No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Who is called Bar Abbas?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
In the Journal of Biblical Literature LXIV H. A. Rigg carefully developed the remarkable theory that Jesus of Nazareth was known to his contemporaries as Jesus bar Abba and that crowds of people called for his release at the time of his trial.1 Twenty-five years later, in New Testament Studies XVI (1970), H. Z. Maccoby independently arrived at a virtually identical conclusion.2 Both men based their arguments on the fact that the tradition of the privilegium paschale is unlikely to have had any historical foundation.3 Rigg, further, makes a case that the reading ‘Jesus who is called Barabbas’, found in some early texts of Matthew, is authentic.4 The intention of this short study is not to rehearse their arguments—and both men adduce more than mentioned above—but to show that there is even more evidence in support of their theory than their articles presented and that their theory is worthy of very serious consideration.
Information
- Type
- Short Studies
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981
References
1 Rigg, H. A. Jr, ‘Barabbas’, J.B.L. 64 (1945), 417–56.Google Scholar
2 Maccoby, H. Z., ‘Jesus and Barabbas’, N. T.S. 16 (1970), 55–60Google Scholar; and cf. Sloyan, Gerard, Jesus on Trial (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1973), p. 68Google Scholar, who writes that the name Barabbas ‘could have been a legendary feature from the beginning (rooted in the Christian claim that Jesus was Son of the Father?)’. Townsend, J. T. in A Liturgical Interpretation of Our Lord's Passion in Narrative Form (National Conference of Christians and Jews, New York, 1977), p. 28 n. 85Google Scholar, writes that Rigg and Maccoby ‘go too far in suggesting that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas were the same person’, but Townsend responds to none of their arguments. Donald Senior, in The Passion Narrative according to Matthew, – A Redactional Study, BETL 38 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1975), p. 238 n. 3Google Scholar, replies without specific argumentation to Maccoby (although not to Rigg) and writes that ‘such a hypothesis has no evidence to support it and subverts the obvious message of the gospel texts’. Senior is content to set aside the problem that ‘the historical evidence for this custom [the privilegium paschale] is rather minimal]’ because ‘this historical question is not of immediate concern for Matthew's narrative since his source is obviously Mark's account’ (ibid. p.235 n. 2).
3 Winter, P. in On the Trial of Jesus (de Gruyter, Berlin, 1961), p. 94Google Scholar writes that ‘the privilegium paschtzle is nothing but a figment of the imagination. No such custom existed’. Brandon, S. G. F. in Jesus and the Zealots (Scribner's, New York, 1967), p. 4Google Scholar concurs, writing that ‘it is suspect both on the ground of the intrinsic improbability of such a custom existing in so unruly a province as Judaea and because there is no other evidence for it’; and cf. Cohn, Haim, The Trial and Death of Jesus (Harper and Row, New York, 1967), p. 166Google Scholar, who states flatly, ‘the fact is that there was no such custom’.
4 Rigg, op. cit. pp. 428–32. This reading is adopted by the editors of the New English Bible and Today's English Version among others.
5 Perrin, Norman, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (Harper and Row, New York, 1976), p. 41Google Scholar, and cf. Jeremias, Joachim, Abba (Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1966), pp. 15–67.Google Scholar
6 Perrin, idem.
7 Zeitlin, Solomon, Studies in the Early History of Judaism Vol. 2 (KTAV, New York, 1974), p. 251.Google Scholar
8 But cf. Spicq, C., ‘Une allusion au Docteur de Justice dans Matthieu, XXIII, 10?’, Revue Biblique 66 (1959), 387–96.Google Scholar He finds καθηγητής to represent the Hebrew môreh and suspects that the saying reflects antagonism between Jesus and the Qumran teacher of righteousness. Townsend, J. T., ‘Matthew XXIII 9’, J. T.S. 12 (1961), 56–9Google Scholar, is of the opinion that the word πατήρ should be understood to refer to the ‘fathers’ Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that the intent of the saying is that Jesus' followers should not pride themselves on their Abrahamic descent.
9 Mark 12. 13–17 defends Jesus against the charge that he urged non-payment of Roman taxes; Mark 12. 35–7 defends Mark's prophetic-Messianic Jesus from the charge that he claimed the kingship title ‘Son of David’.
10 Cf. Koester, Helmut, Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 212–13Google Scholar, who argues that Jesus did not proclaim himself Messiah, or Son of God, or Son of Man or Lord.
- 4
- Cited by