Horace Abram Rigg, Jr. Source: Journal of Biblical ... - YoYo.pl

RIGG: BARABBAS
There is also a grammatical point militating against the
traditionally accepted reading and in favour of Jesus Barabbas.
What is the need for the implied contrast between Jesus and
Barabbas in the traditional text? They are orthographically,
phonetically, and by context clearly distinguishable. In fact,
to doubt this Origen deemed practically heretical! Yet the
ordinary text shows grammatical survivals of a time when some
contrast was inherent in the story. Why the pains to distinguish
rOv XEy6,uevov Bapa33cav from rov XE\yb6LEvov Xpto'r6v?
Unless there was a Jesus under two titles or else two men, each
of whom was called, or known as, Jesus?53 The former has not
previously been introduced into the text-indeed, nothing
has ever been found out about him ever since.54 It seems clear
that some element in the story or the text55 has been expunged,
lost (forgotten?), or become twisted in the course of time.
In my opinion, the unnecessary contrast in the surviving
texts is explicable in the following way. At some time in the
formative period of the text (through Origen's authority?) the
word Jesus was expunged from its position in connection with
Barabbas. But in making this excision, the scribes, with varying
A. Bell and A. Deissmann. London, 1930) 18 ff., and Goguel, op. cit. 189-91.
Cf. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels I. 377-8.
53 For o XEyo,uEvos
431
(the so-called) see, for its grammatical peculiarities,
Kiihner-Gerth, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik II. 1 (Hannover-Leipzig, 1898) 53 ff.,
271 Anmerk.; cf. E. Mayser, Grammatik d. griech. Papyri aus d. Ptolemderzeit
II. 2 (Berlin-Leipzig, 1934) 53, II. 3, 20; and B. Gildersleeve, Syntax of
Classical Greek II (New York, 1911) 635. It appears, in the texts giving J. B.,
indifferently before Christ and Barabbas, so that no significance can be attached
to its appearance before either, pace J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the
N. T. (Edinburgh, 1858) 473. The important point is that the texts imply
the necessity of making a distinction where none, in the traditional texts,
is necessary. There is no grammatical warrant for asserting that the absence
of the name in other verses affects the case in question. So, also, A. H.
McNeile, Matthew (London, 1915) 411.
54 See the learned note of H. B. Swete, Alark 3rd ed. (London, 1909) 370.
Discussions, such as that of J. Maldonatus, Matthew (London, 1888) 509 ff.,
do not alter the case.
ss The formative period of a story is not the same as the formative period
of its text. At least the closing of the former need not chronologically precede
the fixing of the latter. Cf. Guignebert, op. cit.