{"id":252,"date":"2020-01-28T08:05:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-28T16:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.calbaptist.edu\/scm\/?p=252"},"modified":"2020-01-28T09:03:12","modified_gmt":"2020-01-28T17:03:12","slug":"textual-criticism-an-example-from-the-gospel-of-matthew","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.calbaptist.edu\/scm\/2020\/01\/28\/textual-criticism-an-example-from-the-gospel-of-matthew\/","title":{"rendered":"Textual Criticism: An Example from the Gospel of Matthew"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

New\nTestament Textual Criticism is a science that can make the eyes of even NT\nscholars go blurry. It\u2019s technical, demanding, and tedious\u2026 and sounds like\nanything but fun or necessary. It involves painstakingly comparing ancient\nmanuscripts to determine the wording of a text of which we have no original\ncopy. But sometimes the results of such detailed analysis yields fascinating\nresults. This is one of the many reasons that we teach our students to engage\nin this process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider\nMatthew 27:16-17. It\u2019s Matthew\u2019s version of the Barabbas episode\u2014the famous\nstory in which the Roman governor Pilate offers freedom to either Jesus or\nBarabbas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If\nyou read technical commentaries on this passage, you will find that textual\nscholars debate the wording of these verses. We have some manuscripts that add\nthe name \u201cJesus\u201d to Barabbas as if his full name was \u201cJesus Barabbas.\u201d\nEssentially, the text in these copies reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNow they had then a notorious prisoner,\ncalled Jesus Barabbas. Therefore when they had gathered, Pilate said to\nthem, \u2018Which of the two do you wish that I should release to you, Jesus\nBarabbas or Jesus the so-called Christ?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even\nthough the story of Barabbas is mentioned in all four Gospels, only here in\nMatthew do some manuscripts include the extra name \u201cJesus\u201d for him. This is a\ntextual issue unique to the Gospel of Matthew\u2026 not Mark, Luke, or John.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When\nthere are differences in wording between manuscripts, usually textual scholars\nlean heavily on the earliest manuscripts, those closest to the time of the\nwriting. Unfortunately, our earliest copies of these verses come from the\nfourth and fifth centuries, roughly 300 years after it was written. We have no\nearly papyri here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BUT,\nwe do<\/em> have an early Christian writer\nwho discussed these very words in his commentary! Origen was the church\u2019s most\nsignificant exegete in the third century\u2026 and the subject of an amazing dissertation<\/a> written by a\ncertain CBU professor (spoiler alert\u2014it is the author of this post!)! Origen\nlived before<\/em> our earliest tangible\ncopies of these verses had been inked! And Origen describes manuscripts that\ninclude the name \u201cJesus Barabbas\u201d (GCS<\/em> 38, p. 255<\/a>). So at one time,\nthere certainly were<\/em> earlier\nmanuscripts\u2014at least from the third century, or possibly before\u2014that included\nthis reading\u2026 which no longer exist for our consideration today. And that\nreading was significant enough that we find the compounded name \u201cJesus\nBarabbas\u201d appearing occasionally in other early versions of Matthew\u2026 in Syriac,\nArmenian, Georgian, and Arabic manuscripts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now\njust because that reading was early does not make it original. In the third\ncentury, Origen was aware of Greek manuscripts of Matthew that included such\nwording\u2026 and others that didn\u2019t. And Origen himself actually did not like the\ncompounded name. He thought it rather unthinkable that a name as sacred as\n\u201cJesus\u201d should be associated with the name of a convicted criminal. Granted, in\nfirst-century Palestine, the Jewish name \u201cJesus\u201d was a *very* common name. It\u2019s\nessentially the Hebrew name \u201cJoshua.\u201d Many others at that time had the same\nname (Col 4:11; Acts 13:6; Josephus Ant<\/em>.\n11.298; War<\/em> 6.300; inter alia<\/em>). Or as one of my colleagues\noften quips: \u201cEvery Tom, Dick, and Harry was named Jesus….\u201d \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether\nor not the compounded name \u201cJesus Barabbas\u201d was in the initial copy of Matthew\nis much debated\u2026 and currently there is no consensus. It\u2019s possible that the\nname could\u2019ve been added accidentally. But it\u2019s also possible that a scribe\nintentionally shortened the name to \u201cBarabbas\u201d alone\u2026 with the same thinking as\nOrigen\u2019s\u2026 and to harmonize with the other Gospels since Mark, Luke, and John\nnever mention Barabbas having such a compounded name. There are good solid\nscholars who think the compounded name was original to Matthew 27, and good\nsolid scholars who don\u2019t. Therefore, some English translations include the\ncompounded name (NRSV, CEB, NIV), and others do not (RSV, NASB, ESV, HCSB,\nNJB).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Either\nway, the manuscripts of Matthew that contain the reading \u201cJesus Barabbas\u201d\nrepresent someone\u2019s Bible\u2014the living text of the Gospels\u2014even if the compounded\nname was not original to the text. In other words, each manuscript belonged to\nsomeone\u2014most likely a church, since most manuscripts were not privately owned\nfor personal reading. So in that<\/em> church, for those<\/em> people,\nreading that<\/em> manuscript, when they read what we now call Matthew chapter\n27, that is how they understood the passage\u2026 \u201cJesus Barabbas\u201d over and against \u201cJesus\nthe so-called Christ.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And\nwhat a fascinating comparison that is. When worded this way, the Judean crowds\nprompted by Pilate had to make a decisive decision\u2026 which \u201cJesus\u201d did they\nwant? Jesus Barabbas?… the violent, militant rebel who had committed murder\nrevolting against Rome (see Mark 15:7)?… OR\u2026 \u201cJesus the so-called Christ\u201d?…\nthe Matthean Jesus who had said \u201clove your enemies\u201d (Mt 5:44)\u2026 \u201cturn the other\ncheek\u201d (Mt 5:39)\u2026 and \u201cblessed are the peace-makers\u201d (Mt 5:9)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s\nan interesting contrast. We know nothing about Barabbas or any rebellion which\nMark mentions (15:7). We don\u2019t even know from outside sources that the Romans\nor Pilate had any kind of regular custom releasing a prisoner at Jewish\nfestivals. Maybe this was just a one-time occasion as a nonviolent way for\nPilate to squelch a growing disturbance so he wouldn\u2019t lose control and thereby\nlose his job, as he eventually did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barabbas\nis presented as a violent rebel challenging Roman rule so Judea could be\nindependent of pagan intrusion\u2026 to bring back the glory days of David and\nSolomon. With the zealot mentality, Barabbas would\u2019ve been a kingdom builder\u2014the\nkingdom of Israel\u2014established with sword and dagger. He would\u2019ve acted in what\nhe thought was obedience to God, fighting for God and God\u2019s people, defending\nGod, God\u2019s house, and God\u2019s honor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jesus\nof Nazareth also was a kingdom builder. And he preached a lot<\/em> about a\nkingdom\u2026 but a whole different kind of kingdom. (Occasionally some critical\nscholars have tried to claim that maybe the historical Jesus actually was a\nzealot and that\u2019s why he got executed by the Romans; there seems to be no good\nevidence of that. If that were the case, we would expect to find much more\nanti-Roman sentiment by those associated with the historical Jesus.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead,\nthe kingdom of the Nazarene was a different kind of kingdom, a kingdom of\npeace, of justice and fairness, of mercy, of humility. It stood against power,\nmaterialism, and oppression. It stood for the marginalized, the oppressed, and\nthe castaway. It was inclusive and not exclusive. It was radical and\niconoclastic. A kingdom unlike any other. A kingdom without walls or turrets,\nmoats or drawbridges. A kingdom that was almost unthinkable and unimaginable,\nexcept on the personal level, through the goodness and grace of its citizens,\nwho were to live by the law of love in selfless submission to their God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately,\nforty years after this scene with the Roman governor and the Judean crowds, the\nsame city faced a similar decision all over again. A Roman officer had been\nkilled and events escalated quickly. Nero amassed his legions. Jerusalem chose\nthe way of war, not peace. Rebellion, not diplomacy. Militancy, not mediation.\nJewish militants\u2014who considered themselves God\u2019s patriots\u2014recklessly thought\nthis was their moment to seize the day and God would vindicate them and their\ncause. And they could not have been more wrong, or outnumbered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ndestruction that followed was staggering. Roman legions descended from the\nnorth and slaughtered village after village as they marched towards Jerusalem.\nTroops surrounded the city at the worst possible time as pilgrims had\ncongregated for Passover. The Romans besieged the city and crucified any who\ntried to escape. Inside, food supplies ran out, and people died from hunger,\nstrife, and anarchy. Finally, in August, with Jerusalem crippled by hunger and\nexhaustion, the Romans tore down the walls, burned the Temple, and utterly\nconquered the city. The survivors inside were all either slaughtered if they\nresisted or enslaved if they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\npast summer, I stood in Rome and observed the Arch of Titus. Titus was the\nRoman general, and eventual emperor, who led the Roman conquest of Jerusalem.\nInside his arch, you can still see the inscription of the plundered artifacts\nsuch as a menorah that were paraded through the streets of Rome. And just a few\nhundred yards from there stands the Colosseum. That world-famous, iconic\nstructure was erected only nine years later in part by the loot and slaves from\nthe Roman conquest of Jerusalem. As famous and impressive as those monuments\nstand today, they represent conquest, violence, and bloodshed, tens of\nthousands of lives cut short pursuing short-sighted goals and ill-fated gains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question as posed in some manuscripts of Matthew 27 still stands for us today. Which kind of Jesus do we really want? Which one do we really want to follow? Which kind of kingdom do we really seek? And like those from centuries before, the answers are evident in our choices, the way we live our lives. May God help us to seek the right kingdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n