Or he was left up on the cross till he rotted. That was part of the Roman punishment, not receiving a proper burial. Also Jesus was poor and from Bethlehem why would there be a tomb for him in Jerusalem? Only the upper class elite had tombs.
Possibly, although there is no other historical document that mentions this. Just a quick check on wiki and it says Luke's earliest manuscripts did not have these verses. Matthew copied from Mark so that also reduces the sources.
Oh sure but the issue is why some Christians believe as they do, which will be due to what the gospels say, rather than what historical scholarship thinks likely. I have read that some of the evangelists, especially St. John, seemed keen to play down Roman culpability, possibly for political reasons.
That is what I am interested in, well two things actually. What did the original texts say, textual criticism and what actually happened? Who was Jesus? Those are interesting subjects and from what I have read there is consensus on some issues but debate on others.
Some particular Jewish leaders were at odds with Jesus, which could have caused some political turmoil had the Romans not got involved. Romans carried out the penalties by these Jewish leaders decree or rather due to them being at odds with Jesus. Barbara's was a robber? I thought he was more of a murderous type. Go figure.
Matthew 27:16 - "At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas." Mark 15:7 - "And there was one named Barabbas, who was chained with his fellow rebels; they had committed murder in the rebellion." Luke 23:19 - "[Barabbas] - who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder." John 18:40 - "Then they all cried again, saying, 'Not this Man, but Barabbas!' Now Barabbas was a robber." Taken from the NKJV.
Interesting. (Presume "Jesus Barabbas" is a typo on your part?) My Jerusalem bible hasMatthew much the same as yours but Mark saying: " Now a man called Barabbas was then in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the uprising." And Luke: " This man had been thrown into prison because of a riot in the city and murder". So yes maybe a murderer then. (I know John best as I have sung itPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.)
Romans wanted obedience as opposed to unrest but the idea that they would take the lead from the Jewish religious hierarchy on matters of law/rule is probably a stretch. This was the Roman empire after all and Jerusalem was under their yoke. Jesus causing unrest in the temple may have caught the attention of the Romans but the charge was treason. A claim to the the throne of Palestine and possible potential for insurrection. I will look into the Barabbas story a little more and feedback but it is clear some of the texts had a clear anti Jewish message putting blame on the Jews rather than Pontius Pilate / Romans for the fate and execution of Jesus, so choosing the guilty criminal over him is way of promoting that. "May his blood be on us and our children." I cannot see a first century superstitious, baying mob saying that after getting the result they wanted myself but that is just my personal view. Barabbas could be a complete invention, I will feedback.
Nope. In some manuscripts he is indeed referred to as Jesus Barabbas. Some versions of the Bible, at least online, still refer to him thusly. It's been a matter of some debate, though, especially early on, with one early Church Father believing it was an error since no sinner would ever be called Jesus. But there's certainly argument for it being the guy's genuine first name, and it should be beyond contention that Jesus was not a unique name to the religious figure. It also makes some dramatic sense in context: Pilate was asking the crowd who he should release: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ? i.e. some dramatic reason why Barabbas was the alternative. But this was all c.2,000 years ago, so things may be lost in translation! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Or he might not of been crucified at all, it could of been another Jesus, and JC could of survived the torment! What to believe eh? I just read the book.
I would think it was a political move on Romes part. Jewish upheaval has a way of stirring things up more than just a little bit. Jesus had been accused of being the king of the Jews. Add that to the temple incident, the strong words and criticism against some of the leaders, and the disobedience to the standing laws and customs, and Jesus became the major antagonist in their midst. People were following him too. I'm sure it threatened them enough to take action. That area has a long history of conflict between various cultures.
Sure, Jesus is just a variant of Joshua, Yeshua, 'Issa, etc. But I did not know some translations give that as part of his name. Something else I have learnt.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! By the way, is "thusly" a word? Sounds awful to my ears. How does it differ from "thus"?
It is indeed a word. It means exactly the same as "thus", and is thus (see what I did there!) superflous in most people's view, as the -ly adds nothing to what is already an adverb. To many, such as your good self, it does sound awful, but not to me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When I use it, which isn't often at all, it tends to be in place of "as such" (i.e. when referring to something already explained), especially when ending a sentence with it. I.e. I could have said, and probably more often do say, "Some versions of the Bible, at least online, still refer to him as such." I could also have just use "thus" but, to me, there feels like there's then an expectation of stating what that "thus" is. As in "argument, argument, thus conclusion". To me, "thusly" suggests that the detail of the conclusion being referred to has already been stated. That's just the way I use it, at least. But I wouldn't say I use it regularly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I suppose what offends me a bit is that "thus" is already an adverb, so the -ly suffix seems redundant. It is in my OED, but is dispatched in 2 lines as adv. colloq. with a couple of references from the c.19th. In fact the first time I heard "thusly" was a couple of years ago, when my son reported someone at school used it in an essay read out in class - to mild amusement. I think that, all things considered, it's one I can do without, but it's a matter of taste, evidently. Unlike "bigly".Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
