[lbo-talk] BarAbbas...

[C. G. Estabrook]

I wouldn't place complete faith in Maccoby's speculations.  There is
certainly no "clear evidence that Judas did nothing except what Jesus had
charged him to do, and that the 'Barabbas' whose release was demanded by
the Jews was Jesus himself." These are presumably interesting literary
speculations, as in, e.g., Nikos Kazantzakis' novel or D. H. Lawrence's
short story. And I'm not quite sure who the Pauline compilers are supposed
to be, but the burden of the real Pauline material -- it's there to be
read -- is hardly a "blood libel of the Jews as 'deicides.'"  For Paul,
the death of Jesus is literally a cosmic event, and he spends a good deal
of time writing about the *inclusion* of the Jews in the new age that has
brought about (chaps.  9-11, the central part of his major theological
statement, the Letter to Romans), beginning with the suggestion that he
himself would be willing to be lost to that new age if his people (he was
of course a Jew, and a Pharisee) could be included.  --CGE

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Shane Mage wrote:


> Crucial to the "Barabbas" myth is the fact that the name Bar Abbas
> means nothing else but "Son of the Father."  This is also how Jesus
> described himself.  Moreover, a variant teading in one of the Gospels
> refers to "Jesus Barabbas."  The figures of Barabbas and Judas
> Iscariot were used by the Pauline compilers as the mainstays in their
> blood-libel of the Jews as "deicides."  But enough filtered through
> their censorship to give clear evidence that Judas did nothing except
> what Jesus had charged him to do, and that the "Barabbas" whose
> release was demanded by the Jews was Jesus himself (see "Revolution in
> Judea" by Hyam Maccoby, and his articles "BARABBAS" and "JUDAS
> ISCARIOT" in Collier's Encyclopedia).
>