Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.
Evidence from the Greek NT suggesting that "Jesus Barabbas" not "Jesus of Nazareth" is the one who got crucified!
The sections of this article are:
1- The early disciples' writings declaring that Jesus never
2- Jesus Barabbas was the one who got crucified!
(a)- He was accused of murdering Roman soldiers.
1- The early disciples' writings declaring that Jesus never got crucified:
Before we begin, it is important to know that according to the Apocalypse (Revelations) of Peter, the Acts of John, and the great Seth, Jesus of Nazareth did not get crucified. Instead, GOD Almighty saved him and substituted him for another person.
You can also read the whole section of the early Disciples' writings at:
Now having said that, I have discovered something very very interesting regarding the two Jesuses that existed 2000 years ago, and were about to both be executed together at the same time, except when the Roman Emperor finally gave his pardon to one of them!
Since the New Testament is nothing but a rewrite, and it's authors were all mysterious, and the books and gospels in the NT were written centuries after Jesus of Nazareth, then certainly, the nonsense that we read in the Bible today about Jesus of Nazareth got crucified is not, after all, true especially that the early Christians' Doctrines confirm that Jesus never got crucified, along with the Divine Religion of Islam.
Before we look at Jesus Barabbas, it is important to know that in Greek, Barabbas (Bar Abba) actually means "Son of the Father". And since Jesus of Nazareth was also called "Son of GOD" or "Son of the Father" in the Bible, then it is quite possible and highly probably that GOD Almighty saved Prophet Jesus from crucifixion by letting the Romans crucify Jesus Barabbas (Jesus Bar Abba, which means "Jesus the son of the Father" ) instead of the Jesus of Nazareth!
2- Jesus Barabbas was the one who got crucified!
Son of GOD is not literal:
The New Testament frequently refers to Jesus as the son of God; Jesus seldom does, but often refers to God as his father. Christians universally understand this to mean that Jesus was literally God's son according to the Nicene Creed, God's only begotten son, one with the Father (cf. John 3:16). The phrase itself is thus taken to be synonymous with divinity. The Hebrew Bible, however, uses the phrase "son of God" in other senses: to refer to heavenly or angelic beings; to refer to the Children of Israel, and to refer to kings. There is no New Testament evidence to suggest that early Christians thought of Jesus as an angel, so the first two usages seem not to apply.
However, Mark identifies Jesus as the son of King David, and Matthew and Luke provide lineages linking Jesus to King David. II Samuel 7: 14, Psalms 2: 7 and 89: 2627, refer to David as the son of God, although historians find no evidence that the authors of the Bible believed David to be divine or literally God's son. (Many Christians interpret these and other Psalms as referring prophetically to Jesus, the "seed" referred to in Psalm 89. See Christ in the Psalms by Father Patrick Reardon.)
In post-Biblical Judaism, the title was often applied to righteous men: Ecclesiasticus 4: 10 and the Wisdom of Solomon 2: 1718 use the term to refer to just men, and Jubilees 1: 2425 has God declaring all righteous men to be his sons. Philo too wrote that good people are sons of God, and various rabbis in the Talmud declare that when Israelites are good, they are sons of God. The Talmud provides one example that parallels that of Jesus: Rabbi Hanina, whom God referred to as "my son", was also a miracle worker, and was able to resist Agrat, queen of the demons. Some scholars thus suggest that "son of God" was a title used in the Galilee by miracle-workers. Other scholars have suggested that the identification of "son of God" with divinity is pagan in origin; the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt referred to themselves as sons of Zeus or of Helios; Roman emperors used the title divi filius, or son of God. They suggest that the belief that Jesus was in fact the "son of God", and the association of his divine paternity with his being "messiah", were added after Christianity broke with Judaism.
Jesus was somewhat unusual among rabbis in referring to God as "father". In Aramaic, "son of the father" would be "bar-Abbâ". This title has led to some non-traditional interpretations of the story of Barabbas.
(Emphasis below are mine)
In the Christian story of the passion of Jesus , Barabbas, actually Jesus bar-Abbas, (Aramaic Bar-abbâ, "son of the father"), was the insurrectionary murderer whom Pontius Pilate freed at the Passover feast in Jerusalem. The "crowd" (ochlos) which becomes "the Jews" in translation were offered a choice of whether to have Barabbas or Christ released from Roman custody, according to the closely parallel canonic gospels of Matthew (27:16), Mark (15:7), Luke (23:18 - 19), and the more divergent accounts in John (18:40) and the formerly lost gospel of Peter
Barabbas himself was most likely a member of the sicarii, a militant Jewish movement that sought to overthrow the Roman occupiers of their land by force, for Mark (15:7) mentions that he had committed murder in an insurrection. The penalty for his crime was death by crucifixion, but according to the Gospels there was a prevailing custom in Jerusalem that allowed Pilate, the praefectus or governor of Judaea, to commute one prisoner's death sentence by popular acclaim. The crowd ("the multitude") chose Jesus Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified.
The story of Barabbas has special social significances, partly because it has frequently been used to lay the blame for the Crucifixion on the Jews and justify anti-Semitism. Equally, the social significance of the story to early hearers was that it shifted blame away from the Roman imperium, removing an impediment to Christianity's eventual official acceptance.
According to the United Bible Societies' text, Matthew 27:17 reads: "...whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas [Greek: Iesous ton Barabbas] or Jesus which is called Christ [Greek: Iesous ton legomenon Christon]?"
Some early Greek manuscripts of Matthew present Barabbas' name twice as Jesus bar Abbas: manuscripts in the Sinaitic Palimpsest, the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries and some of the manuscripts used by Origen in the 3rd century, all support the fact that Barabbas' name was originally Jesus Barabbas, though not all modern New Testament translations reflect this. Origen deliberately rejected the reading in the manuscript he was working with, and left out "Iesous" deliberately, for reverential considerations, certainly a strongly motivated omission. Early editors did not want the name Jesus associated with anyone who was a sinner. Mark's parallels between the two men, each a "Jesus, son of the Father," constructing a parable, may also have been considered overplayed (see below)., the
The alternative possibility, that "Jesus" was unintentionally inserted twice before Barabbas' name, in verses 16 and 17, is unlikely, especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse (thus, dittography is ruled out). Further, the addition of "called the Christ" to Jesus' name (Iesous ton legomenon Christon) in verse 17 makes better sense if Barabbas is also called "Jesus" (Iesous ton Barabbas). Otherwise, a mere "Jesus" would have been sufficient to distinguish the two.
There is no evidence independent of Mark that it was ever the custom at feasts for the Romans to release a prisoner requested by the Jews, or any other subject people. No other such release is recorded, even as a passing mention, nor does such a Passover custom appear in the Old Testament. Conversely, Pontius Pilate's historic disregard for Jewish sensibilities and Jewish custom is well documented. From an imperial perspective, such a practice would make no sense, and releasing a prisoner accused of murdering soldiers would certainly undercut morale.
Jesus was somewhat unusual among rabbis in referring to God as "father". In the gospels, Jesus refers to himself as "son of God" several times, and thus "bar-Abbâ" could actually be a reference to Jesus himself as "son of the father". "Bar-Abbâ" could also be a polite way to refer to a boy whose father's name was not known, though no contemporary usage of this kind has been identified.
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, the theory goes, part of the tendency to shift the blame for the Crucifixion towards the Jews and away from the Romans.
Benjamin Urrutia, co-author with Guy Davenport of The Logia of Yeshua (the Sayings of Jesus) agrees completely 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.")
A less purposely anti-Semitic 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 (somewhat unusually for that era) referred to 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.
Further interpretations 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 and at least one sword turns up in the hands of Peter (named only in John) in the Garden of Gethsemane. Pilate would be reprimanded for releasing even a peaceful man who had others calling anyone but Caesar the "king of the Jews", no less one whose methods appeared to include violence.
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. This may account for the myth that a historical person, Jesus, actually lived. Of course, in the Hebrew Bible and in Judaism in general, human sacrifice is strongly condemned, so Drew's theory would seem to require at least some further explanation., a German
This "practice" of releasing a prisoner is said by some analysts 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.
A critical analysis of possibly fictive elements in Mark's series of ironic parallels, and a comparison with Homer's contest between the beggars for the approval of the suitors in the Odyssey, is laid out in detail in Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Jesus_and_Barabbas.html).
As we clearly see above, and in the light of the early Disciples' writings above, it is quite possible that Jesus Barabbas (Jesus the son of the Father) was the one who got crucified by the Romans in the place Jesus of Nazareth, since:
1- Jesus Barabbas was anti-Romans and wanted to free the Jews from the Romans.
2- The Emperor pardoned one of the Jesuses from execution/crucifixion, which perfectly seems to suggest that the Jesus of Nazareth was the one who was pardoned/released.
3- The Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of John, the great Seth, and the Noble Quran all claim that a 'substitute' was put in the place of Jesus of Nazareth for execution.
There is no question to me that Jesus of Nazareth never got crucified on the cross! Again, please visit the main section of the early Disciples' writings for further proofs and details:
Embrace Islam, the Divine Religion and Truth of GOD Almighty, and you will be saved!
The lie of crucifixion according to several Disciples' writings.
The Bible's authors are mysterious and unknown.
Several of the early Disciples' writings declare that Jesus NEVER GOT CRUCIFIED!
Isaiah 53, Psalm 91, 116 disprove Crucifixion:
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.