A New Series on the Text of Isaiah 53

The Text and Canon Institute has launched a new series of articles on several of the crucial textual problems in Isaiah's Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13–53:12). The series will focus on the problems that affect translation such as the following:

1. Does the servant startle the nations because he is disfigured or sprinkle them after being anointed? (Isa. 52:14–15; by Peter Gentry)
2. Is the servant stricken to death for the people’s rebellion, or are they? (Isa. 53:8; by John Meade)
3. Is the servant’s death or his tomb with the rich? (Isa. 53:9; by Peter Gentry)
4. Who and what does the servant intercede for? (Isa. 53:12; by John Meade)
5. Is the resurrection of the servant anticipated in what he sees? (Isa. 53:11; by Anthony Ferguson)

Peter Gentry, co-blogger Anthony Ferguson, and myself have written up the articles on these problems in an accessible way to put them back on the radar of commentators and Bible translators as well as guide the interested layperson who has probably heard that their translation contains mistakes (and maybe their translation does). You can read the Introduction article here and follow the unfolding of the series over the next few weeks until Easter.

Symmachus and the Text of Job 24:25b

In preparation of my critical edition of the Hexaplaric fragments of Job 22-42 for the Hexapla Project, I am noticing again some of the gems among the texts of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion that Origen once assembled in full parallel columns but now come down to us mainly in fragmentary, marginal notes in Christian MSS. The text of Job 24:25b is such a text. Here are the relevant readings:

Hebrew Text: וְיָשֵׂם לְאַל מִלָּתִי׃

And (who) will make my word as not/nothing?

Theodotion (not Old Greek): καὶ θήσει εἰς οὐδὲν τὰ ῥήματά μου

and (who) will set my words as nothing?

Symmachus: καὶ τάξει τῷ θεῷ λόγον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ

and (who) will deliver a speech to God on my behalf?

Unfortunately, we do not have the text of Symmachus for 25a, but it was probably close to the Old Greek and Hebrew, which is a question on the lips of Job asking, “Who is the one who says that I speak lies?” The Theodotion version (in lieu of the Old Greek) continues the question: “and who will set my words as nothing?” The wording of this line matches the Hebrew closely, except Theodotion must have read מלתי as a plural, not the singular of the later MT. According to this reading, Job appears to be asking who of his three friends will contradict him or show his word to be nothing or of no validity.

The Symmachus version reveals a different reading of the same consonantal text of MT. Symmachus read אל as אֵל “God,” not as later MT’s אַל “no, not.” Furthermore, Symmachus interpreted the final word in the Hebrew “my word” as a word on Job’s behalf (speech on behalf of me), not as a simple possessive pronominal suffix as the Hebrew would be normally construed and as Theodotion read it plainly. Symmachus has read the text differently. He appears to have understood Job’s question not as directed to his three friends but to someone else who could deliver a speech to God on his behalf.

At first blush, this seems like an odd reading. But when we remember that in the so-called witness passages (Job 9:32-35, Job 16:18-22, and Job 19:20-27) that Job has already perceived something of the role of the heavenly court introduced in chs. 1-2 and that his advocate is in heaven (“if not he, then who is it”), perhaps Symmachus read the text of Job 24:25b in light of this understanding. In the midst of the third speech cycle and at the end of Job’s speech, plausibly, Symmachus has read the Hebrew text as Job once again making an appeal to his heavenly advocate who can make his case to God. Of course, all of this reasoning probably indicates that this reading is secondary to the one in MT and Theodotion, but it is still interesting to consider from an exegetical point of view.

One more interesting piece of context comes from reception history. This reading of Symmachus is only preserved beside Job 24:25b in the margin of a relative few Christian manuscripts of the Job catenae, sometimes without an attribution to him. That means Christian scribes continued to find this reading of some exegetical value for this text. We can’t know for sure because I can’t find an explicit comment from a church father that uses this wording exactly (I haven’t attempted an exhaustive search), but perhaps it’s worth speculating that early Christian interpreters found a Christological reference in Symmachus’s version of Job 24:25b, for in it they found Job asking a question to a heavenly advocate who could make an appeal to God on his behalf.

TC program unit at EABS in Cordoba 2015

A few days ago the European Association of Biblical Studies committee accepted a proposal by Theodora Panella (ITSEE, Birmingham) for a workshop with the title “Textual Criticism of the NT, the OT and the Qur’an” for the next EABS’ Annual Meeting in Cordoba (July 12th-15th). Below is a description of the program unit and a call for papers.

Programme

This workshop focuses on the textual study and criticism of sacred texts from the ancient Eastern Mediterranean world that later had a global influence. These are the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’anic text. All three have similarities and differences. They have influenced other writings and at the same time have themselves undergone external influence bearing on questions of interrelationship, orality, textuality and language. Not only the abovementioned characteristics, but also their preservation and the copying as well as the proliferation of manuscripts are of particular interest to textual scholars.
Relevant topics for discussion:

• The study of OT, NT or Qur’anic writings not only in manuscripts, but also inscribed or printed,
• The text itself and the circumstances of its transmission
• Types or groupings of texts
• Reconstructions of forms of text
• Textual Criticism and history
• Textual Criticism and exegesis
• Textual Criticism and theology
• Textual Criticism and the world

At the same time, this workshop seeks to foster dialogue among researchers.

Call for Papers

We welcome paper proposals that focus on the above mentioned topics and related aspects.
Generally the duration of papers to be read should not exceed 20 minutes. Abstracts (no more than 300 words) have to be enrolled through the EABS meeting website.

Up-date: 

There is also a call for papers for the section on "Biblical Philology in Byzantine Manuscripts"

Byzantinists and patristic scholars might take interest in the fact that in the framework of the upcoming conference of the European Association of Biblical Studies (EABS), a session on “Biblical Philology in Byzantine Manuscripts” will be organized. The conference will take place July 12-15, 2015 in Córdoba (Spain), and the call for papers is now open. Proposals can be submitted until April 1 through http://www.eabs.net.

More information on the “Biblical Philology in Byzantine Manuscripts” session can be found here: http://www.eabs.netF/site/biblical-philology-in-byzantine-manuscripts/. Proposals are invited for papers dealing with the study of medieval marginal annotations to the biblical text within the Greek Christian tradition. Particularly welcome are papers highlighting possible acquaintance with Hebrew culture and exegesis on the part of Byzantine scholars, but other topics can be suggested.

For more information, please contact Mariachiara Fincati (mc.fincati@gmail.com), Barbara Crostini (crostini.barbara@gmail.com) or the undersigned. Feel free to circulate this call.

Mike Holmes Makes History

BETHEL UNIVERSITY NEWS (Dana Morrison):

“Everything I’ve done for 35 years has led up to this,” said Bethel Professor Mike Holmes, reflecting on the online and print release of the new edition of the Greek New Testament that he recently completed. Holmes, professor of biblical studies and early Christianity, spent his yearlong sabbatical leave working as sole editor on the new edition.

The project began on April 1, 2009, Holmes received an email from the editorial director of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) asking if he would be interested in editing a new edition of the Greek New Testament. After reading the email for the unusual opportunity, Holmes said, “I half thought it was an April Fool’s joke.”

Read the whole story here.

SBL Meeting Call for Papers Reminder

This is a reminder to submit your proposal for the for the 2011 SBL International Meeting in at King's College in London, 4-8 July, The call for papers closes 31 January.

The program unit "Working with Biblical Manuscripts," which I and Jan Krans chair, has already received several very interesting proposals of papers – there will be at least ten papers, and now I am not counting Peter Head's paper, which will probably be proposed some time on 31 January (and possibly composed in the beginning of July, on the train from Cambridge to London).

Here is the call for papers again:

Papers concentrating on any aspect of textual criticism are welcome, in particular the practical work with manuscripts. Examples of topics: papyrological insights, scribal habits, preservation techniques, technical developments, computer assisted tools, producing critical editions, evaluating the evidence of fathers or versions, discussion of particular passages, social historical studies, new projects, systematic-theological problems, teaching text-criticism in an academic setting, etc.

So go to the SBL site, log in, and make your submission!

Christian Literary Texts in Manuscripts of Second & Third Centuries

Larry Hurtado tells me he has just uploaded to his blog site an updated list of copies of literary texts in the earliest manuscripts (2d & 3d centuries) of Christian provenance, updating the Appendix of his Early Christian Artifacts book (pp. 209-29). Notices about corrections/omissions are welcome.

Find the list here.

Ancient Bible Fragments Reveal a Forgotten History

News from Cambridge University:

Ancient Bible fragments reveal a forgotten history
New research has uncovered a forgotten chapter in the history of the Bible, offering a rare glimpse of Byzantine Jewish life and culture.

The study by Cambridge University researchers suggests that, contrary to long-accepted views, Jews continued to use a Greek version of the Bible in synagogues for centuries longer than previously thought. In some places, the practice continued almost until living memory.

The key to the new discovery lay in manuscripts, some of them mere fragments, discovered in an old synagogue in Egypt and brought to Cambridge at the end of the 19th century. The so-called Cairo Genizah manuscripts have been housed ever since in Cambridge University Library.

Now, a fully searchable online corpus (http://www.gbbj.org) has gathered these manuscripts together, making the texts and analysis of them available to other scholars for the first time.

"The translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE is said to be one of the most lasting achievements of the Jewish civilization - without it, Christianity might not have spread as quickly and as successfully as it did," explained Nicholas de Lange, Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies in the Faculties of Divinity and Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, who led the three-year study to re-evaluate the story of the Greek Bible fragments.

"It was thought that the Jews, for some reason, gave up using Greek translations and chose to use the original Hebrew for public reading in synagogue and for private study, until modern times when pressure to use the vernacular led to its introduction in many synagogues."

Close study of the Cairo Genizah fragments by Professor de Lange led to the discovery that some contained passages from the Bible in Greek written in Hebrew letters. Others contained parts of a lost Greek translation made by a convert to Judaism named Akylas in the 2nd century CE. Remarkably, the fragments date from 1,000 years after the original translation into Greek, showing use of the Greek text was still alive in Greek-speaking synagogues in the Byzantine Empire and elsewhere.

Read the whole story here.

Access the database "Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism" here.

See also this earlier report on the digitization of the Cairo Genizah fragments by Christian Askeland, one of our men in Cambridge.

Review of Clivaz' Published Dissertation on Luke 22:43-44

Andrew Gregory's review of Claire Clivaz' published dissertation, L'ange et la sueur de sang (Lc 22,43-44): Ou comment on pourrait bien encore écrire l'histoire (Biblical Tools and Studies 7; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) has been published in Review of Biblical Literature.

Clivaz' take on Luke 22:44 can be found in her 2004 SBL seminar paper “'A Sweat like Drops of Blood' (Luke 22:44): at the Crossing of Intertextual Reading and Textual Criticism" available on-line at the SBL site, here.

See also my related post from last year on P69 and theological concerns with further links.

Fifty-Seven Collected Essays by Elliott Published

An important book has just been published by Brill:

New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation by J. K. Elliott




Details
Series: Novum Testamentum, Supplements, 137
ISBN-10: 9004189521
ISBN-13: 9789004189522
Cover: Hardback
Number of pages: xvi, 662 pp.
List price: € 184.00 / US$ 259.00

Publisher's description
J.K. Elliott has been identified as one of the Main exponents of so-called thoroughgoing textual criticism. In this collection of fifty seven of his essays from the past forty years are articles on methodology as well as on praxis (with a selection of important textual variants, including some of especial interest for exegesis). Also included are several essays on textual criticism which emphasise its relevance for the discussion of the synoptic problem and there are also a number of assessments of printed editions of the Greek New Testament. A bibliography of Elliott's writings is appended.

Those interested in the New Testament text and in Greek manuscripts as well as scholars working on the history of exegesis or the Greek language which thoroughgoing criticism encourages will find this collection of value. The selection will enable readers to have an overview of Elliott's contribution to the discipline.

Order page from Eisenbrauns

This make me wonder in passing just how many scholars have written fifty-seven essays in New Testament textual criticism. There is something special with fifty-seven.

Thoughts on Defending a Thesis

This is a guest-post in which Ryan Wettlaufer shares his personal thoughts about his recent thesis defence at the University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, as described more formally in a previous post. Be sure to read related posts with advices for PhD students, "Where to do a PhD" and "Theses in Textual Criticism", and other thesis defences here and here.


Thoughts on Defending a Thesis

In December I successfully defended my doctoral thesis "Conjectural Emendation in New Testament Textual Criticism with the Epistle of James as a Case Study" at the University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, and Tommy has very kindly invited me to guest blog about the experience.

The set-up of the defence was interesting. As a young student you get all these wild images in your head of what the defence will look like, and most of them look something like the imposing set-up of a supreme court hearing or perhaps something out of a Masonic temple. In reality, it consisted of a very normal looking boardroom with a long table, water glasses, and an overly optimistic number of copies of my abstract for any guests. There were six professors in total, including John Kloppenborg – my supervisor – and Michael Holmes – my external examiner (who participated by speaker phone). It was interesting that the examiners, while all New Testament scholars, each had different areas of focus, such as patristics, philosophy, etc.

They began by asking me to leave the room while they discussed the agenda. Once I returned, they began the formal questioning, with each examiner being allotted 15 minutes. For the second round, each examiner was given another 5 minutes. When that was done, they again asked me to leave while, I assume, they discussed their thoughts and voted on the outcome. Or possibly they just flipped a coin. Either way, as my supervisor invited me back in he smiled and said “Congratulations.” When the committee chair complained that he had tipped their hand, I wanted to joke that he was referring to me finally getting a hair cut, but alas, the wit is never quick enough.

So what were my reactions? The first was actually disappointment. I was disappointed because it really felt like I had done a very poor job. In my memory, I had been a babbling fool, stuttering away, barely able to make a sentence. Sometimes after accomplishing something people try to downplay it with false humility, but this was not that: I really believed I had done poorly! It wasn’t till I talked with a colleague whose own defence had been just a month prior that I discovered this is a relatively common reaction. “I felt the exact same way” he explained, “I was sure I had sounded like some imbecile who could barely talk!” Fortunately, some of his colleagues had attended his defence and were able to verify that, contrary to whatever feelings he had, he had actually done a very good job. Since then, I’ve heard of many doctoral students who had this same reaction. There must be some interesting psychological phenomenon at work there, but I’ll let someone else tackle that.

My second reaction was surprise. Before the defence I had prepared by drawing up a list of all the points I thought were most important about my thesis, and made notes of all the facts that I thought needed to be discussed. Looking over that list afterwards, I was surprised that we had ended up discussing not a single one of them! Similarly, I had collected from various doctoral advice websites all over the internet several pages of common defence questions. As I looked over that list – you guessed it – not a single one of them had been asked. The questions that were asked were very surprising. A lot of them had to do with how my thesis related to their own area of focus. Some other questions poked at points that I thought were rather minor or unimportant. Other questions pointed out to me areas of the thesis that really could be improved, and I was thankful for that.

The most surprising questions, however, were the ones that demonstrated how equivocal this language really is. More than once an examiner asked a question that left me shaking my head in confusion, wondering whose thesis they could be talking about. Each time it would turn out that they had interpreted something I had written in a way completely different than I had intended. As I would review the section of my thesis in question, however, I would realise that the problem wasn’t that I had written it incorrectly, but it also wasn’t that they had read it incorrectly: the problem was that the language in question could legitimately support more than one meaning. It makes me wonder how we can ever hope to communicate here online, where our writing is usually less thought out and certainly less supported by body language or voice tone. It also made me realise how important it is to give people – especially people we disagree with – a sympathetic reading.

Finally, I was (eventually) happy! Not right away, mind you. Right away it was rather anti-climactic. I walked out of the defence and instead of feeling like I’d just accomplished something, it really felt like I had just finished a meeting. You imagine going out and having some crazy celebration, whooping and hollering with all your friends, but all I actually did was drive home, pour a cup of tea, read the ETC blog, and go to bed. Not much whooping there (some on that ETC blog, but only when they’re re-launching a journal!). After a good number of days though you suddenly realise what has happened. I think that realisation comes the first time your long-honed instinct nags you to go finish editing that draft of chapter 1, and then it dawns on you: you never have to revise chapter 1 again!

In closing, what advice do I have for those preparing for their defence? First, don’t be nervous. Really, don’t be: there’s just no need for it. For the rest of your life, at dinner parties or receptions, people will ask you what you studied and when you begin excitedly telling them about your dissertation you’ll only get to about the 30 second mark when you’ll see their eyes glaze over and you’ll realise that they were only asking to be polite! Your defence, on the other hand, will be the first and last time in your life that you will have a room full of people who both know what you’re talking about and want to hear you talk about it – for several hours at that! Enjoy this chance while you have it! Second, don’t be afraid to direct the conversation. This will be one of your best chances to get really thoughtful and in-depth critique, especially if, like me, you have the benefit of a high calibre external examiner. Unfortunately, the structure of the defence – rules about who can speak when or for how long – can really limit that critical discussion. If there’s something you really want to bring up or draw attention to, therefore, don’t be afraid to speak up and direct the discussion that way. Finally, no matter how many people you’ve had edit your dissertation, you will still get a page long list of typos and corrections from the committee. I got 5 pages! (Most of them were just errors in accenting though, so that doesn’t matter, right? [Little joke for P.J. Williams there!]). Start getting ready to accept that now, and then it won’t seem so bad when it happens.

That’s my thoughts! And much thanks again to Tommy Wasserman for this invitation, and this venue.

Ryan Wettlaufer

"Conjectural Emendation in New Testament Textual Criticism with the Epistle of James as a Case Study"

In the end of December Ryan D. Wettlaufer successfully defended his thesis "Conjectural Emendation in New Testament Textual Criticism with the Epistle of James as a Case Study," submitted at the University of St.Michael’s College, University of Toronto. Six professors were present at the examination including supervisor John Kloppenborg and the external examiner Michael W. Holmes (via speaker phone). Below is the abstract. I have invited Ryan to share his thoughts about the occasion in a separate post which will follow tomorrow.

Congratulations Dr. Wettlaufer!

Abstract
This dissertation is a study of conjectural emendation as it relates to the text of the New Testament. Unlike many other ancient documents upon which textual criticism must be practiced, the New Testament has a rich and full textual history. Over the last two millennia it has inspired thousands of generations of copies, through which an astonishing amount of corruption has accumulated. Many counts suppose the total number of variants to be over 350,000. At most points it appears that the correct reading can be found in one of the close to 6000 manuscript copies that survive to this day. At a not-insignificant number of other points, however, none of the extant readings appears to be authentic. Such cases therefore call for resolution by conjecture, but in the history of New Testament scholarship the method has often been rejected, and modern printings of the text usually settle for the least inferior of the surviving readings. Why has this situation developed, and what should be done about it?

This dissertation will answer these questions by looking more closely at a number of different subjects. In chapter one it will engage in a more theoretical study of conjectural emendation. It will describe the nature and practice of the method in more detail, survey the history of its use and abuse within New Testament studies, and discuss its use by textual critics in other classical fields. It will then delve into three common reasons why New Testament critics have often rejected the method: 1) the hypothesis that the large number of surviving manuscript copies ensures that the correct reading necessarily survives somewhere among them; 2) the theological belief that God has providentially preserved the original text in one or more of the surviving manuscripts; 3) the philosophical position that textual critics should not privilege any one “original text,” by conjecture or otherwise, but should value instead the narrative revealed in the history of variation. It will then conclude with more practical instructions on when and how to make conjectures. The remaining chapters will move the discussion into concrete terms by engaging in several case studies from the epistle of James. In chapter two it will look at Jas 3:1 with its curious command that μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε. and subsequently argue that the text should be emended to read μὴ πολύλαλοι διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε. Chapter three will turn to the famous conjecture of Erasmus, who proposed that the text of 4:2 be emended to read φθονεῖτε instead of φονεύετε. Chapter four explores how a long lost scriptural quotation can be rediscovered by emending πρὸς φθόνον to πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Finally, chapter five will look at what not to do by examining a farreaching conjectural proposal that would omit as interpolations the references to Christ in 1:1 and 2:1. Through these case studies, many of the ideas and truths that were explained in chapter one only in abstract will be seen to flow naturally from the texts themselves. In the end, all of this should work to restore in New Testament studies the place of conjectural emendation, and in so doing work to restore the text of the New Testament itself.

Reading the SBLGNT and wondering about a comparable GNT Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine edition

This year is a good one for readers of the GNT. At SBL we received copies of 'our very own' Michael Holmes' SBLGNT.

One of the features that I appreciate with the SBL edition is the simplified apparatus and the comparative citation of the Byzantine text from the Robinson-Pierpont edition.

I would like to spend more time reading the 'Robinson-Pierpont' itself and I am wondering about my options.

There was a new 'reader' that was published, but I would appreciate something simpler, with just the Greek text (+ apparatus, yes), and preferably something small, on the order of the NA, UBS, and SBLGNT. I've been using the PDF's that Maurice has graciously made available to the public. I suppose that I could pick up one of the hand-sized, traditional editions from the Greek Orthodox community here in Jerusalem, but a list of differences between 'it' (whichever edition) and the R-P would inevitably arise.

HM Queen Elizabeth II on KJV

Queen Elizabeth II decided to lead off on the KJV in her Christmas message. Text here; video here.

Christmas Gift – Article on GNT MSS in Sweden / Jerusalem Colophon

Merry Christmas from me too!

And here is a little Christmas gift article about the Greek New Testament MSS in Sweden with a special excursus on the so-called Jerusalem Colophon:

Tommy Wasserman, "The Greek New Testament Manuscripts in Sweden with an Excursus on the Jerusalem Colophon," Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok75 (2010): 77-108.


Update: I have uploaded a new version since a table in the first version was in too low resolution

Happy Christmas

Merry Christmas to all our readers. Don't waste too much time looking at blogs.

Relaunch of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism

Today, just now, something big has happened: The journal TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism has been relaunched.

About TC
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (ISSN 1089-7747) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal dedicated to the study of the Jewish and Christian biblical texts. TC is an online publication of the SBL and is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. Users are permitted to download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all TC articles. Articles may not be reproduced without permission.

TC publishes full-length scholarly articles, shorter notes, project reports, and reviews of works in the field of biblical textual criticism. Articles on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and contributions that transcend the traditional boundary between Hebrew Bible and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We also invite articles discussing the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines.

TC uses a "Permanent URL" so that readers will always be able to find it regardless of which server is the current host. Please use the following PURL when linking to TC and its contents:

http://purl.org/TC

Submissions
Submissions should conform to the SBL Handbook of Style or the Chicago Manual of Style in cases where the former does not provide guidance. Articles may be submitted in any standard file format and should use Unicode for those ancient scripts covered by the Unicode Standard. Accepted articles are subjected to a peer-review process before publication. Articles are normally published in Portable Document Format (PDF) but may be published as HTML in some cases. Please direct all submissions to the following email address:

editors at jbtc dot org

Book Reviews
One goal of TC is to provide informative and timely reviews of books in the field of biblical textual criticism. Anyone who would like to submit a book for review or to volunteer as a reviewer may contact the TC book review editors here:

reviews at jbtc dot org

Editors

General Editor
Jan Krans is a member of the Faculty of Theology at VU University Amsterdam. His research interests include the history of interpretation, and New Testament textual criticism. He wrote a PhD dissertation on the differing approaches of Erasmus and Beza to conjectural emendation of the biblical text.

Assistant Editor
Tommy Wasserman is Academic Dean and Lecturer in New Testament at Örebro School of Theology in Sweden. He wrote a PhD dissertation on the text and transmission of the Epistle of Jude.

Book Review Editor
Thomas J. Kraus is a private scholar. His main research interests are, among other things, early Christian manuscripts, the issue of (il)literacy in late Antiquity, the Septuagint Psalms, and everything about book culture in Antiquity. He wrote a PhD dissertation on the language and style of Second Peter.

Assistant Book Review Editor
Heike Braun is a research associate at the University of Regensburg. She wrote a PhD dissertation on the history of the people of God and Christian identity.

Technical Editor
Tim Finney is a computer programmer and New Testament textual researcher. He wrote a PhD dissertation on the Ancient Witnesses of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Editorial Board

* James R. Adair Jr, University of Texas at San Antonio
* Johann Cook, University of Stellenbosch
* Claude E. Cox, McMaster Divinity College
* Sidnie White Crawford, University of Nebraska
* Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
* Leonard J. Greenspoon, Creighton University
* Peter M. Head, University of Cambridge
* Michael W. Holmes, Bethel College
* L. W. Hurtado, University of Edinburgh
* Arie van der Kooij, Universiteit Leiden
* Johan Lust, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
* Tobias Nicklas, Universität Regensburg
* Melvin K. H. Peters, Duke University
* Klaus Wachtel, Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung

TC was founded by James R. Adair Jr in 1996, only three years after the advent of the World Wide Web. Dr Adair continued to serve as General Editor until 2009.

On the Amsterdam NT weblog, chief editor Jan Krans presents the current issue - vol. 15 (2010) - and our plans for the future.

Something Big in TC – Fifth Clue

7747

Something Big in TC – Fourth Clue

The astronauts: Jan Krans, Tommy Wasserman, Tim Finney, Thomas J. Kraus and Heike Braun.

Something Big in TC – Third Clue

1089

Something Big in TC – Second Clue

A welcome return.