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.
Our earliest manuscripts tend to use the nomen sacrum for Jesus, even for Jesuses who were not Christ. So what about the possibility that ιν (with the overbar) was mistaken for τον? The overbar could have looked like the cross-bar of τ.
ReplyDeleteExactamente, Richard Fellows.
DeleteAll manuscripts exclusively use nomina sacra, Richard - until they land in contemporary languages, well into and beyond the Middle Ages.
DeleteThe Patristics also use nomina sacra, and Justin Martyr *also* infamously mixes IS and Jesus when referring to Joshua of Nun, in his Dialogue with Trypho. Unfortunately the British Library is still recuperating from its cyber attack (and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for archive.org as well as the Internet at large, at this very moment!!!) but the MS is Add MS 82951 (Justin Martyr, Works. Created in Venice in 1541, probably at the request of Guillaume Pelicier). Link to Chapter 49, relevant part of which can be found at folio 76v: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_82951_f076v
Observe the margins, they say Trypho - Justinus - Trypho - Justinus - Trypho, and the diplomatic transcription starts at the first Trypho, line 6:
Καὶ ὁ Τρύφων· Καὶ τοῦτο παράδο
ξον λέγειν μοι δοκεῖς, ὅτι τὸ ἐν Ἠλίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ γενόμενον
προφητικὸν πνεῦμα καὶ ἐν Ἰωάννῃ γέγονε. Κἀγὼ
πρὸς ταῦτα· Οὐ δοκεῖ σοι ἐπὶ Ἰῦ, τὸν τοῦ Ναυῆ, τὸν δι
αδεξάμενον τὴν λαοηγησίαν μετὰ Μωυσέα, τὸ αὐτὸ
γεγονέναι, ὅτε ἐρρέθη τῷ Μωυσεῖ ἐπιθεῖναι τῷ Ἰη
σοῦ τὰς χεῖρας, εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ· Κἀγὼ
μεταθήσω ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἐν σοὶ ἐπ' αὐτόν; 7 Κἀ
κεῖνος· Μάλιστα. Ὡς οὖν, φημί, ἔτι ὄντος τότε
ἐν ἀνθρώποις τοῦ Μωυσέως, μετέθηκεν ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὁ θεὸς
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν Μωυσεῖ πνεύματος, οὕτως καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἠλίου ἐ
πὶ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἐλθεῖν ὁ θεὸς δυνατὸς ἦν ποιῆσαι,
ἵνα, ὥσπερ ὁ Χς τῇ πρώτῃ παρουσίᾳ ἄδοξος ἐ
φάνη, οὕτως καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἐν Ἠλίᾳ πάντοτε καθα
ρεύοντος, τοῦ Χῦ, ἄδοξος ἡ πρώτη παρουσία νοηθῇ.
8 κρυφίᾳ γὰρ χειρὶ ὁ κύριος πολεμεῖν τὸν Ἀμαλὴκ εἴρη
ται, καὶ ὅτι ἔπεσεν ὁ Ἀμαλὴκ οὐκ ἀρνήσεσθε.
εἰ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἐνδόξῳ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ Χῦ πολεμηθή
σεσθαι τὸν Ἀμαλὴκ μόνον λέγεται, ποῖος καρπὸς
ἔσται τοῦ λόγου, ὅς φησι· Κρυφίᾳ χειρὶ ὁ θεὸς πολε
μεῖ τὸν Ἀμαλήκ; νοῆσαι δύνασθε ὅτι κρυφίᾳ δύ
ναμις τοῦ θεοῦ γέγονε τῷ σταυρωθέντι Χῷ, ὃν καὶ τὰ δαι
μόνια φρίσσει καὶ πᾶσαι ἁπλῶς αἱ ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξου
σίαι τῆς γῆς.
And Trypho said, "This statement also seems to me paradoxical; namely, that the prophetic Spirit of God, who was in Elijah, was also in John." To this I replied, "Do you not think that the same thing happened in the case of Joshua the son of Nave(Nun), who succeeded to the command of the people after Moses, when Moses was commanded to lay his hands on Joshua, and God said to him, I will take of the spirit which is in thee, and put it on him?' " And he said, "Certainly." "As therefore," I say, "while Moses was still among men, God took of the spirit which was in Moses and put it on Joshua, even so God was able to cause[the spirit] of Elijah to come upon John; in order that, as Christ at His first coming appeared inglorious, even so the first coming of the spirit, which remained always pure in Elijah s like that of Christ, might be perceived to be inglorious. For the Lord said He would wage war against Amalek with concealed hand; and you will not deny that Amalek fell. But if it is said that only in the glorious advent of Christ war will be waged with Amalek, how great will the fulfilment of Scripture be which says, 'God will wage war against Amalek with concealed hand!' You can perceive that the concealed power of God was in Christ the crucified, before whom demons, and all the principalities and powers of the earth, tremble."
The message is clear: we are to equate the Tanakh Joshua to the Jesus of the new gospel and vice versa, and we regularly find the NS where we would expect a plain Joshua / Ἰησοῦς, as well as vice versa. A clear pre-Christian LXX is Rahlfs 848 with Deu 31:13 reading [Ι]Η̣Σ̣Ο̣Υ̣Σ (https://search.worldcat.org/nl/title/890100562) which confirms that the Greek translation for Joshua indeed was that, prior to any form of Christianity
DeleteA few examples from the Big Five:
- Vaticanus:
Mark 1:24 (folio 1278, middle column, line 17 from the bottom, demon addressing Jesus): τι ημιν και συ (sic) ιησου ναζαρηνε ηλθες (etc);
Mark 5:7 (folio 1283, middle column, line 12 from the bottom, demon addressing Jesus): τι εμοι και σοι ιησου;
Luke 3:29 (folio 1310, left column, line 18 from the bottom - referring to Joshua): του ιησου του ελιεζερ (etc);
Matthew 1:21 (folio 1235, right column, line 4 from the bottom, angel addressing Joseph regarding Jesus’ name): καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου ιησουν;
Colossians 4:11 (folio 1506, left column, line 15, referring to Justos): και ιησους ο λεγομενος ιουστος (etc) - and this is the default for every text and MS, and just noted for completeness’ sake;
- Sinaiticus:
Mark 16:6 says ιησουν (and in that same verse τον ναζαρηνον got inserted much later, as can be seen);
Luke 3:29 refers to Joshua via ϊηϲου;
- Bezae:
Acts 7:45 refers to Joshua via ιησουν (corrected into ιησου later); and that indeed implies that all other MSS have the short form here, in this particular case ι̅υ̅, as can be seen in e.g. Vaticanus (folio 1392, middle column, line 15);
Going by Traube (page 66-67), Ἰησοῦς occurs 168 times in Vaticanus for Joshua next to 13 ις and 7 ιης - all by scribe B1.
Anyway. I'll address the issue in my third (!) reply
So many interesting features surrounding this Bar-Abbas, son of the father!
DeleteThere are four occurrences of Barabbas in quick succession: 27:16,17,20 and 21 (and 26).
https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/vmr/api/transcript/get/?docID=20001|20002|20003|20004|20005|20038|30579|30700&indexContent=Mat.27.16,17,20,21,26;Mar.15.7,11,15;Luk.23.18;Joh.18.40&format=transtext
Codex 01: Mat.27:16 βαραββαν, :17 βαραββαν, :20 τον βαραββαν, :21 τον βαραββαν, :26 τον βαραββαν. Mark, Luke and John all have τον βαραββαν;
Codex 02: Mat.27:16 βαραββαν, :17 βαραββαν, :20 τον βαραββαν, :21 βαραββαν, :26 τον βαραββαν. Mark and John have τον βαραββαν, Luke has the anarthrous.
Codex 03: Mat.27:16 βαραββαν, :17 τον βαραββαν, :20 τον βαραββαν, :21 τον βαραββαν, :26 τον βαραββαν. Mark, Luke and John all have τον βαραββαν;
Codex 04: INTF gives me only Mark, where Barabbas is used anarthrously;
Codex 05: Mat.27:16 τον βαραββαν, :17 βαραββαν, :20 τον βαραββαν, :21 βαραββαν, :26 τον βαραββαν. Mark 15:11 and John use Barabbas anarthrously;
Codex 038: Mat.27:16 ι̅ν̅ βαραββαν, :17 ι̅ν̅ βαραββαν, :20 τον βαραββαν, :21 τον βαραββαν, :26 τον βαραββαν. Luke alone uses Barabbas anarthrously;
Codex 579: Mat.27:16 βαραββαν, :17 βαραββαν ι̅ν̅ (!), :20 τον βαραββαν, :21 βαραββαν, :26 τον βαραββαν. Only Mark is present, and uses Barabbas with the definite article;
Codex 700: Mat.27:16 ι̅ν̅ βαραββαν (which gets corrected to βαραββαν), :17 ι̅ν̅ βαραββαν (dito!), :20 τον βαραββαν, :21 βαραββαν, :26 τον βαραββαν. Only Mark is present, and uses Barabbas with the definite article;
579 surprises with its βαραββαν ι̅ν̅ (and its staurogram in Mat 27:16).
An overwhelming support for a plain Barabbas, anarthrous or not, although the corrections to 700 draw our attention, as well as the different order of 579.
Yet Richard's theory seems to receive little support, as it is Matthew 27:16 & 17 that either have ι̅ν̅ βαραββαν or βαραββαν ι̅ν̅ in 038, 579 and 700 whereas the Big Five (four in this case, as not unusual) have no definite article in that place save for a singular exception in Vaticanus, and Bezae
If all of this is wordplay and the question posed is whether to release (Jesus) son-of-father or Jesus called XS, then to me this points to friction between Christianity (the latter) and that which they considered heresy (the former). I always read the Christian gospels in the order John, Luke, Mark and Matthew, after which I read it again in the order John, Mark, Matthew and Luke; John and Luke very often are "together against Mark and Matthew" and what we see here, again, is a story that evolves from John to Mark, gets expanded by Matthew, only to fall back to John again with the version in Luke. Given the late dates to those MSS that have the extra Jesus reference, I am inclined to discard that reading - although we also may be looking at a remnant of something that got corrected very early on, and the anarthrous use of the first two instances of Barabbas here may indicate that it said ι̅ν̅ βαραββαν from the very start yet got corrected to βαραββαν by simply dropping what preceded it
In related news, I have completed the Nomina Sacra Index for the Nag Hammadi Library: 1,166 words that would qualify, although there are only 8 out of the usual Christian 15, with Spirit dominating all, comprising over half of all instances. All words are provided with their sample diplomatic line, and overviews are presented per nomen sacrum.
The Subakhmimic scribe of Codex I,4 and Codex XI,1-2 (folio 1-44) stands out and above all, and may be the one who transcribed the earliest texts
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384884512_Nag_Hammadi_Library_the_Complete_Nomina_Sacra_Index
or
https://www.academia.edu/124658153
Nice article
ReplyDeleteWhat I have noticed is that codex Koridethi works very well in agreement with codices aleph, B and D. Agreement between those 4 codices normally means that the reading is widespread and possibly original. On the other hand, individual readings from those codices in isolation from the rest is a strong indication of local error or local adjustment to the text, which seems to be the case here. In my opinion, it is not prudent to apply the harder reading canon over one text type only, because the result is normally a local reading that does not represent well what has been handed down from the apostles to the churches.
ReplyDelete