Talk:Barabbas

Historical biographies

I came upon an interesting theory, perhaps it could be mentioned in passing in this article ( I just don't see where ). There are many contradictions between Matthew's and Luke's stories about birth and childhood of Jesus. According to Matthew, Jesus, grandson of Jacob, was born during the time of Herod ( i.e. before 4 BC ), received gifts from the Magi, his family fled to Egypt to escape the Massacre of the Innocents, and then a few years later moved to Nazareth. According to Luke, Jesus, grandson of Heli, was born during the Quirinius census ( 6 AD ), taken to Jerusalem and then returned home to Nazareth. There's no mention of the Magi, massacre or Egypt. The theory goes that these two passages refer to two different Jesuses, both sufficiently important to Jewish people at the time. Later these two got confused. One of them is Jesus Christ; the other - an insurrectioner who planned to overthrow the Roman government in Judea - is no other than Jesus Barabbas. Let me see if I can pull up some links. --8.4.80.163 01:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) --66.99.3.143

Conflicting details in speculative biographies of historical figures are not usually harmonized by claims that there were multiple persons. --Wetman 00:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unecessary Paragraph

I removed the following text because it contributes nothing new (Barrabas related) to the article.

"It appears inconsistent that the same crowd that demands the freedom of a violently anti-Roman insurrectionist is supposedly the same multitude that cries out, 'We have no king but Caesar!'"

Life of Brian

In the "Art, literature, and media" section, is it relevant enough to mention the "Welease Woger" scene from "Life of Brian"? It clearly relates to the Barabbas story, albeit one step removed in the form of parody. 115.64.107.183 (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Most definitely! Arminden (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Lack of impact

The article does not mention any cultural impact for this fictional character. It mostly consists of in-universe information. If he has not appeared in artwork or literature, he does not seem to be notable. Should this be merged to List of minor New Testament figures? Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I spent some time looking into this, considering three options:

1. Merging into the List of minor New Testament figures

2. Merging into Pilate's court

3. Leaving it alone, comparing it to a similar article as the Penitent thief

Most (but not all) of the figures on the list of minor New Testament figures could pretty much be removed from the places they are written and not much would change. (There is at least once exception to this, Jacob, who after doing this I think should actually have his own article.) However Barabbas' name is prominent in the NT's most central events (the Passion), and there is no way to tell the Passion without including him and his background. He is, literally and figuratively, presented as the alternative to Jesus. So I disagree with merging him into the list of minor figures.

I also considered if it would be appropriate to merge this article into Pilate's court. Barabbas is mentioned in that article briefly. However that article is focused on the textual comparisons of the events of that story and sticking Barabbas in there would be out of place. The Pilate's court article would need to be completely redone to accomodate every other article related to those events before Barabbas could fit in there.

So I think for now Barabbas should remain with his own article. I would make the comparison with the Penitent Thief's article. About both of them there is a lot written and to write. You could ask why the Penitent thief isn't on the list of minor characters either. In the end I think the main organizing principle is that anyone involved in the Passion just isn't a minor figure. 79.45.21.49 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitic idiocy hidden in unsourced edit

Somebody has hidden an unsourced and intrinsically illogical antisemitic "argument" behind 3 sources of which none supports it:

"but most scholars consider that the population of Judea at the time was mostly of Jewish origin."

This tries to stand in opposition to Ratzinger's article, in which the pope places guilt on two groups, the Temple aristocracy and rebellious supporters of Barabbas.

1. It is UNSOURCED. Placing it behind 3 unrelated sources is proof of either conceit, or Wiki illiteracy.
2. There is no confrontation of facts, no "but" here: Ratzinger doesn't claim the crowd at the trial or the priests weren't Jewish. The addition is either brought by someone who cannot grasp what makes a statement be a rational counter-argument, or who willingly misleads the superficial reader through logically unconnected, but suggestive statements. Unacceptable in both cases (either stupid, or deceitful).

I have removed this junk. Arminden (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"Master and Margarita"

For some reason, the "Sources" section includes the book The Master and Margarita, by Mikhail Bulgakov, but this book isn't cited or referenced in the actual article. I looked at the Wikipedia articles for both the book and its author, but neither of them mention Barabbas. Should "The Master and Margarita" be removed from the "Sources" section, then? Lizardcreator (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you make a good case for removing it to me. 79.45.21.49 (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)