Was Barabbas actually Jesus Christ?

Question

In the early manuscripts of the New Testament, Barabbas (the prisoner freed by Pilate at the people's request) is called Jesus Barabbas [Greek: Iesoun ton Barabban] . Later transcriptions (3rd century) removed his first name to avoid confusion with Jesus Christ (Iesoun ton legomenon Christon). Barabbas (Bar Abba) means "Son of the Father" and some scholars believe this is actually a name that the people used for Christ.
Some of the interpretations have been:
1) Barabbas was a Jewish freedom fighter who used violence instead of peace to fight Roman rule. The people chose him for freedom because he was a warrior hero like David (of Goliath fame).
2) The people were calling for the release of Jesus Son of the Father (Christ) and Pilate ignored or misunderstood them. The wrong person was released.
3) There never was anyone named Barabbas at all. He was just a metaphor created by Paul to shift blame for Christ's death away from Rome. This made his conversion of the Romans easier.

No, I am not asking if Jesus was set free; I am asking if there was a Barabbas.

Yes, I know there were other people with names similar and the same as "Jesus". In fact "Jesus" is actually a variant of his (step) father's name "Joseph". Both the Christ and Barabbas had the same variant of the name (not "Joseph" but "Joe").

Though translation have varied, if you go back to the original text Barabbas' crime was of murdering a Roman soldier during a rebellion by the oppressed Jewish people for freedom.

"Christ" is not a name it is a title. I used it to delineate which Jesus I was talking about.

Answer 1

I would say the first interpretation is the most correct. Barabbas was in prison for robbery, sedition, and murder, and was most likely a rebel against the Romans. But it is interesting that the unique custom of releasing a prisoner on the eve of every Passover finds no basis or precedent in the Hebrew scriptures. But it must have been of jewish origin, because Pilate said to the jews "YOU have the custom that I should release a man..." John 18:39. The second interpretation doesn't seem to fit, because Pilate actually liked Jesus, and didn't really want to have anything to do with killing him. He actually repeated himself to the crowd, saying that "I find no fault in him." He brought Jesus before the crowd. So there couldn't have been a mistake. The third interpretation would suggest that Paul would lie. Reading Paul and about his actions are highly against this interpretation. John's gospel leaves no doubt that he thought that Barabbas was real so it wasn't a metaphor created by Paul.
Great question!

Answer 2

What early manuscripts?

Mat 27:17 Then they, having been assembled, Pilate said to them, Whom do you wish I may release to you, Barabbas, or Jesus being called Christ?

Apparently, Pilate knew they were two different people since he gave them a choice.

Mat 27:20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds, that they should ask for Barabbas, and to destroy Jesus.

Again, two different people.

Mat 27:26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But having flogged Jesus, he delivered Him up that He might be crucified.

See, one freed, the other, not.

The name Barabbas is of Chaldea origin and means son of abba, not God.

Paul never wrote about Barabbas. You have been reading too much Gnostic writings or some other such junk.

Answer 3

There were many men named Jesus back then, so it's difficult to tell which one is which. You do have a good point!

According to the United Bible Societies' text, Matthew 27:17 reads: "...whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ

In the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, there is an idea that Barabbas is the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. According to authors of the book, this explains why the crowd choose Barabbas to stay alive, because such act will save the dynasty.

John 18:40 refers to Barabbas as a lēstēs, "bandit;" Mark and Luke further refer to Barabbas as one involved in a stasis, a riot. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19.

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.

Answer 4

I've heard this but the truth is the Old Testament Isaiah the Prophet testified of Jesus' death. Barabbas was not mistaken for Jesus or vice versa. Just another "what if" story, which are taught to mislead people.

Answer 5

They were two different people.

According to Mark 15: 7

"And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection."

First of all, Barabbas commited murder, Jesus was perfect and committed no sin, so they are two different people

The account of Barabbas was included to show that the people hated Jesus so much that they would rather let a murderer go free than someone who did nothing wrong. That was the extent of their devotion to their pagan religion. The wanted nothing to do with Jesus and Christianity.

Answer 6

. 1Th 2:14 Ye - became followers of the Churches of God - There is not a word here of the Church of Rome being the model after which the other Churches were to be formed; it had no such pre-eminence: this honor belonged to the Churches of Judea; it was according to them, not the Church at Rome, that the Asiatic Churches were modelled. The purest of all the apostolic Churches was that of the Thessalonians, and this was formed after the Christian Churches in Judea. Had any pre-eminence or authority belonged to the Church of Rome, the apostle would have proposed this as a model to all those which he formed either in Judea, Asia Minor, Greece, or Italy. Ye also have suffered - of your own countrymen - It is worthy of remark that, in almost every case, the Jews were the leaders of all persecutions against the apostles and the infant Church. And what they could not do themselves, they instigated others to do; and, by gathering together lewd fellows of the baser sort from among the Gentiles, they made frequent uproars, and especially at Thessalonica, where the opposition to the Gospel was very high, and the persecution of the Christians very hot. 1Th 2:15-16 Who hath killed the Lord Jesus, etc. - What a finished but just character is this of the Jews! 1. They slew the Lord Jesus, through the most unprincipled and fell malice. 2. They killed their own prophets; there was no time in which the seed of the serpent did not hate and oppose spiritual things, they slew even their own prophets who declared to them the will of God. 3. They persecuted the apostles; showing the same spirit of enmity to the Gospel which they had shown to the law. 4. They did not please God, nor seek to please him; though they pretended that their opposition to the Gospel was through their zeal for God’s glory, they were hypocrites of the worst kind. 5. They were contrary to all men; they hated the whole human race, and judged and wished them to perdition. 6. They forbade the apostles to preach to the Gentiles, lest they should be saved; this was an inveteracy of malice completely superhuman; they persecuted the body to death, and the soul to damnation! They were afraid that the Gentiles should get their souls saved if the Gospel was preached to them! 7. They filled up their sins always; they had no mere purposes or outlines of iniquity, all were filled up; every evil purpose was followed, as far as possible, with a wicked act! Is it any wonder, therefore, that wrath should come upon them to the uttermost? It is to be reckoned among the highest mercies of God that the whole nation was not pursued by the Divine justice to utter and final extinction. May God bless you as you study His Word <:)))><

Answer 7

Barabbas was not Jesus Christ. But he started to follow Jesus after the fact.

Answer 8

You're incorrect about the name of Barabbas, his name does not mean son of THE father, it means "a son of a father". It's significant that the article is in the anarthrous position.

By contrast, Jesus is The Son of The Father!

Doctrinally, the people who shouted to release Barabas are choosing a generic son and rejecting the Son of God.

And in answer to your question, no, Barabbas was not Jesus.

Don't listen to those dimwits whose only motivation is the accolades of the "academic community" through getting their little theories published. Stick to the Word of the Living God.
.

Answer 9

Jesus was a popular name back 2000+ years ago. Jesus of Nazareth = Jesus Christ.

The rest did not come to save the world.

Answer 10

No didn't you see the movie starring that great actor Anthony Quin. Made back when actors were required to act. He was released and went to Rome and became a gladiator. It was a great movie. Of course after they released him they went ahead and killed Jesus.