"Matthew" Shows His Barabbas 27:16. Is "Jesus Barabbas" original?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Matthew" Shows His Barabbas 27:16. Is "Jesus Barabbas" original?

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:41 pm

JW:
What a nightmare!

27
16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
First the Manuscript support for "Jesus Barabbas":

laparola
Sv.r. Θ f1 241** 299** 700* pc pcv.r. syrs syrpal(mss) arm geo2 Origen mssaccording to Peter-Laodicea (NA [Ἰησοῦν])
  • Sv.r. = 949 Byzantine

    Θ = Codex Koridethi 9th C

    Codex_Koridethi
    The text of the Matthew ch. 14-28 is Alexandrian.
    The Alexandrian text type here makes "Jesus Barabbas" a serious candidate all by itself.

    f1 = Family 1 12th to 15th C. Newer but older text type (Caesarean)

    241** = 11th C Alexandrian

    299** = 10th C Byzantine

    700* = 11th C Caesarean

    syrs = Synaitic Syriac 4th C Western. Another important witness

    syrpal(mss) = Palestinian Syriac 6th C Caesarean

    arm = Armenian 5th V Caesarean

    geo2 = Georgian 5th C Caesarean
As we have seen many times on this unholy Forum, under Skeptical Textual Criticism, The Difficult Reading Principle is the most important criterion by far. The winning candidate can have an extreme inverse relationship between the Degree of difficulty and amount of Manuscript support.

What "Matthew" (author) wrote here is primarily important as evidence regarding what "Mark" (author) originally wrote as "Mark", as far as we know, is the original Gospel narrative while "Matthew" used GMark as a base.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10062
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "Matthew" Shows His Barabbas 27:16. Is "Jesus Barabbas" original?

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:30 pm

The Diatessaron too it seems or some widely read 'harmony' https://books.google.com/books?id=UIRxB ... on&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Name Of The Ruse

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:02 am

JW:
I always thought that in the classic The Name of the Rose instead of searching for Aristotle's lost book of Poetics they should have been looking for Origen's lost Commentary on GMark.

And now the Patristic evidence for "Jesus Barabbas":

TVU 378
136. Difficult variant:
Minority reading:
NA28 Matthew 27:16

Scholion, possibly from Origen:
(This scholion appears in S/028 and some minuscule manuscripts, compare
Swanson for the full quotation)
...[Greek]
"But in many old copies I have encountered, I found also Barabbas himself called Jesus. For
thus the question of Pilate reads there, "Which of the two do you want me to release for
you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?""
Metzger writes: "This scholium, which is usually assigned in the manuscripts
either to Anastasius bishop of Antioch (perhaps latter part of the 6th CE) or to
Chrysostom, is in one manuscript attributetd to Origen, who may indeed be its
ultimate source."
Proper Textual Criticism then would note that there are scholions (marginal notes in Manuscripts) attributing Text Critical comments to:
  • Anastasius
    Chrysostom
    Origen
indicating that many older Manuscripts had "Jesus Barabbas". These comments are exponentially weightier evidence than the reading in the individual Manuscript they appear in. This is primary. The secondary question is to what extent are the comments dependent and/or duplicates. You can see here in (the inferior) EvangelicalTextual Criticism the desire to weigh the above as something less than evidence from Origen Matthew 27:16,17 Was Barabbas Called ‘Jesus Barabbas’? while Skeptical Textual Criticism would weigh it as something more.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Contra Celsum 1:2. Definite Article Before "Barabbas

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:14 am

JW:
There is more evidence from Origen that Manuscripts of his time read "Jesus Barabbas":

Origen. Contra Celsus
BOOK I.

"Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?" and from what the Scripture adds,
The Greek definite article is before Barabbas indicating that Barabbas and Christ are members of a group that share a common characteristic, here, both are named Jesus. "Barabbas" distinguishes from "Christ".


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Jesus Barabbas" In The Syriac Tradition

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:22 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:30 pm
The Diatessaron too it seems or some widely read 'harmony' https://books.google.com/books?id=UIRxB ... on&f=false
JW:
There does not appear to be any direct evidence that "Jesus Barabbas" was in the Diatessaron. It is in the Synaitic and Israeli Syriac and is quoted by a number of Syriac fathers long after. As we will see when we look at the External evidence of GMark and the Internal evidence of GMatthew, even without "Jesus Barabbas" being explicit, there is a good implication that the explicit "Barabbas" referred to a "Jesus Barabbas". So a Syriac Patristic could have thought 27:16 referred to a "Jesus Barabbas" because:
  • 1) They thought "Jesus Barabbas" likely original (especially since their Syriac tradition supported this much better than the Greek).

    2) They thought there was a mixed textual tradition of "Jesus Barabbas" and "Jesus" and the implication from the text with either one was a "Jesus Barabbas" was referred to.

    3) They thought "Jesus" was likely original but the implication from the text was a "Jesus Barabbas" was referred to.

Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Matthew 27:17 External Evidence

Post by JoeWallack » Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:42 am

JW:
27
16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17 When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?
Laparola
Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν][Jesus the Barabbas] Sv.r. (Θ 700* pc omit τὸν) f1 22 241** 299** pcv.r. syrs syrpal(mss) arm geo2 Origenlat mssaccording to Origen(gr) (NA [Ἰησοῦν τὸν])

τὸν Βαραββᾶν][the Barabbas] B 1010 pc Origen mssaccording to Origen(lat) (WH [τὸν] Βαραββᾶν)
Note that the External evidence for "Jesus Barabbas" in 17 is very similar to the External evidence for "Jesus Barabbas" in 16. A bonus here for "Jesus Barabbas" in 17 is that included in the implication evidence for "Jesus Barabbas", a definite article "the" before "Barabbas" indicating need for distinguishing in a common group (such as a group of Jesuses), is Vaticanus, a very brave and influential witness.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10062
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "Matthew" Shows His Barabbas 27:16. Is "Jesus Barabbas" original?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:48 pm

But there is little direct evidence for the vast majority of passages in the ur-gospel harmony.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:58 am

JW:
Internal Evidence:

With "Jesus Barabbas":

27
16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas.

17 When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?
Note that the structure of the verses is complete with "Jesus Barabbas". Pilate has two candidates for release, both named Jesus. So he needs to distinguish between the two choices with their additional names or titles, Jesus whose full name is Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ.

Combined with The Difficult Reading Principle, as the Brits say, this Internal evidence is the cruncher.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Jesus Barabbas Vonones 1

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:11 pm

I hate quoting long passages but here is one:

Josephus 18, 2, 4:

"About this time died Phraates, king of the Parthians, by the treachery of Phraataces his son, upon the occasion following: When Phraates had had legitimate sons of his own, he had also an Italian maid-servant, whose name was Thermusa, who had been formerly sent to him by Julius Caesar, among other presents. He first made her his concubine; but he being a great admirer of her beauty, in process of time having a son by her, whose name was Phraataces, he made her his legitimate wife, and had a great respect for her. Now she was able to persuade him to do any thing that she said, and was earnest in procuring the government of Parthia for her son; but still she saw that her endeavors would not succeed, unless she could contrive how to remove Phraates's legitimate sons [out of the kingdom;] so she persuaded him to send those his sons as pledges of his fidelity to Rome; and they were sent to Rome accordingly, because it was not easy for him to contradict her commands. Now while Phraataces was alone brought up in order to succeed in the government, he thought it very tedious to expect that government by his father's donation [as his successor]; he therefore formed a treacherous design against his father, by his mother's assistance, with whom, as the report went, he had criminal conversation also. So he was hated for both these vices, while his subjects esteemed this [wicked] love of his mother to be no way inferior to his parricide; and he was by them, in a sedition, expelled out of the country before he grew too great, and died. But as the best sort of Parthians agreed together that it was impossible they should be governed without a king, while also it was their constant practice to choose one of the family of Arsaces, [nor did their law allow of any others; and they thought this kingdom had been sufficiently injured already by the marriage with an Italian concubine, and by her issue,] they sent ambassadors, and called Orodes [to take the crown]; for the multitude would not otherwise have borne them; and though he was accused of very great cruelty, and was of an untractable temper, and prone to wrath, yet still he was one of the family of Arsaces. However, they made a conspiracy against him, and slew him, and that, as some say, at a festival, and among their sacrifices; (for it is the universal custom there to carry their swords with them;) but, as the more general report is, they slew him when they had drawn him out a hunting. So they sent ambassadors to Rome, and desired they would send one of those that were there as pledges to be their king. Accordingly, Vonones was preferred before the rest, and sent to them (for he seemed capable of such great fortune, which two of the greatest kingdoms under the sun now offered him, his own and a foreign one). However, the barbarians soon changed their minds, they being naturally of a mutable disposition, upon the supposal that this man was not worthy to be their governor; for they could not think of obeying the commands of one that had been a slave, (for so they called those that had been hostages,) nor could they bear the ignominy of that name; and this was the more intolerable, because then the Parthians must have such a king set over them, not by right of war, but in time of peace. So they presently invited Artabanus, king of Media, to be their king, he being also of the race of Arsaces. Artabanus complied with the offer that was made him, and came to them with an army. So Vonones met him; and at first the multitude of the Parthians stood on this side, and he put his army in array; but Artabanus was beaten, and fled to the mountains of Media. Yet did he a little after gather a great army together, and fought with Vonones, and beat him; whereupon Vonones fled away on horseback, with a few of his attendants about him, to Seleucia [upon Tigris]. So when Artabanus had slain a great number, and this after he had gotten the victory by reason of the very great dismay the barbarians were in, he retired to Ctesiphon with a great number of his people; and so he now reigned over the Parthians. But Vonones fled away to Armenia; and as soon as he came thither, he had an inclination to have the government of the country given him, and sent ambassadors to Rome [for that purpose]. But because Tiberius refused it him, and because he wanted courage, and because the Parthian king threatened him, and sent ambassadors to him to denounce war against him if he proceeded, and because he had no way to take to regain any other kingdom, (for the people of authority among the Armenians about Niphates joined themselves to Artabanus,) he delivered up himself to Silanus, the president of Syria, who, out of regard to his education at Rome, kept him in Syria, while Artabanus gave Armenia to Orodes, one of his own sons..."

So, do you want the "savior" or the "savior, son of the father"?

This appears to be another rewrite. Other Roman Historians wrote of this as well. There is more Palace Intrigue with this.

Ethan
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England

Re: "Matthew" Shows His Barabbas 27:16. Is "Jesus Barabbas" original?

Post by Ethan » Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:18 am

There is one other writer that uses both " Bar " and "Son of" , Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews — Book XI , 6:4.
4. Some time after this [two eunuchs] Bigthan and Teresh plotted against the King; and Barnabazus, the servant of one of the eunuchs, being by birth a Jew, was acquainted with their conspiracy, and discovered it to the Queen’s uncle. And Mordecai, by the means of Esther, made the conspirators known to the King. This troubled the King: but he discovered the truth, and hanged the eunuchs upon a cross ?. While at that time he gave no reward to Mordecai, who had been the occasion of his preservation. He only bid the scribes to set down his name in the records; and bid him stay in the palace, as an intimate friend of the King’s.

βαρναβαζος [ Barnabazos ]
Βαρναβᾶς [ Barnabas]
Βαραββᾶς [ Barabbas]

I suspect Barabbas to be another way of writing Barnabas / Barnabazos because most often the M or N , this can be seen comparing Septuagint & Masoretic words or sometimes, B and /M-N also interchange.

One problem with Ant XI 6:4, this is a commentary of Esther and Barnabazos is not mentioned in the Book of Esther

Esther 2:21
In those days, while Mordecai sat in the king's gate, two of the king's chamberlains, Bigthan and Teresh, of those which kept the door, were wroth, and sought to lay hand on the king Ahasuerus, And the thing was known to Mordecai, who told it unto Esther the queen; and Esther certified the king thereof in Mordecai's name, And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both hanged on a tree: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king..

The prefix -ναβαζος -ναβᾶς -αββᾶς , possibly from נְבִזְבָּה nĕbizbah (Aramaic) " Reward " , apparently a Persian loan-word , ni-bag-vâ
cognate with νόμισμα ( Nomisma) , Νέμεσις (Nemesis) "to give what is due" and νόμος ( Nomos ) , these words is similar too Νεεμιας ( Neemias) " Nehemiah " (נְחֶמְיָה) from Nacham (נָחַם) that the Septuagint translates παράκλησις [ Paraklesis] , Acts 4:36 ' Barnabas - interpreted as son of consolation" (בן־נְחֶמְיָה ) ' Son of Nehemiah ' or παρά-נְחֶמְ

It is thus suspect that Barabbas derives from παράνομος [ Paranomos ] "lawless, violent".

παράνομος > πρνμς > ברבבש > Βαραββᾶς
https://vivliothikiagiasmatos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/joseph-yahuda-hebrew-is-greek.pdf
paypal.me/Napples

Post Reply