Matthew 27:16, was Barabbas also named Jesus?
Matthew 27:16 preserves both Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν, Jesus Barabbas, and Βαραββᾶν, Barabbas. The difference affects whether Pilate's choice set two men named Jesus before the crowd.
The APB text at this verse
The manuscripts, editions, and versions
The committee record at this verse
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Since revision 3.5, the places where the manuscripts disagree are decided before translation by three readers, Grok 4.3, GPT-6 Astra, and Claude Fable 5.1, who see the readings and the witnesses by age and class but never a reference or a manuscript name. Whatever was done at this verse was done on the language and the evidence alone, and the record is public.
“The base text reads (nothing). The copies also carry Ἰησοῦν [early greek manuscript tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The evidence favors the shorter wording, but the early Greek support for Ἰησοῦν is not negligible, so a second reader is advisable.”
“The base text reads Ἰησοῦν. The copies also carry the omission [greek majuscule; early greek manuscript tradition; later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. Default wording chosen; evidence is not decisive enough to overturn it.”
The APB printed text uses the double name: "They had then a notable prisoner called Jesus Barabbas." The APB 3.5 decision record contains two textual notes, each reporting that the committee kept its base text. One says, "The evidence favors the shorter wording," while also judging the early Greek support for Ἰησοῦν "not negligible." The three readers worked blind, seeing witness classes and dates rather than manuscript names, a reference, or a book name.
The argument for each reading
If “Jesus Barabbas”
Reading A gives the prisoner the double name Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν. NA28 prints Ἰησοῦν, and its witness note says that Origen already knew copies containing the double name and objected to it. The APB 3.5 record also describes copies carrying Ἰησοῦν with "early greek manuscript tradition," calling that support "not negligible." In the printed APB text, the name appears in both the description of the prisoner and Pilate's question: "They had then a notable prisoner called Jesus Barabbas." This reading makes the stated contrast between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus called Christ explicit. The packet also identifies a scribal pressure that could account for its absence: scribes would not leave the name Jesus on a murderer.
If “Barabbas” alone
Reading B has Βαραββᾶν alone. Westcott-Hort reads the name absent, and the apparatus line sets NA28's Ἰησοῦν against "– WH Treg NIV RP." The Westcott-Hort witness row further says that the Byzantine text and most manuscripts lack the name. Its stated explanation is that removal is far easier to explain than invention, a consideration that places the shorter wording in view without settling the question. The APB 3.5 record likewise includes a note in which the base text reads nothing and copies carry Ἰησοῦν; that note says, "The evidence favors the shorter wording." With this reading, the prisoner is simply Barabbas rather than Jesus Barabbas.
The packet preserves competing explanations for the name: early Greek support is present for Ἰησοῦν, while the shorter wording is also described as favored in one committee note. The resulting uncertainty concerns the prisoner's stated name and the phrasing of Pilate's contrast. Nothing in the supplied material makes this variant decide a doctrine; most doctrines rest on many passages.
Common questions
Was Barabbas called Jesus in Matthew 27:16?
The packet gives two readings: Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν, Jesus Barabbas, and Βαραββᾶν, Barabbas alone. NA28 prints the double name, while WH reads it absent.
What does the APB print at Matthew 27:16?
The APB prints: "They had then a notable prisoner called Jesus Barabbas." Its following verse also has Pilate ask about "Jesus Barabbas or Jesus called Christ?"
Why might the name Jesus be missing from some copies?
The packet's stated explanation is that scribes would not leave the name on a murderer. The WH row also says removal is far easier to explain than invention, while the APB 3.5 record calls early Greek support for Ἰησοῦν "not negligible."
Related entries
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. The page does not declare which reading is original.
The registry gives no verdict
The registry does not say which reading is original. Each page lists the witnesses, shows what the committee did with the same text, and leaves the judgment to the reader.