The Identity of Barabbas (Mark 15:7; Matt 27:16; Luke 23:19; John
18:40b)
All the Gospels agree that the Romans had in custody a prisoner named
Barabbas. (The words for “prisoner” and “imprisoned” in Mark 15:6–7 are related
to the verb used for Jesus’ being “bound” [deein]
in 15:1—vocabulary creating an atmosphere in which “release” [apolyein: 15:6, 9, 11, 14] is very
important.) Mark’s periphrastic Greek in 15:7 is somewhat awkward, literally:
“But there was the one called/said to be Barabbas with the rioters imprisoned.”
Gnilka (Markus 2.301) raises the
possibility that if Barabbas means “son of the Father” (see analysis), Mark may
mean “the one socalled Barabbas,” with the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is truly
“the son of the Father.” Pesch (Markus
2.463) has another possibility: The one nominated
(for release) was Barabbas. Probably it is best to interpret Mark simply to
refer to someone called Barabbas. We are not told whether, having been
apprehended, Barabbas had already been tried and even convicted (see the two
different legal situations in Matt 5:25 and 14:3).
There is not perfect uniformity among the Gospels as to why Barabbas
had been apprehended. John simply refers to him as a lēstēs (pp. 686–88 above), one of those violent lawless men, often
bandits, whom Josephus describes in Palestine in the century from Herod the
Great’s reign to the Jewish Revolt. No other Gospel uses that term for him,
although what they describe about him would be consonant with that description.
Mark 15:27 and Matt 27:38, 44 will describe Jesus as crucified between two lēstai (plural of lēstēs); and so the evangelists have the same overall outlook on
the imprisonment of lēstai at the
time of Jesus’ arrest and execution, even if no evangelist explicitly connects
Barabbas who was released with the other two who were crucified. Perhaps Mark
prepares for the latter when he speaks of other rioters imprisoned with
Barabbas (or in the Koine tradition “co-rioters” [systasiastēs]). Both Mark and Luke associate Barabbas’ arrest with
a stasis (“insurrection, disturbance,
riot”). Mark also uses the term stasiastēs
(“rioter”), employed by Josephus (Ant.
14.1.3; #8; War 6.2.8; #157) to
describe a range from a troublemaker to a rebel. Luke specifies that the stasis took place in Jerusalem. The text
does not demand that we think of a widespread revolution (something not
attested in Jesus’ time); a local riot may be all Mark and Luke intend. (See p.
777 above for troubles during feasts.) Mark prefaces stasis with the definite article as if it were a well-known event,
but perhaps only to Christians because traditionally for them it constituted
part of the context of Jesus’ passion. Both Mark and Luke indicate that killing
(phonos, “murder”) had marked the
riot; but neither suggests that Roman soldiers were the victims, as some
scholars suppose in their attempts to make this a major insurrection.
As for Barabbas, although Mark does not specify that he took part in
the riot or did any killing, Mark’s purpose in the scene is to contrast the
release of a guilty rioter and the crucifixion of one innocent of any such
political offense. Luke understood that, for he spells out the involvement of
Barabbas in three passages. In 23:19 he introduces Barabbas “who was someone
thrown into prison because of a certain riot that had taken place in the city
and (because of) killing.” In 23:25 Luke writes that Pilate “released the one
who had been thrown into prison for riot and murder.” In Acts 3:14 he bluntly
calls Barabbas “a man who was a killer.” Probably independently of Mark, John’s
designation of Barabbas as a lēstēs
shows that in the tradition Barabbas was no innocent. (Yet John’s choice of the
designation may reflect more than violence. In 10:1–2 he contrasted Jesus, the
[good] shepherd of the sheep, with all others who were only lēstai. Now “the Jews” prefer a lēstes to Jesus!)
Interestingly, Matt does not repeat Mark’s reference to a riot,
perhaps reflecting a post-Jewish-Revolt sensitivity that the memory of Jesus
should not be associated even indirectly with political disturbance. But Matt
does describe Barabbas as “notorious” or “notable” (episēmos). The fact that the name of Barabbas was preserved in the
tradition while the names of the crucified lēstai
were not could easily have led to the conclusion that he was the most famous of
the troublemakers at the time of Jesus’ death and indeed the ringleader. In the
rewriting of the Gospel story by Bajsić and Soltero whereby Pilate is primarily
interested in executing Barabbas, the fact that Matt calls him “notorious”
becomes important evidence.
“Barabbas” is a patronymic, i.e., a father’s name used to make a
distinction among men who bear the same personal names. For instance among the
many men named Jesus in 1st-cent.-ad Palestine (Josephus mentions about a
dozen), the one of most interest to us would be distinguished as Jesus of/from
Nazareth; and if there were several men named Jesus at Nazareth, he would be
further identified as Jesus Bariōsēph
(“son of Joseph”: John 1:45; 6:42). Not infrequently only the patronymic is
used in a description, e.g., an 8th-cent.-bc Bar-Rekub inscription, and the NT
Bartholomew and Bartimaeus. More usual is the combination of a personal name
with the patronymic: Simon Barjona (Matt 16:17); Joseph Barnabas (Acts 4:36);
John and James, sons of Zebedee (Mark 1:19).
What was Barabbas’ personal name? Lesser textual witnesses to Matt
read in v. 16, in v. 17, or in both, “Jesus
Barabbas.” Is the name Jesus the original reading in either Matthean verse?
Those who answer no (formerly the majority) point to the tendency of later
generations to supply names for those left nameless by the NT (see pp. 804,
969, 1148 below). Moreover, the neat pattern in v. 17, “Jesus Barabbas or Jesus
who is called Messiah,” could reflect a copyist’s dramatic touch to heighten
the parallelism of the two figures whom Pilate faced. Those who answer yes
point out that over against Mark, names are sometimes added or changed in Matt
(9:9: “Matthew”; 26:3, 57: “Caiaphas”).
Yet if the name Jesus did appear in the original text of Matt, why
would later scribes have omitted it so that it is absent from many important
mss.? At least in the case of v. 17 haplography has been proposed (Streeter,
Metzger): namely, the omission of īn
(abbreviation of lēsoun, “Jesus”)
following the last syllable of hymin.
More common is the suggestion that theological judgment caused deliberate
excision. Ca. ad 250, and thus before all preserved Greek copies of Matthew,
Origen (In Matt. 27:16–18, #121; GCS
38.255–56) argued defensively, “In many copies it is not stated that Barabbas was also called Jesus.” He insisted that
it is not proper that the name of Jesus be given to an iniquitous person; and
since no sinner is ever given the name Jesus elsewhere in the Scriptures,
Origen thought the name might have been added to the Matthean text by heretics.
Origen’s authority and attitude make it unlikely that Christian scribes of
later centuries would have added “Jesus” to Barabbas’ name in Matthean mss.
that lacked it. Indeed they would have been encouraged to delete it as an
impiety where it already appeared. Yet probably most scholars now argue for the
originality of the “Jesus Barabbas” reading in Matt, and indeed many go beyond
the textual issue to assert that this represents historical tradition lacking
in Mark.
What does “Barabbas” mean? One explanation has it reflect Bar-Rabban
(a reading reflected in the “rr” spelling found in some mss.). “Rabban” was an
honorific title for an eminent teacher or head of the Sanhedrin, built upon
“rabbi.” The medieval Epistle of Sherira
Gaon claimed that the first person to bear the title “rabban” was Gamaliel
at the end of the 1st cent. ad; more frequently, however, it was applied to
Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi a century later. In this same vein some have taken
“Barabbas” to mean “son of the [eminent] teacher,” or even simply “teacher” (on
the analogy that “son of man” means “man”). A further variant is the suggestion
that in the 2d cent. bĕrabbî meant
“attached to the rabbi.” In a 10th-cent. uncial ms. of the NT (S) and in about
twenty minuscule mss. there appears a marginal comment: “In many ancient copies
I have dealt with, I found that Barabbas himself was likewise called Jesus …
apparently the paternal name of the robber was ‘Barabbas’ which is interpreted
‘son of a/the teacher.’ ” Overall, the rabban/teacher interpretation of
“Barabbas” is not truly probable because of lack of proof that this title was
in use in the early 1st cent., because the best attested orthography has one
“r,” and also because one would expect a patronymic to contain a personal name
and “rabban” is not such a name.
A more plausible interpretation relates “Barabbas” to “Bar-Abba” (“son
of [a person named] Abba”). “Abba” appears as a personal name with frequency in
the Gemara section of the Talmud (ca. ad 200–400). In TalBab Berakoth 18B we find: “ ‘I am
looking for Abba.’ They said to him, ‘There are many Abbas here.’ He said, ‘I
want Abba bar Abba.’ They said, ‘There are several Abbas bar Abba here.’ He
then said to them, ‘I want Abba bar Abba, the father of Samuel.’ ” In the
same TalBab the only example of “bar Abba” as a personal name applied to a
figure of the Tannaitic period before ad 200 is Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba (Berakoth 48A, B). Yet “Abba” has now
appeared as a name in a pre-70-ad burial at Givʿat ha-Mivtar (E. S. Rosenthal,
IEJ 23 [1973], 72–81). Of course, Aramaic ʾabbāʾ
means “father,” as NT authors were aware because of the usage associated with
Jesus (see Mark 14:36). Accordingly some scholars think “Barabbas” did not
contain a proper name but meant “son of the father.” (Raymond E.
Brown, The Death of the Messiah–From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary
on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vols. [The Anchor Yale
Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994], 1:796-800)