As Easter nears, I think about two men sa国际传媒� one who died, and one who didnsa国际传媒檛. Jesus died; Barabbas didnsa国际传媒檛. Or maybe itsa国际传媒檚 the other way around, in the long term.

If 1st century Israel had telephone books, Jesus could not have been listed. He didnsa国际传媒檛 qualify for a last name. Although he is commonly called Jesus Christ, Christ was not his family name. In fact, itsa国际传媒檚 not a name at all. Itsa国际传媒檚 a title, an honorific, like sa国际传媒淩everendsa国际传媒� or sa国际传媒淧resident.sa国际传媒� Christ sa国际传媒� Christos in Greek sa国际传媒� is the term used for the Messiah, the anointed one, the chosen one.

In his culture, sons were identified by their fathersa国际传媒檚 name. The prefix sa国际传媒淏arsa国际传媒� meant sa国际传媒渟on of,sa国际传媒� just like sa国际传媒淢acsa国际传媒� or sa国际传媒淢csa国际传媒� for the Scots, and sa国际传媒淥sa国际传媒� for the Irish.

The earliest biblical texts describe Jesus only as the son of Mary sa国际传媒� making him a no-count illegitimate. Later versions legitimize him by providing a human father sa国际传媒� Joseph, son of Jacob, a descendant of the legendary King David. But Jesus is never, never, described as Jesus Bar-Joseph.

And Jesus himself never refers to Joseph as his father.

He reserves the term sa国际传媒淔athersa国际传媒� sa国际传媒� in Aramaic, sa国际传媒渁bba,sa国际传媒� better translated by our familiar sa国际传媒淒addysa国际传媒� sa国际传媒� for his relationship with God. Johnsa国际传媒檚 gospel regularly pairs Jesus with a divine father. Jesus spends almost two chapters of that gospel exploring the intimacy of his relationship with his Father, meaning God.

By a cruel irony, when governor Pontius Pilate offers to free Jesus as a goodwill gesture for the Jewish Passover, an angry crowd demands that he release, instead, a thief and murderer named sa国际传媒淏arabbas.sa国际传媒� Barabbas sa国际传媒� sa国际传媒渢he son of the fathersa国际传媒�.

And so the man who said sa国际传媒淭he Father and I are onesa国际传媒� was executed on a trumped-up charge of claiming to be King of the Jews, while the man named sa国际传媒淪on of the Fathersa国际传媒� was set free. The coincidence is so keen, it almost demands further exploration.

Did the freed Barabbas go to Golgotha, to the hill of many skulls, to watch his stand-in die?

What did it do to him, to know that he was alive only because an innocent person took his place? Was he haunted by guilt? Did it change his life? Or did he grab his unexpected freedom with both hands and scamper out of Jerusalem, away from the unholy liaison between Temple and Rome, to resume his career of crime?

At least one writer has felt inspired to look at life through the eyes of the man who didnsa国际传媒檛 get executed. Par Lagerkvist wrote a 1950 novel called Barabbas.

A commentary describes the novel as founded on thesis and antithesis sa国际传媒� similarities and contrasts. Jesus dies first; Barabbas dies later. Jesus is crucified in Jerusalem; Barabbas, in Rome. Jesus talks to God; Barabbas, to darkness. Barabbas is, in many ways, a modern person. He says he wants to believe, but cansa国际传媒檛 accept the exalted beliefs of early Christians about Resurrection and the Second Coming. What he really believes in is the sa国际传媒渙paque and remorseless void that surrounds his life.sa国际传媒�

He is a fatalist. Where others find meaning, Barabbas finds only meaninglessness.

Perhaps the novelsa国际传媒檚 central antithesis is that because Barabbas has never known love, he can never understand someone who embodied love.

Author Jim Taylor lives in Lake Country: rewrite@shaw.ca