Text-Types Conference

Yesterday afternoon we wrapped up our first overseas Text & Canon Institute Colloquium which was on the topic of text-types in NT textual criticism. We had a very good time over two days discussing the origin of text-types, the current problems with them, and their possible future. You can see the list of topics here. We hope to publish the proceedings in due course. In the meantime, you can read this summary from Nelson Hsieh who was there.

Putting on an event like this is no small affair. So, let me offer some thanks to those who made it possible. Thanks to all who participated both presenters and attendees for making it such a collegial time; to our hosts at Lanier Theological Library at Yarnton Manor who could not have taken better care of us; to our supporters who made this financially possible for the TCI; and to Colin O’Bier, our operations manager, for keeping all the logistics humming not just his week but over the last year he’s worked on this.

Here are some pictures.

“[Jesus] Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” (Matt 27:17)

 

In this clip I explain for laymen what textual criticism is about (in Swedish with Norwegian subtitles), referring to the example of a textual problem in Matt 27:16-17 concerning the name of the prisoner to be released (it occurs twice in vv. 16–17). 

Was it ”Jesus Barabbas” or just ”Barabbas”? Here is a brief overview of the textual evidence in v. 17:

• Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν – ƒ1 sys; Ormss
• Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν – Θ (⸉ 579) . 700*. ℓ 844; Orlat  
  
• τὸν Βαραββᾶν – B; Or
• Βαραββᾶν  – ℵ A D K L W Γ Δ ƒ13 33. 565. 700c. 892. 1241. 1424 𝔐 latt co; (Orlat mss)

In this case, I personally prefer Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν in spite of slim (but early) support, since it is clearly the lectio difficilior – as also evident from Origen's comment on this textual problem, the name "Jesus Barabbas" was offensive for some readers, including Origen, in Antiquity.

Co-blogger Dirk Jongkind discusses this problem and comes to a different conclusion here. 

Regardless of your preference, I think it is a good example to refer to when explaining what New Testament textual criticism (and reception history) is about.