Names are powerful things. After creation, the first important scene in the Bible perhaps is Adam naming the various animals ... the book places a lot of importance to names. Over and over again we are informed that such and such was named for such and such reason. Sometimes, the names are puns. For instance, "Adam" means earth ... or dust shall we say ... dust to dust and all that. "Joseph" basically means "God adds," and Rachel in Genesis gave him that name since finally God blessed her with a son (Leah, her sister and Jacob's other wife, had a bunch of them). I was given that name because of my maternal grandfather, who I never met, which is a shame -- my mom loved him as much as she was impressed with him -- including his intelligence.
Parents in this country are a bit less directly concerned with the meanings of names, less blatant with naming children things as "Faith" or whatnot, though obviously some do. Anyway, such names sound better when they are from other languages, even if they would be a bit mundane if given by natives of those tongues. Still, some names are both nice sounding and have meaning -- one of my nieces is named "Tara Ann," which means "tower of grace" (it also sounds Irish, and she is one fourth so). Others, as noted, are for favorite people and such -- two of my siblings are named after my parents, one who was named for his dad. And, middle names and so forth have similar purposes, sometimes to fit in the last name of the mother.
And, of course, names have various emotional nuances. There generally are various shades of the names, depending on the situation, so "Joe" is used various times, "Joseph" others, and "Joey" (not a big fan) in more personal situations. If names are used inappropriately, even as a matter of tone, there can be problems -- even violent in nature. Respect also is quite important, including "Mr.," "Ms," and so forth. This is a major concern, for instance, when certain disfavored groups are involved. Thus, a simple "Mr. X" for blacks was quite important in the civil rights era, when general practice often was simply to address them by their first name, or even by a more infantile "auntie" and so forth. Though false respect can annoy (required "sir" at the store, when you know they don't give a ****), it can be quite important even there.
This whole matter came to mind when I caught a bit of Barabbas on T.V. yesterday, the thief/brigand who is said to have been pardoned in the place of Jesus, who Pilate offered to the crowd. [This led Matthew to quote them saying that they were willing to have Jesus' blood on their consciences, something that to some apparently doomed not only their descendants but all future Jews as well ... which is ridiculous, putting aside the fact that the "crowd" was in no way necessarily representative of general Jewish sentiment.] This "tradition" has not been found mentioned elsewhere, including in the writings of Josephus, and thus some question the authenticity of the whole matter.
But, another matter somewhat less focused upon also arises ... what does his name mean? Again, names are quite important in the Bible, including the New Testament. Thus, Simon is named "Peter," which means "rock" for he would be foundation of the Church. And, that is when it gets interesting -- the name translates as "son of the father," which is of course also what Jesus is. In fact, Jesus favored calling God "Abba," which has a personal flavor to it, almost like he is saying "daddy." Now, according to the interesting Wikipedia entry, it also was a personal name -- so the man could actually have been "son of Abba."
Still, it seems an awful coincidence. In fact, some early translations had him named "Jesus Barabbas." One early scribe seems to have purposely withheld using that name because of possible confusion or not wanting the thief to have the same name as Jesus (a takeoff of "Joshua," or "God saves," a common name). This meant Pilate asked the crowd to choose between Jesus, who was known as son of the father, or Jesus, "son of the father." [If I was him, I might want them to pardon a simple thief or even a more dangerous run of the mill brigand than a possible troublemaker as big as Jesus was said to be.] It is unclear if "Jesus" was in the original, so this tidbit is of unclear relevance. Still, the very play off Jesus' title of sorts is pretty notable. Something more might be going on there that meets the eye.
The whole somewhat dubious pardon practice, which sort of sounds like a good crowd control policy (though one doubts they had total freedom of choice), sounds like it was added for effect. Who knows, but the gospels gave special significance to most aspects of Jesus' final hours, various said to be prophesized in the scriptures though often it seems a stretch.
Matthew went out of his way to put the Jewish authorities in a bad light, but this particular event was a set part of the passion drama. All the same, each gospel in its fashion looked at the Jews in a bad light. The timing of publication mattered too -- this was after the Jewish Wars as well as the overall failure of local Jewish Christians to convince their fellows to convert to the new faith. If Barabbas was a brigand, a Zealot, it would be of additional meaning. The Jews chose that path and look at what that brought them.
Well, the Bible is filled with interesting nuggets like that. As to the movie, only caught some of it, but pretty good. Yes, that is Jack Palance as the heavy. The gladiator battle (Palance in a chariot, various sacrificial lamb sorts with a wooden javelin ... the others just widely tossed it right away, Barabbas used a bit of strategy) scene was a particular highlight. The mine scenes reminded one of Joshua in the Ten Commandments. The Christians were a tad stereotypical though ... vanilla background noise. Good lead.
btw Rosie Perez's documentary on Puerto Rico and her own personal heritage was pretty good. It should be on IFC again sometime in July or so.