Skip to content

Matthew 27:17

Footnote:

52

The full "Jesus Barabbas" is found in some of the earliest manuscripts. Some translations include the full name, while most translations leave it out.

There is considerable, though not quite decisive, evidence in favour of the reading which gives “Jesus Barabbas” as the name of the prisoner.

(Ellicott Commentary)

Origen mentions that in some MSS. this man bore the name Jesus, an identity of name which makes the contrast of character all the more striking.

(Expositors Greek Testament)

It is a strange fact that in some (not very trustworthy) manuscripts the name is given as Jesus Barabbas, which affords a remarkable antithesis in Pilate's question in the following verse, "Wilt ye that I release Jesus Barabbas or Jesus called Christ?" There can be no reasonable doubt that the prefix is not genuine, but has crept into some texts inadvertently. Matthew 27:16

(Pulpit Commentary)

Some were of the thought that verse 20 was "fatal" to the "insertion":

As Alford remarks, Matthew 27:20 is fatal to the insertion.

(Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

The NET Bible includes it since, as the argument goes, there is very good reason (obviously) for a religious scholar to want to omit it, but it would hardly be something added by one:

There is no good explanation for a scribe unintentionally adding ᾿Ιησοῦν (Iēsoun) before Βαραββᾶν (Barabban), especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse...Metzger notes that codex S, a tenth-century majuscule, along with a score of minuscules, have a marginal comment on this verse as follows: “In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called ‘Jesus.’” The attribution of this scholium is variously given as Anastasius, Chrysostom, or even Origen (TCGNT 56).

(NET Bible Notes on Matthew 27:16)

Omission is strongly motivated

Scribes would have a clear reason to remove the name “Jesus” from “Barabbas,” namely:

  • reverential avoidance
  • discomfort with a criminal sharing the Lord’s name
  • liturgical scruples
  • fear of blasphemous misunderstanding

Origen explicitly states that copyists altered it “out of reverence.”

Thus the omission is very explainable.

It is very difficult to imagine a scribe accidentally adding Ἰησοῦν before Βαραββᾶν, because:

  • Barabbas appears first in v. 16 and 17
  • no immediate orthographic trigger for dittography
  • no parallel text with “Jesus Barabbas” to borrow from
  • scribes do not typically invent “the name Jesus” without reason

Thus the addition is not an easy scribal error.

Ironically, the NET Bible just a couple of verses later adds in a word that doesn't exist in the Greek: "his wife sent a message." (v.19). They admit this in their notes:

The word “message” is not in the Greek text, but is implied. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

Ironic.