The gospels report that Jesus was held at the same time as another, "Jesus Barabbas", the latter often considered to be a title or description rather than a name - it is Hebrew for "Son of the Father". Seeing it as improbable that two individuals both existed, both known as "Jesus" (heb: Yehoshua, or "God will save", colloquially meaning "Savior") and "Son of the Father" or "Son of Man", some have questioned the identity or existence of "barabbas".
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus sometimes prayed to God as אבא ['aba'], father. Furthermore, in the Aramaic language, בר אבא [bar 'aba'] means "son of the Father." Some scholars have argued that Jesus was identical with Barabbas, or in some manuscripts, Jesus Barabbas, who the Gospels report was a criminal released by Pontious Pilate instead of Jesus.
An alternative solution proposed by Knight and Lomas (1997, p.306) in a popular book touching on the subject, suggests that to prevent civil unrest, Pilate took captive both the Priestly messiah ("Savior, son of the Father") and the Kingly messiah ("Savior, son of Man"), and it was between these two that the crowd was asked to choose. What do you think?
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus sometimes prayed to God as אבא ['aba'], father. Furthermore, in the Aramaic language, בר אבא [bar 'aba'] means "son of the Father." Some scholars have argued that Jesus was identical with Barabbas, or in some manuscripts, Jesus Barabbas, who the Gospels report was a criminal released by Pontious Pilate instead of Jesus.
An alternative solution proposed by Knight and Lomas (1997, p.306) in a popular book touching on the subject, suggests that to prevent civil unrest, Pilate took captive both the Priestly messiah ("Savior, son of the Father") and the Kingly messiah ("Savior, son of Man"), and it was between these two that the crowd was asked to choose. What do you think?
