they are not the same person. --Wetman 06:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] mergefrom|Bar abba

There is stuff at Bar abba that is a bit off-the-wall, but may be useful here. It will need a thorough edit. An anonymous user is interested in this, but has been posting on the article pages. I'll move the comment to below. The comment is POV and will make more sense when the merge is completed. --Gareth Hughes 22:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See entry Bar Abba, in which the theory is presented that the name originally referred to Jesus himself, who was the prisoner whose freedom was demanded by the Jewish crowd before Pilate. A separate "Barabbas" was invented, according to this theory, as part of the tendency to shift the blame for the crucifixion away from the Romans and to the Jewish people.

The move of material from Bar Abba, discussed above, was effected; since some material, including scholars' names, was omitted, readers may be interested in seeing the last independent Bar Abba text: click here. --Wetman 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical biographies

I came upon an interesting theory, perhaps it could be mentioned in passing in this article ( I just don't see where ). There are many contradictions between Matthew's and Luke's stories about birth and childhood of Jesus. According to Matthew, Jesus, grandson of Jacob, was born during the time of Herod ( i.e. before 4 BC ), received gifts from the Magi, his family fled to Egypt to escape the Massacre of the Innocents, and then a few years later moved to Nazareth. According to Luke, Jesus, grandson of Heli, was born during the Quirinius census ( 6 AD ), taken to Jerusalem and then returned home to Nazareth. There's no mention of the Magi, massacre or Egypt. The theory goes that these two passages refer to two different Jesuses, both sufficiently important to Jewish people at the time. Later these two got confused. One of them is Jesus Christ; the other - an insurrectioner who planned to overthrow the Roman government in Judea - is no other than Jesus Barabbas. Let me see if I can pull up some links. --8.4.80.163 01:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) --66.99.3.143

Conflicting details in speculative biographies of historical figures are not usually harmonized by claims that there were multiple persons. --Wetman 00:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant to Barabbas

I removed this text, because it has nothing to do with the subject, Barabbas:

"It needs to be pointed out that only John mentions the lash. It is absent from all other Gospel accounts. Again, it is only John who names Peter as the wielder of a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. The other Gospels say it was a disciple, who is unnamed. Since John is not very reliable as a surce of historical data, the points unique to him need to be taken with a grain of salt.". ---Wetman 20:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unecessary Paragraph

I removed the following text because it contributes nothing new (Barrabas related) to the article.

"It appears inconsistent that the same crowd that demands the freedom of a violently anti-Roman insurrectionist is supposedly the same multitude that cries out, 'We have no king but Caesar!'"

[edit] Historicity

I have modified this paragraph:

However, no other such release is recorded, even as a passing mention, nor does such a Passover custom appear in the Old Testament. However, the Roman occupation of Jerusalem significantly postdates the majority of the Old Testament. Additionally, Pontius Pilate's historic disregard for Jewish sensibilities and Jewish custom is well documented. From an imperial perspective, such a practice makes little sense; releasing a prisoner accused of murdering soldiers would certainly undercut morale. However, no account in the Gospels states that Barabbas murdered soldiers, and his release might be seen as a safety valve to prevent further riots.
  1. I removed the reference to Barabas killing soldiers. As the text itself said, there is no account that this accusation was made against Barabas. So, why is the accusation mentioned here, if no one made it?
  2. I added a possible explaination to why Pilate would want to release Jesus.

- sounds like original research to me - --JimWae 00:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preparation for submission to Featured Article status

I intend to submit the article to peer review, in preparation to submitting it to Feature Article status. These are the tasks I will get started with, hopefully with the wonderful aqssistance of previous collaborating editors.

  1. Adding some woodcuts and paitings depicting the trial
  2. Removing redline wikilinks by creating stub articles or finding alternative articles for these subjects
  3. Creating a Sources section adn moving there all sources, using the {{ref|refname}} and {{note|refname}} footnote notation rather than the Harvard notation for easier reading.
  4. Copyedit to remove some dups (e.g. meaning of Abba)

Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. While you're at it, there seems to be an inordinate amount of space given to unprovable theories--like Jesus and Barabbas being the same person. Is there a way to contextualize these fringe theories?
Jbull 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Well... that is why this subject is so interesting! Sources for these alternative views are plentiful, some of which are already in the article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because a theory is "sourced" doesn't mean that it is credible. I don't think that the baseline, scholarly consensus on Barabbas should be swamped by conspiracy theories. Jbull 18:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
As Wikipedia editors we need to be concerned with the three basic principles of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability , Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. From Wikipedia:Five Pillars:
Wikipedia uses the "neutral point-of-view", which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
The value judgement if these theories are credible or not, need to be left to the reader.
≈ jossi fresco ≈ t •
I agree. Please review my reworking of the section.
Jbull 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of material from Wikipedia articles without discussion is frowned upon. There is no reason to delete that material. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)@ 19:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted largely redundant material. Revert it if you like, and we can discuss acceptable improvements to a messy article.
Jbull 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the material you deleted is redundant. The sections need copyedit, sure, but we should not lose sources and attributions contributed by other editors in the process. Why don't you give it another try, this time withour losing sources? That would be great. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Were Jesus and Barabbas the Same Person?

I have several suggestions to improve this section.

1. Hyam Maccoby's theory

a. The reference to Hyam Maccoby's theory should be attributed to him alone, unless other cites are found in which other scholars support him.
b. All elements of Maccoby's theory should be clearly labeled as Maccoby's ideas.
Agree. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Benjamin Urritia's Theory

a. Does Urritia explicitly cite Maccoby? If not, his theory should not invoke Maccoby.
Agree. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @
b. The "turn the other cheek" interpretation should be labeled as Urritia's.
Agree. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @
c. The Josephus digression can be substantially trimmed.
d. The reference to Josephus assumes that the Jerusalem riot had a leader.
Trim to include just facts from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.
Agree, with the proviso that a notation indicates that no source identifies Jesus as being present at or participating in the Jerusalem riots mentioned by Josephus.
Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

3. The Crowd Calling for Jesus Theory

a. Bar-abba etymology discussion is redundant. It should be eliminated.
Disagree. It is highly relevant. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @
I think we have a misunderstanding. I think that the bar-Abba etymology is important, but it is covered early in the article. Maybe it could be repeated briefly?
Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
b. Speculation about Pilate's motives is unsupportable and irrelevant and should be eliminated.
Agree ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @
c. Alleged anti-Semitic effect of misinterpretation is irrelevant to the "confusion" theory. It should be eliminated.
I would prefer to find sources for these as they are very relevant as context for these interpretations. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The alleged anti-Semitic cause and/or effect of the Barabbas story is important, but it is covered earlier in the article, isn't it?
Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Jesus as Revolutionary Paragraph

a. This paragraph has nothing to do with Barabbas and Jesus being the same person. It should be eliminated or made relevant by moving it to another section and making an explicit comparison between Jesus' behavior and Barabbas'.
The only concern I have on that paragraph is the use of "said by some analysts". Either we find a source for that, or it has to go. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @
I think that commentary comparing Jesus' potentially revolutionary actions in the temple with Barabbas' alleged participation in an insurrection might be appropriate somewhere in the article, but not here.
Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

5. The Andew Drew Theory

a. It is impossible to tell from this paragraph, as it is currently written, what Drew's theory was. Is he alleging that first-century Jerusalem saw an annual human sacrifice? This section should be substantially clarified.
Agree. It needs clarification. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

Jbull 20:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In regard to the anti-semitic effect, I refer you to Jesus Framed (1996) by George Aichele, (p.17-18 and p.23). We can use that as a source. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Does Aichele's book include Christian invocation of the Barabbas story as justification for anti-Semitism? Such a cite would add to the article.
Jbull 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. There is also a book called "Anti-Semitism in America" in which this specific issue is discussed. Quinley, Harold E. and Glock, Charles Anti-Semitism in America (Chapter: Christian sources of Anti-Semitism) ISBN 0-878-55940-x ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Concerning your other responses to my comments, they are very sensible. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The reference of Luke 22:36 is, uh.. off. Rather, Jesus was working in parables again, its not to be taken literally.

-"I told you not to take a purse, not to take any script, not to take extra shoes, did you lack anything? And they said, Nothing, Lord. And he said unto them, But now, if you have a purse, take it, and likewise script: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end (Luk 22:35-37).

Jesus is saying, "Look, I sent you out before. I provided for you. But you're going to be going out soon again. I'm not going to be there this time. And things are going to be different; it's going to be tough. Before you were received, you're going to be rejected, you're going to be imprisoned, you're going to be hailed before the courts, you're going to have persecution. It's going to be hard."

And they said, Lord, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough (Luk 22:38). In other words, "You don't really understand, but you will." Jesus is not telling them to go out and make war against the world with swords, but He's just indicating the difficulty of that ministry that they are going to face after He has been taken away from them." #REDIRECT [[1]] Lebeke1 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Have I missed something - or is that Jesus quote completely irrelevent? Breed3011 10:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed section has no historical basis

I have removed

One possible explanation has been put forward to account for Pilate's otherwise inconsistent move. Historians note that, in approximately AD 36 (roughly the year estimated for Jesus' crucifixion), Pilate used arrests and executions to quash a Samaritan religious uprising. The ruthlessness with which he acted caused the Roman legate of Syria to complain about him, and Pilate to be recalled to Rome. It is possible that, after such disciplinary measures were taken against him, Pilate was reticent to execute people (especially someone with the popular following of Jesus, whose execution could spark further riots), and appealed to a popular vote to condemn Jesus in order to deflect any future blame from himself. It is worth noting that this would make Pilate's actions a singular event, and not a yearly tradition as the Bible states

Pilate did not return to Judea after he was recalled to Rome in 36 CE, (and 36 CE is usually considered too late for the crucifixion also) --JimWae 10:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree.
Jbull 15:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Pilate's being recalled by Vitellius (Roman legate of Syria) because complaints is a fact, isnt' it? There is a passage about this on the Oxford History of the Biblical World by Nichael Coogan (p.363). He was replaaced by Marcellus, so this must have happened after Jesus trial and crucifixtion. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to speak for JimWae, but I think he was saying that Pilate's quashing of the Samaritan uprising and his subsequent removal took place after Jesus' execution, and he did not return to Judea. Therefore, his treatment of Jesus could not have been influenced by his removal by Rome. -- Jbull 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You are correct. Whoever wrote that passage got it wrong. Jesus recalling was done after the execution. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barabbas in the Gospels

This paragraph is speculative and does not make sense:

An alternate reading of the events involving Barabbas can also be made, however. Given that Barabbas was described by some to be a revolutionary or a terrorist, it stands to reason that his acts of terror and revolt would have been directed against the Romans. In this case, it would be logical to assume that Barabbas might have been viewed by the people as something of a folk hero, in modern terms a freedom fighter or insurgent taking the fight to the Roman occupiers. When Barabbas is seen through this lens, it appears that Pilate's choice to the people was not much of a choice at all. If Pilate were to offer a local hero to the people as an alternative to Jesus, they would most certainly choose to free the hero. Thus, Pilate could bring about the execution of a dangerous man of God without seeming to actually be responsible for his death.

Under what logic would Pilate free a popular anti-Roman hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.203.61 (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Barabbas?

I'm looking at the OCT text of the gospels, and nowhere am I finding any name preceding Barabbas, or the grammatical form of Barabbas changing to indicate that its an epigraph and not someone's proper name. Why does the article state that the original Greek text has "Jesus" inserted as a part of Barabbas's name when I'm looking at it right now and it doesn't? pookster11 06:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm not sure what OCT means but you can read Jesus Barabba's name in the old versions of the gospels including those found at the Qumran caves or the dead sea scrolls.

According to Wikipedia's Dead Sea Scrolls article, the only scroll that might be a gospel is a highly contested highly reconstructed one. It seems a bit thin evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deflect blame from Imperial Rome?

Can anyone expand on this from the secondary sources used as to why Pagan Rome would care who killed Jesus? Otherwise this section makes no sense. pookster11 08:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christians worried about offending Rome

The Pagan Romans did not care, but the Christian Romans certainly cared. As Christianity spread through the Roman empire, persecutions occurred from time to time. Seeking to prevent such persecutions, Christian writers bent over backwards to show that there was no real conflict between Christianity and Roman rule, and that Pilate only executed Jesus because of Priestly pressure, not because Jesus had ever acted against the interests of the Empire. These writers then had to explain why had the Jewish multitude demanded "Free Yeshua Bar Abba!" (Free Jesus, Son of the Father!). Then they were forced to invent a different, separate Yeshua Bar Abba, one who was not Jesus. For the same reason the Gospel authors and other Christian writers were careful to suppress all mention of the major nonviolent protest in Caesarea. - Das Baz, 03/28/2006, 1:13 PM.

And for the same reasons, "Jesus" was removed from "Jesus Barabbas" -but you will find it in the oldest texts and scholarly translations. DB, same day, 1:15 PM.


And you base this on what? Rome is clearly depicted in a negative light in Revelation, and of the documents that survive from the Apostolic and early Patristic period none of them give any leeway to Rome or "bend over backwards" to the Imperial cult. Please, if you have any specific sources, share them, otherwise the gross and unfounded generalization isn't much help. Second, "Iesus ton Barabbon" appears nowhere in any of the earliest Greek sources of the Gospels; the only reason we know about it at all is from commentary by Origen based on the Syriac gospels that are after the Greek Gospels by at least two centuries. So, once again, what precisely are you talking about? pookster11 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not just Origen. Early Syriac manuscripts, the Caesarean Group of Texts, the Sinaitic Palimpsest, and the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries all agree that the reading is Iesous ton Barabban.

Furthermore, the Criterion of Embarrasment strongly supports the reading "Jesus Bar Abba." This is something that four families of manuscripts would have no reason at all to invent, but everybody else would have very good reasons to suppress and delete.

Revelation does not so "clearly" attack Rome. The name "Rome" is never mentioned - only allegories and code names.

Any serious New Testament scholar who can read the original Greek will tell you that the Apocalypse's author can not possibly be the author of any of the four Gospels.

Any serious New Testament scholar - John Dominic Crossan, Paula Fredriksen, etc., will agree that the Gospel authors were very afraid to offend the Roman authorities, and tried very hard to shift the blame for the Crucifixion away from Pilate as much as possible. - Das Baz 03/30/2006, 10:55 AM

The syriac gospels were specifically what I was mentioning, hence... well, why I mentioned them. Revelation was "taken" as an attack on Rome even during the post-Nicean era; there is no doubt the ancients clearly saw the "city/woman on seven hills" in Revelation as being Rome. As far as that goes, I AM a serious New Testament scholar and I CAN read the Greek and there are several reasons to link the Gospel of John and Revelation, though whether the letters from John are written by the same John is a diffrent matter. Frankly this idea that the Gospel writers would attempt to shift the blame of the crucifixion anywhere at all is nonsensical, and why it would appear in the Gospels, the foundational texts of the religion, and then disappear and no one afterwards feel it necessary to expand or reference this concept for at least 300 years is beyond me; in the early patristic and late apostolic writings there is no concern whatsoever about either ascribing or deflecting blame for thecrucifixion on anyone. I thank you for the scholars who hold this view however, and I will certainly look into it. pookster11 03:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually found two very good scholars for once, very impressive. Please don't take that as condescending or demeaning; most on here will find alist of names and throw them up as the premier scholars in the field without actually researching (take a look at the Jesus page for ample examples). Do you happen to have their books btw? I'd be interested to see just how exactly they present and defend this argument and then explain the silence for three hundred years afterwards while the Romans are killing Christians? If not, thats fine, I'm perfectly able to access the library on my own. pookster11 03:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See specially From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen. See also What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills. Wills, an excellent scholar of New Testament Greek, points out that the Book of Revelation has the worst Greek in the NT. There is no way its author could be the same as the author of the Gospel of John. Besides its very unusual Greek, Revelation was unusual in attacking Rome, however veiled and encoded was the attack.

You forget that once the Gospels were accepted as Scriptures, their viewpoint was engraved on granite as far as the Christians were concerned. None of the writers who wrote after the canon was complete had any inclination to dispute what the Gospels claimed. It was no longer a matter of debate.

I hope you realize that your viewpoint is the unusual and exceptional one. Serious scholars in general hold it as common knowledge that the Gospel writers were trying to protect the Church by deflecting Crucifixion blame away from the Imperium and onto the Jews. Once this was done, there was nothing more to be said by the Christians, for whom the Gospels were literally Gospel Truth. Das Baz.04/04/2006, 10:53.

P.S. Is there any serious scholar besides yourself who agrees with your strange views? Please give us some examples. DB, 04/04/2006, 10:54 AM.

Not sure what specifically your short paragraph on the Gospels being "engraved in granite" has to go with te discussion; I apologize if I'm being dense, but I was referring to Christian works pre-Constantine and canonization. Both Revelation and John have a similiarly poor usage of Greek, and are structured along almost identical lines with identical use of symbolism and a strong tie to the "mystery religion" aspect of early Christianity; in style, structure, and language the two books are nearly identical in almost everything except their exact subject matter. Once again I'm not questioning you, but rather the scholars that hold these views that you are putting forth and would have to analyze the grounds that they are basing their arguments on, but to my knowledge the views on the Gospel of John and Revelation are generally that either a: they were both written by John, b: they were both written by the same person, but not John, or c: that they were written in tandem by two authors working closely together. As far as the Gospel writers trying to shield the church, this is quite unusual, and most of the research I have done points to an ambivalence on the part of both te early church and Rome; neither really cared what the other was doing. Revelation especially stands out as it was believed to have been written as a response directly to Nero's persecutions, but other than that the Gospels ar ambivalent towards Roman authority, as Roman authority in turn is generally ambivalent to Christianity, only realy paying any attention to the Christians at certain times and (especially in the case of Diocletian)for unknown and seemingly counter-productive reasons. Once again, the bottom line is that neither side really cared about what the othr was doing, and there really is no attempt by the Christians to try to placate or appear attractive to the Romans. For sources, look at Mellor, Helfgott, Price, Bengston, Aldo, Grant, Chambers, Bury, Mommsen, et al. Basically put, just about any book on Roman history or early Christian history will give ou this analysis. Really the only negative Roman view of Christianity we have comes from Tacitus, and thats only if you assume that by mentioning the "proselytizing Jews" Tacitus is in reality making reference to Pauline Christians, as generally speaking after the Diaspora Jews were not a proselytizing community and neither the Ebionites nor the Gnostics made all that great an effort to bring new followers in. Pliny mentions Christians in a negative light in a letter to Trajan, but the content is more "what do I do with these yokels?" rather than "how do we wipe out Christianity?" Once again, there's no reason to assume the Gospel writers tried to shield the early church from anything or in any way tried to paint Rome in a special light; the two groups just ignored each other. pookster11 06:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Era of the Jewish Revolt and its Aftermath

The situation was different and special during the years of the Jewish War (66-73 AD/CE) and the years following after. During this period, Christians were fearful of being considered Jews and being treated accordingly. The Gospel authors, who probably worked during this period, tried very hard to prove they were not Jews and were not part of any revolutionary movement against Rome. Thus, they had to show that when a Jewish multitude demanded the freedom of Yeshua Bar Abba / Jesus Barabbas / Jesus Son of the Father / they were talking about another Jesus Barabbas, not Jesus of Nazareth. Wedges had to be driven between Jesus and his people. After a few decades, this was no longer an issue or a problem. During the Patristic age, the Gospels were accepted as unquestionable authority and their viewpoint the only one that counted among Christians. Das Baz April 6, 2006, 10:56 AM.

I'm familiar with this analysis, and I will say that it is considered to have some validity within the historical community, but the main problem that most have with the theory is that there is little to base the analysis on, and most scholars will argue the same, that while the theory makes logical sense there is no evidence of it from the sources; thus we are left in our usual quandry in the ancient world where we all throw up our hands and all together say "we don't know" and then get research grants to go into the field and state "we don't know." The problem is that there doesn't seem to be evidence of a tremendous backlash against the Jewish community within Rome. The Jews had been powerful as populares and publicani since the time of Caesar, but once Augustus comes to power they, along with the other political factions, seem to simply drop off the political map, except for a mention during Caligula's reign and of course the Jewish revolts. While the theory makes complete and logical sense, the bottom line is we don't know, we don't have evidence for a backlash against Jews in Rome, and the assumption that Jews and Christians were lumped together comes from a few spotty sources, like Tacitus as I mentioned above, where we assume that certain aspects of the Jewish community that are described are actually aspects of the young Christian community. What we do see from the Christian and Roman sources that do directly address each other is, once again, ambivalence and neutrality. Strong ties still exist between the Christian and Jewish community, and it is debatable here at this point whether or not the Ebionites should even be considered a sepparate sect or are still part of the greater Judeo-Christian identity. So the question here is what sources do you trust? Do you trust sources that are vague and from which conclusions have been drawn based on complicated analysis? Or, do you trust sources that are explicit about who and what they are talking about? Do you assume that Christians attempted to placate Rome despite a lack of grounded evidence and based solely on logic? Or do you assume based on the available evidence that neither cared about the other? Do you believe sources in the original Greek, or sources a century later that had been translated into Syriac? pookster11 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ebionites, Syriac, etc.

I quite agree that at this point in time the Ebionites were not a "sect" but indeed the mainstream Judeo-Christian community. The Jewish Revolt forced them to flee to Arabia (where eventually they were forced to convert to Islam, or be exterminated), to become a small persecuted sect (persecuted from both sides, Judaism and Christianity), to join either mainstream Judaism or Gentile Christianity, or to die out. Anyway, since Jesus and his apostles were native speakers of Aramaic, of which Syriac is a dialect, Syriac texts are far more likely to be authentic than Greek ones.

There is very good textual evidence that the Gospel writers were trying to whitewash and appease the Romans: The Gospels themselves. Note for example that the Gospel of "John" does not contain the word "Publican" (Tax Collector) even once, though this class of people is so prominent in the Synoptic Gospels. Why? Because "John" wanted to avoid saying anything negative about Roman rule. Notice that in John, Pilate says "you have a custom" of releasing a prisoner at Passover. He, the poor puppet, has no option but to go along with this custom imposed on him by the Jews. This is of course total nonsense. No Roman administrator was so subservient to the people he ruled.

John, a hardcore Gentile, is abysmally ignorant about Jewish culture. He has the proud Jews declare "Children of Abraham are we, and we were never slaves." (Capter 8). Real Jews remind themselves every year, at this time of year, "Slaves we were in Egypt." Das Baz 11 April 2006, 10:33 AM.

Its an interesting theory, but once again there's no evidence and in fact quite the contrary, evidence that the universal language amoung early Christians was koine Greek. Everything Christian we have of that time is Greek, even grafitti mocking Christians has them speaking in Greek words and letters. You have many interesting ideas that make 100% sense on their own, but you need to do some research and back these ideas up with what we know to be true. As for the Gospels themselves, Publican is a Latin word and would not appear in the Greek text, nor were publicani used extensively after Augustus, nor would they have appeared in Judea, a series of client-kingdoms under the Herodian dynasty. Further, a publican is not a general word for "tax collector", it refers specifically to citizens who have been drafted as tax-farmers, a practice that was abandoned under Augustus and Tiberius. While you present an interesting read of the Pilate incident, there is ample evidence to show that Pilate was, essentially, very subservient and compliant to the Jewish poulation of Judea. Around the same time of Christ there is a minor revolt that he manages to put down by acquiescing to the conspirators, he removes Roman standards from the Antonian fortress because of public complaint, etc. Realize that Pilate is conscious of the fact that he is in one of the most volatile areas of the Empire, and manages to succesfully and effectively rule the area throughout the reign of Tiberius until his removal just before Tiberius's death, and if you study Pilate's life he mainly does so through cooperating and compromising with the Jewish community. As far as John, there is a degree to which the particular verse you pick out has a number of textual debates, and its interesting that you should choose this verse as it was presented to me as an example of the koine concept of the perfect tense; what exactly is meant here by "douleo"? Does the perfect here imply that the speakers are referring solely to themselves, or all of the "sperma" of Abraham? If its all inclusive, why was the perfect used and not the aorist, which would make more grammatical sense? This is partially why John and Revelaion suck, and a lot of koine greek at this time sucks as well; the language itself is in a kind of transition that it won't really figure out until Constantine. But anyway, all of this seems like one big sidetrack; I have not yet seen any evidence that there was an attempt to whitewash of project a "happier relation" between the Christians and the Romans, though this has certainly been a fun conversation. I have never seen the relationship between Rome and the Christians painted as anything other than ambivalence; this of course does not make it true, but it does place a heavy burden of proof on those who wish to say otherwise. pookster11 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slaves we were in Egypt

Well, it seems to me that saying "Children of Abraham are we; we were never enslaved" implies that no children of Abraham were enslaved. And you you yourself tell us that the koine Greek used by most NT writers is very ungrammatical, so deriving conclusions from fine points of grammar is rather pointless in this case.

Yes, Pilate backed down in Caesarea on the matter of the Standards in Jerusalem, though only after he had threatened to massacre a multitude of thousands who had gathered to petition their removal. Apparently some first-century Rabbi who was very much into "turning the other cheek" (Nonviolent Resistance) had persuaded his fellow Israelis to offer their own lives without offering violence. Who could that leader be? Josephus does not say, but he does mention that Pilate later crucified Jesus - the only Rabbi executed by Pilate.

We learn about the incident from Josephus, but not a word of it in any of the Four Gospels, even though the incident took place at the beginning of Pontius Pilate's administration? Why such silence? You see, comparing Josephus and the Gospels is the best evidence that Rome is being whitewashed and appeased in the Gospels.

Pilate was better prepared the next time there was a popular manifestation against him. He had many of his agents disguised among the crowd, which they attacked physically at a point in time. He had changed, but only in becoming more clever and more ruthless, not more pliable.

During the lifetime of Jesus, Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas, but the Romans did collect taxes on merchandise going in and out of Galilee. During the same time, Judea was under Roman Procurators. Matthew, Mark and Luke contain plenty of references to Publicans - but not a single one in John - even though John, in comparison to the Synoptics, spends more time in Jerusalem and less in Galilee. He should have more references to Publicans, not fewer. But John is not historical, but polemical. Ungrammatical, too, as you say. Garry Wills says the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the only NT writer who writes Good Greek. Das Baz, 13 April 2006, 10:33 AM.

As I said in that specific verse the difference is between the translation of the perfect and the aorist tense. In the perfect tense, the individuals are only referring to themselves, literaly "we have never been in a state of being slaves", referring specifically to the speakers themselves. Douleo appears in that verse in the perfect tense. Now, the problem is that in later texts the aorist drops off considerably and is replaced by the perfect; it may be that John is indicative of this change in the grammar of the language, and that this is simply the common usage, in which case your reading is correct. However, John has no problems in other areas as far as using the aorist and perfect tenses correctly, so is unlikely that John's usage of the perfect in this verse is suddenly indicative of a vulgar grammatical change when he has no problem elsewhere. As far as the story of the Syrian "rebels" I'm well aware of this story and frankly trying to tie this to Christ is a bit of a stretch. The "rebels" were not specifically lead by a rabbi, and the event seem unrelated and is never mentioned again by either the Romans identifying who Christ or Chrestus was nor by the Jews as a reference. The Josephus reference seems to stand on its own. Once again though, there are some that feel the incident is related to Christ's ministry, and I will leave it at that. As a nitpick, Judea at that time was under Praefects; Procurator did not become a title for an Imperial governor until the reign of Claudius, by which time Praefect had become a separate title with its own powers and position, hence there is clear corruption of the original texts in order to clarify what position Pilate held, as he is listed as the Procurator of Judea. As far as the references to Publicani in the other gospels, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Once again, Augustus had abolished tax-farming as part of his reform of the provincial system, and they formed part of the backbone of his support, as well as Caesar's before him. The provinces had suffered a kind of economic recession during the First Triumvirate and could not pay the amount they had bid. That and publicani would have nothing to do with collecting taxes on imports and exports. It may be that you're reading the Latin texts and seeing publicani there as a general reference for tax collectors; please know that, once again, publican and publicani are terms for a specific type of tax collector and not simply tax collectors in general; I would have to check, but it may be that Jerome simply translated the Greek term into an accessible and highly generalized Latin term that had long since lost its true meaning in Jerome's time. I would check myself but Perseus appears to be down right now, or at least running slow as hell. pookster11 09:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All these points are very interesting and worthy of study and thought, but these points also remain: Jews remind themselves every year "Slaves were we in Egypt," and no real Jews would ever say: "We are children of Abraham and we were never enslaved." The Synoptics contain several references to tax collectors and John not a single one. Josephus indeed does not say who was the leader of the great Jewish protest in Caesarea, and rather gives the impression that it was spontaneous and acephalous, but this is rather hard to believe. A brief mention of the Crucifixion of Jesus by Pilate follows, which may or may not be a useful hint.

Besides the tax collectors, John also omits the Baptism of Jesus, the Temptation, the Transfiguration, the Kiss of Judas, the Tears of Peter, the institution of the Eucharist, etc.

Roman historians are just as bad as the Gospel writers when it comes to confusing Procurators and Prefects. The archaeological evidence says that Pilate was a Prefect, but both Tacitus and the Gospels call him a Procurator, just to confuse us, perhaps. Das Baz, 18 April 2006, 10:51 AM.

I completely agree with you on the point of slavery, but what I'm saying is that the sentence means something different in greek than it does prima facia in English. As for the omissions, I encourage you yourself to do a comparison of Revelation and the Gospel of John. Note what events John focuses the Gospel account on, and then parallel this with an examination of the structure of Revelation. This may help you as far as understanding why John includes certain events and omits certain events that the gospels leave out. As far as the references to tax-collectors, once again I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue. At face value it seems that you are arguing there is a problem in John simply because he does not mention tax-collectors, which is a bit of a ridiculous argument, as there are any number of things not mentioned that in no way impact the narrative or structure of John, so I'm sure thats not your point. Something to keep in mind additionally is that with the parallels with Revelation its entirely likely that the Gospel of John is in no way meant to be a complete re-elling of Christ's ministry and life, ala Matthew or especially Luke, but rather falls into a type of grey area between the Pauline Christians and Gnostics; while obstensibly Pauline in its message, both books are very "mystical" in their nature. The Procurator/Praefect thing is basically an issue of clarity; under Claudius the governors are titled Procurators, and the Praefect becomes a type of "pseudo-mayor" for the major cities within the empire. Pilate was a Praefect, however calling him Praefect would only confuse the heck out of a late 1st and early 2nd century audience. pookster11 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John versus the Synoptics

The point is that the tax-collectors are very prominent in the Synoptics but omitted in John. Together with all the other strange omissions in John, this gives the definite impression that John omits important details because of his tendentiousness. Some of his omissions are rather mysterious. For example, John, as you say, has an "obstensibly Pauline message" - and yet, he is the only one of the 4 Gospels that has no mention of the eucharist - the blessing of the bread and wine - at the Last Supper. Why is this, do you think? Paul certainly taught that the Last Supper was the occasion of the first eucharist. - Das Baz, 21 April 2006, 10:27 AM.

Hence the word "obstensibly" and why I described John before as being somewhat mystical. John seems to reach somewhat into the "mystery" aspects of the Christian religion that at that time were mainly suppoted by the Gnostics as an extension of Greek mystery religions. Many point to this as evidence that John is written by someone else outside of the Pauline community, is a Gentile, etc (I'm surprised you yourself haven't brough this up yet). There is a degree to which the similiarities with the mystery concept of Christianity are divergent in John though, and in many ways fundamentally disagree with Gnostic cryptotheology. In this respect its hard to say what precisely is going on, but because of the subject matter (and John's location at Ephesus) I tend to see John and Revelation as an attempt to incorporate aspect of cryptotheology into Pauline Christianity as well as a response to Gnostic cryptotheology, pulling it back into a Jewish rather than Greek perspective. The allusions in Revelation (symbology, etc) are all drawn exclusively from the OT, something very odd for a Gentile to do or a Gnostic (who largely ignored the OT writings). As far as his omissions, once again I would encourage you to study the parallels between John and Revelation, especially in structure (For example, seven seals, trumpets, bowls, etc in Revelation, and in John seven miracles, parables, etc). Rather than asking why certain things are omitted, ask why they would have been included in the first place? What would the narrator gain by their mention? And rather than assuming the writer doesn't know what he's doing (which is an idea that only seems to be prevalent here when questioning the Gospels...), ask if something is omitted why would he be expected to include such information and what relevance such information would have. LOL consider this a crash course in ancient historicity. pookster11 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I did bring up John being a Gentile. Pointed out that "Children of Abraham are we; we never were slaves" had to be a Gentile invention, since Jews remind themselves every year "Slaves we were in Egypt." When three of the four canonic Gospels have a lot to say about tax collectors, and about the eucharist, then it makes more sense to ask why the fourth Gospel omits any mention of either than why do the other three talk about an important fact of life in the first century Roman Empire and about the center Mystery of Christian worship. Yes, John is very much into Mystery - so why does he skip the eucharist? That is itself a mystery. Das Baz 26 April 2006, 10:04 AM.

[edit] National Geographic

According to National Geographic, May 2006: "As Christianity distanced itself from its origins as a Jewish sect, Christian thinkers found it increasingly convenient to blame the Jews as a people for the arrest and execution of Christ, and to cast Judas as the archetypal Jew." ("The Judas Gospel.") National Geographic is not proposing any new or controversial theory here, but simply reflecting the consensus of New Testament scholars. Das Baz 21:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

Opening up a big can of worms:

This article appears to be written in a tone that already accepts the divinity of Jesus, as well as a factual nature of other Christian doctrine. To me this is not maintaining a NPOV.

Example:

This event, along with the "vote" between Barrabbas and Jesus, and taken with the fact that it was the Jewish Sanhedrin who had brought Jesus before Pilate in the first place, would seem to illustrate that Jesus was something of a political hot potato whom everyone from the leaders of the Temple hierarchy, to the Romans, to the Hebrew aristocracy would just as soon be rid of, but whom no one wanted to take the actual responsibility for killing. When seen in this light, it appears that everyone involved, and therefore no one group or person in particular, is responsible for the crucifiction of Jesus. Thus, all "sons of God", are responsible for the death of this actual Son of God.

The last sentance here explicitly refers to JC as "this actual Son of God". This is far too strong wording on contentious issue.

Large parts of this article are also unattributed.

This style makes the article read more like a persuasive (attempting to push a point), or dichtomous (attempted to display opposed points, while not persuasive, creates a possible false dichotomy of opinions) essay.

/can of worms. *don't hate me* --ZayZayEM 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)1

Okay.... your first sentance caught my eye

This article appears to be written in a tone that already accepts the divinity of Jesus, as well as a factual nature of other Christian doctrine. To me this is not maintaining a NPOV..

First, please look at the scientology article, the budhist article and other religious articles, and you'll note that all are given an equal place in this encyclopedia. Second, a lot of the events in the Bible can be / are documented by secondary sources (Josephus, A.N.E.T, Eusibius (sp?) Archeological finds..etc... therefore, they're accepted as actually occuring. It's not POV, in fact, this article is pretty NPOV. It's not here to evangelize, nor state anything else except statements that can be referenced elsewhere.

We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that other articles violate NPOV is not a valid argument. I agree that most of the people who have any knowledge of this issue have SOME religious background, almost certainly Christian, and that a slight opinion will be inherent and almost unavoidable. I also fully agree that this article is highly unbiased (relative to many other religious articles). That being said, OP is absolutely correct; that line makes a claim of fact. Add quotation marks to the second mention and it will be completely fine. OP also made a mistake: "...factual nature of other Christian doctrine." You can't claim it is fact and you cant claim that it is not a fact if you want to maintain NPOV in a religious article.Gordonliu420 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleated Sections

[edit] Barabbas in the gospels

Three gospels all state unequivocally that there was a custom at Passover during which the Roman governor would release a prisoner of the crowd's choice: Mark 15:6; Matt. 27:15; John 18:39. The corresponding verse in Luke (Luke 23:17) is not present in the earliest manuscripts and may be a later gloss to bring Luke into conformity.[1] The gospels differ on whether the custom was a Roman one or a Jewish one.

Such a release or custom of such a release is not recorded in any other historical document. Some[who?] point to the perception of Pontius Pilate's disregard for Jewish sensibilities; the idea of him honouring Jewish Passover in any way may not fit with historical accounts of his character. However, other historians[who?] take the opposite approach, arguing that Pilate showed careful regard to customs in order to avoid revolts in an unruly province, and this may be an example of Pilate creating a tradition ad hoc, in order to avoid a possibly explosive situation. The gospels, however, portray Pilate not as the one in control of the situation, and have him pleading with the crowd that they choose Jesus of Nazareth to be released, then reluctantly surrendering to their decision.

An alternate reading of the events involving Barabbas can also be made, however. Given that Barabbas was described by some to be a revolutionary or a terrorist, it stands to reason that his acts of terror and revolt would have been directed against the Romans. In this case, it would be logical to assume that Barabbas might have been viewed by the people as something of a folk hero, in modern terms a freedom fighter or insurgent taking the fight to the Roman occupiers. When Barabbas is seen through this lens, it appears that Pilate's choice to the people was not much of a choice at all. If Pilate were to offer a local hero to the people as an alternative to Jesus, they would most certainly choose to free the hero. Thus, Pilate could bring about the execution of a dangerous man of God without seeming to actually be responsible for his death.

This argument is also supported in the events of Luke 23:6-12. Pilate claims no jurisdiction over Jesus because he is from Galillee (Jerusalem was in Judea) and passes him along to Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, to be sentenced. Despite having ordered the death of John the Baptist, Herod's reaction is to ridicule Jesus for a time, and then to pass him right back to Pilate. The result of Herod's apparent assent to Pilate's jurisdiction over Jesus is said to have brought about a truce between the two men in Luke 23:12.

This event, along with the "vote" between Barabbas and Jesus, and taken with the fact that it was the Jewish Sanhedrin who had brought Jesus before Pilate in the first place, would seem to illustrate that Jesus was something of a political hot potato whom everyone from the leaders of the Temple hierarchy, to the Romans, to the Hebrew aristocracy would just as soon be rid of, but whom no one wanted to take the actual responsibility for killing.

If Pilate did not offer a choice between Jesus and another person, several possible explanations for the origin of such a story have been offered by a number of scholars.

[edit] Were Barabbas and Jesus the same person?

The name Barabbas is composed of two elements: bar, meaning "son of", and Abba.

Abba has been found as a personal name in a first century burial at Giv'at ha-Mivtar and Abba also appears as a personal name frequently in the Gemara section of the Talmud, dating from 200-400.[2] This would mean that Barabbas was the son of one named Abba.

Abba also means "father" in Aramaic. Jesus sometimes referred to God as "father;" Jesus' use of the Aramaic word Abba survives untranslated (in most English translations) in Mark 14:36. In the gospels, Jesus rarely refers to himself as "son of God" and never refers to himself as "son of the father."[3]. However, some scholars like Michael Magee[4] and Mary Whitehouse[5] speculate that "bar-Abbâ" could refer to Jesus himself as "son of the father".

Hyam Maccoby and some other scholars have averred that Jesus was known as "bar-Abba", because of his custom of addressing God as 'Abba' in prayer, and referring to God as Abba in his preaching. It follows that when the Jewish crowd clamored before Pontius Pilate to "free Bar Abba" they could have meant Jesus. Anti-Semitic elements in the Christian church, the argument goes, altered the narrative to make it appear that the demand was for the freedom of somebody else (a brigand or insurrectionist) named "Barabbas". This was in, the theory goes, part of the tendency to shift the blame for the Crucifixion towards the Jews and away from the Romans. (See Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judea.)

Maccoby identifies Paul of Tarsus for this shifting of blame in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention Of Christianity, which explains extensively why it was necessary to appease Roman sentiment prior to Constantine I's Edict of Milan (Edict of Tolerance) in 313, which legalized Christianity.

The appeasing of Roman sentiment was, Maccoby suggests, confined to the matters of the blame for Crucifixion and over Jesus' "true" mission in life. Maccoby argues that Jesus was an anti-Roman revolutionary and that Paul, who had never met Jesus during his life-time, disagreed strongly with Jesus' actual followers over what Jesus' mission was.

In his role of Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul absolved Rome of any blame for the crucifixion so that new Roman converts could more easily accept the miracle of Jesus' resurrection with no guilt for the murder that made it possible. For a Roman convert to accept that Jesus was the messiah he would also be accepting that Rome killed God's only son - so Paul shifted the blame on to the Jews, and the Barabbas/Pilate story and, more famously, the Judas myth, were used as blame shifting tactics to get new recruits to Paul's newly formed religion.

Benjamin Urrutia, co-author with Guy Davenport of The Logia of Yeshua: The Sayings of Jesus agrees with Maccoby and others who aver that Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and that the choice between two prisoners is a fiction. However, Urrutia opposes the notion that Jesus may have either led or planned a violent insurrection. Jesus was a strong advocate of "turning the other cheek" - which means not submission but strong and courageous, though nonviolent, defiance and resistance. Jesus, in this view, must have been the planner and leader of the Jewish nonviolent resistance to Pilate's plan to set up Roman Eagle standards on Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The story of this successful resistance is told by Josephus — who, curiously, does not say who was the leader, but does tell of Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus just two paragraphs later in a passage whose authenticity is heavily disputed. (See article Josephus on Jesus, in particular the section "Arabic Version." This version seems to be free of the postulated Christian interpolations, but still makes it clear that Pilate ordered the crucifixion of Jesus.)

A different interpretation is that the story derives from the Jewish crowd (many of whom may have been among those who had hailed Jesus as a king perhaps less than a week earlier) calling out for the freedom of the man who referred to the Jewish God as "father" and referred to himself as "son-of the father" (bar-Abba in Aramaic) — namely, Jesus himself. Pilate refused their pleas (and likely would have been disciplined by his superiors in Rome, if he did not punish both insurrectionists and those who claimed to be king of the Jews). Later, when people who did not understand Aramaic retold the story, they still included the petition for freedom, but bar-Abbas became a separate person - incidentally thus making the Romans less culpable, and the Jews more so.[6]

Further interpretations, most notably by Doctor Michael Magee[7], along these same lines raise questions about how much difference there was between Jesus and an insurrectionist. In the gospels, shortly after being hailed as a king by the Jews, Jesus caused a commotion in the Jewish temple by overturning tables and swinging a lash (mentioned only in John) at people. Soon afterwards and just shortly before his arrest, the gospels have Jesus telling his apostles to sell their cloaks and buy swords(Luke 22:36) — and at least one sword turns up in the hands of Peter (named only in John) in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Arthur Drews, a German Hegelian philosopher, in his books Christ Myth (1924) and Legend of Peter (1924), argued that first-century Christianity was a social ethical movement which needed no founder to explain its rise. A long standing feature of the Semitic world was an annual sacrifice of a "Son of the Father" — Barabbas, originally called Jesus Barabbas.[8].[9] Of course, in the Hebrew Bible and in Judaism in general, human sacrifice is strongly condemned. Because of this and many other aspects of Drews' research, including his attempt to discredit Christianity in favor of a national Germanic religion (i.e. Nazism), most of Drews' research and views are held suspect by the academic community, though he remains a significant source among some of those who argue that Jesus was a mythical creation as opposed to an historical figure.

[edit] A possible parable

This practice of releasing a prisoner is said by Magee and others to be an element in a literary creation of Mark, who needed to have a contrast to the true "son of the father" in order to set up an edifying contest, in a form of parable. An interpretation, using modern reader response theory, suggests no petition for the release of Barabbas need ever have happened at all, and that the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus is a parable meant to draw the reader (or hearer) of the gospel into the narrative so that they must choose whose revolution, the violent insurgency of Barabbas or the challenging gospel of Jesus, is truly from the Father.[10].[11]

If this interpretation is true, it means that the fictitious division of Yeshua Bar Abba (Jesus Barabbas) into two different people was already made in the hypothesized Aramaic texts, before the Greek Gospels were written.[12].[13]

Dennis R. MacDonald, in the The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, notes that a similar episode to the one that occurs in Mark- of a crowd picking one figure over another figure similar to the other occurred in The Odyssey, where Odysseus entered the palace disguised as a beggar and defeated a real beggar to reclaim his throne[14]. MacDonald suggests Mark borrowed from this section of The Odyssey and used it to pen the Barabbas tale, only this time Jesus- the protagonist- loses to highlight the cruelness of Jesus' persecutors[15]. However, this theory too is rejected by mainstream scholars. [16]

It has also been suggested that Barabbas was an allegory for humanity. In this theory, the freeing of Barabbas represents the redemption of humanity from the original sin of Adam, "Son of the Father," through the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. If this is correct, it might suggest that the appellation "Jesus Barabbas" was simply an error made by a scribe who was ignorant of the actual allegorical significance of the narrative.[2]

[edit] Other uses of "Barabbas"

  • Barabbas (1928): Play by avant-garde Belgian dramatist Michel De Ghelderode.
  • Barabbas (1950): A novel by Swedish author Pär Lagerkvist for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature 1951.
  • Barabbas (1962): Epic film starring Anthony Quinn, based on Lagerkvist's book.
  • Monty Python's film Life of Brian (1979) features a comic scene with Pontius Pilate having a speech impediment, and asking the crowd if they want him, instead of "Bwian", to "Welease... Woger".
  • Isabel Allende's novel House of the Spirits (1982) features the family dog named Barabbas.
  • Barabbas (1999 - 2003): Orlando, Florida progressive rock trio.
  • Give Us Barabbas (2004): Album by American rock band Masters of Reality
  • The Passion of the Christ (2004): In this controversial film, written, produced and directed by Mel Gibson, Barabbas is described by Pontius Pilate as a "notorious murderer," for which there is little evidence in text. Matthew 27:16 describes Barabbas simply as "notorious," and Luke 23: 19 even implies that his crimes may have been political (noting that he "had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)". He is further portrayed as mad, for which there is no textual evidence whatsoever. Collectively, these editorial choices on the part of the film maker have the net effect of making Barabbas' release more craven than text would support.
  • Arsis' song "Worship Depraved" (2004) contains the lyrics: "Let Mary sleep forever. Sordid dreams, she must be bound. Once faithful followers scream: "Set Barabbas free!""
  • The Jewish main character of Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta is named "Barabas", a reference to the biblical character.
  • A former Puerto Rican wrestling heel used the stage name "Barrabás" (Barabbas in Spanish).
  • Karabas Barabas is the villain in The Golden Key, or the Adventures of Buratino, a Soviet children's story about Buratino, a character similar to Pinnochio

[edit] Comment on the deleted sections

At first glance, it looks like quite a bit of original research is in those sections. And I don't know which is worse, also based on this website [3] which is definitely not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms and anything based on it should be removed. Doug Weller (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)