I recently heard a Messianic rabbi, rabbi Baruch, teaching about the trial of Jesus. He pointed out something that I had not heard before, based on the Greek text of Matthew 27:17. In that text the Bible refers to Barabbas as 'Jesus the son of Abbas' when Pilate asks the crowd whom he should release to them, Jesus the son of Abbas or Jesus the one called Christ? In transliterated form, it reads as 'Iesoun ton Barabban e Iesoun ton legomenon Christon?' 'Iesoun' is the Greek for 'Jesus'. The rabbi went on to explain that this is in many manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, not all, but enough to seem to be authentic, at least in his view. Here is a link to a site that shows the Greek and English side by side:
http://interlinearbible.org/matthew/27-17.htm
It is quite interesting to me that this man was also named Jesus. The rabbi had a hypothesis on how this may have come about. Pilate's wife had warned him not to do anything bad to Christ because of a dream she had about Him; Pilate knew of the tradition of releasing to the Israelites a prisoner at Passover in honor of the redemption that is celebrated by Passover. Could he have intentionally chosen one with the same name so that if they called out just his name then Pilate could release either one? An interesting hypothesis!
We cannot know what Pilate's thinking may have been, though he declared that he found no fault in Christ. He certainly could have been looking for a way to release Him without appearing weak. But the response from the crowd made it clear which Jesus they wanted: the son of Abbas (Barabbas). Pilate lacked the strength of character to release the innocent one, bowing to the crowd pressure.
The passage raises another question in my mind, though. The crowd chose the Jesus that served their desires rather than the Jesus who is to be served by us. Which Jesus do we choose? The one we can use for our own purposes, or the One who created us to serve Him? As Easter approaches that is the question this passage raises to me about us and our culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What is also interesting is that "Barabbas" is not only "the son of Abbas," but further "the son of the father." So we have Jesus the Christ paired up with Jesus the son of the father...that's pretty tricky.
"We cannot know what Pilate's thinking may have been..." However, you readily accept & acquiesce to the Greek intended & directed Gospel according or attributed to Matthew rather than the actual people & events involved therein, -not even to mention and/or distinguish when the Gospel was written. (Although place first in order, it was written later... indeed, it could not have been written until either after Saul of Tarsus' epiphany, -around 40-45 c. e. or later. There is no consensus among 'scholars' as to who wrote what, when.
That being said, the very word 'Christ' (a Greek invented appellation, -without etymology in the Greek language) certainly did not appear until the above time-frame, -therefore, how could Pontius Pilate refer to 'Jesus' as 'Christ'? (Indeed, this question applies to each & every Gospel author.)
"Could he (Pilate) have intentionally chosen one with the same name so that if they called out just his name then Pilate could release either one? An interesting hypothesis!"... Really? So why crucify the one in whom Pilate '...found no fault..."?
Neither the secular Jews nor Pilate err'd.
The word 'Christ' was used to translate 'Messiah' in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament which was done before Christ's time, so it would have been known.
All 4 gospels have strong agreement on the trial and all 4 share common eye-witness sources, so they are quite reliable witnesses of history.
Post a Comment