Matthew 27:16

Εἶχον δὲ τότε δέσμιον ἐπίσημον, λεγόμενον Βαραββᾶν.

And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.

Matt 27:16 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]107
Εἶχον δὲ τότε δέσμιον ἐπίσημον λεγόμενον Βαραββᾶν.

MSS: A, B, F, G, K, L, S, M, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 4 (f58v-59r), 8, 22, 43, 44, 157, 201, 490, 556, 700c (f84r), 771, 892, 901 (f50r), 1701, ℓ339, ℓ339 (iv) (f196rc2), ℓ1086 (iv) (f176rc2), ℓ1086 (v) (f196rc1), ℓ1086 (vi) (f224vc1-2)

Matt 27:16 [Peshitta]
ܐܰܣܺܝܪ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܗܽܘܢ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܐܰܣܺܝܪܳܐ ܝܺܕ݂ܺܝܥܳܐ ܕ݁ܡܶܬ݂ܩܪܶܐ ܒ݁ܰܪ‌ܐܰܒ݁ܰܐ܂

Matt 27:16 [Vulgate]
habebat autem tunc vinctum insignem qui dicebatur Barabbas

Critical Apparatus :

(1) επισημον : א, A, B, D, F, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 556, 700, 771, 892, 901, 1582, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ339 (iv), ℓ1086 (iv), ℓ1086 (v), ℓ1086 (vi)
(2) επισιμον : E, ℓ339 (ii)

(3) λεγομενον : א, A, B, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 490, 556, 700, 771, 892, 901, 1582, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ339 (ii), ℓ339 (iv), ℓ1086 (iv), ℓ1086 (v), ℓ1086 (vi)
(4) τον λεγομενον : D

(5) βαραββαν : א, A, B, D, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1c, 4, 8, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 490, 556, 700c, 771, 892, 901, 1582c, 1701, ℓ339, ℓ339 (ii), ℓ339 (iv), ℓ1086 (iv), ℓ1086 (v), ℓ1086 (vi)
(6) βαραβαν : 7, 438
(7) ιησουν βαραββαν : 1*, 700*, 1582*
(8) ADD οστις δια φθονον ην βεβλημενος εις φυλακην : 13

MSS:

(i) S (f74rc1) has a marginal note for βαραββαν

ΤΚΓ / Δ :

A (f4rc2), D (f97v|180), E (f90v), F (f63vc2), M (f85rc1), S (f74rc1), Y (f72r|145), Ω (p150c2), 4 (f58v-59r), 7 (f65v), 13 (f40vc1), 22 (f59v), 44 (f74v), 157 (f100v), 438 (f127r), 490 (f56rc2), 556 (f52v), 892 (f106r)

ΤΚΓ / Α :

1701 (f63r)

A Textual Commentary On Matthew 27:16

(a) In Matt. xxvii. 16 and 17, some few copies prefix Ἰησοῦν to Bapaßbav as though this had been the name of that malefactor, and that Barabbas (son of Abbas) was the surname or appellation merely. For this reading the authority of Origen has been cited from a passage no longer extant in Greek, but which stands thus in the Latin Interpreter of his Commentary on Matthew : “Habebat autem tunc vinctum insignem, qui dicebatur Barabbas. Congregatis ergo eis, dixit eis Pilatus : Quem vultis dimittam vobis Jesum Barabbam, an Jesum qui dicitur Christus? Sciebat enim quod per invidiam tradiderunt eum. In multis exemplaribus non continetur, quod Barabbas etiam Jesus dicebatur, et forsitan recte, ut ne nomen Jesu conveniat alicui iniquorum.” (iii. p. 918.) Now this does not give any ground for citing Origen for this reading in both the verses, for (as Lachmann, i. xxxviij. very properly pointed out) Origen’s interpreter only mentions Jesus Barabbas in the words of Pilate, ver. 17 ; and further, Origen himself (i. p. 316) quotes that sentence without Ἰησοῦν : he cites these words with τον before Βαραββαν, as now read in Β (τίνα θέλετε των δύο απολύσω υμιν ; τον Βαραββαν η Ἰησοῦν τον λεγόμενον Χριστόν). A scholion in certain ΜSS. (sometimes ascribed to Anastasius, bishop of Antioch) also speaks of ancient copies which gave the words of Pilate Ἰησοῦν τον Βαραββαν. If then this supposed ancient authority were unexceptionable, still it would relate to ver. 17 only ; but it has been shown how doubtful it is in itself, and that Origen himself cites there the contrary reading ; and thus the inquiry arises, What existing evidence is there for such a reading? In ver. 16, ’ Ἰησοῦν Βαραββαν is found in 1 à primâ manu, and two other copies ; also in another, à correctore : also in the Armenian and Jerusalem Syriac versions. In ver. 17, Ἰησοῦν τον Βαραββαν is the reading of 1 à primâ manu, and of the two above mentioned which agree with it ; and a similar reading (though perhaps without tòv) is given by the corrector in the fourth :* the same two versions support the reading here. If, however, the authority of Origen’s interpreter be pleaded in the one verse, it should be in the other also ; and thus the insertion of Ἰησοῦν in ver. 16, must not be admitted : and further, if this interpreter is a good witness that some copies contained this name in ver. 17, he is equally competent to testify that some copies, and those too, perhaps, in his opinion, prefer able, were then without it. Thus the adoption of this reading in both verses, involves a great inconsistency. Let it be freely admitted that, in the early centuries, some copies read , in ver. 17, απολύσω υμιν Ἰησοῦν Βαραββαν (or Ἰησοῦν τον Βαρ.). This need not be felt to be the slightest difficulty : it might have arisen, cither from a copyist taking the words which follow (omitting at first Bαραββαν η), and then, correcting himself in part, without erasing the word which he had written ; or it might have sprung still more easily from a repetition of the two last letters of υμιν, which would form the contraction IN for Ἰησοῦν. Thus,

ΑΠΟΛΥCΩΥΜΙΝΤΟΝΒΑΡΑΒΒΑΝ
AΠOΛYCΩYMININTONBAPABBAN

This slight mistake is all that would be needed to introduce the reading. Few, perhaps, are aware how often errors of this kind arose in the ancient, undivided writing, from the accidental repetition of a few letters : indeed, the name Jesus has found its way in MSS. into many places simply from this cause : after the pronoun AYTOIC, the three last letters having been repeated, AYTOICOIC, this has been read as the contraction for αυτοις ο Ἰησοῦς. After the marginal scholion already noticed had been appended to certain copies, it can be no cause for surprise that the name Ἰησοῦν was inserted (at full length as in Cod. 1, and not as a contraction) in some few copies in both verses.
Thus slight are the grounds on which some would apply the notion of “explicit ancient testimony” to this passage, and thus important is it to sift such testimony. Lachmann well asks, how could any suppose that if the evangelist had written Ἰησοῦν Βαραββαν in verses 16 and 17, he could have expressed himself (in verse 20), οι δε αρχιερεις και οι πρεσβύτεροι επεισαν τους οχλους ινα αιτήσωνται τον Βαραββαν, τον δε ἸΗΣΟΥΝ απολέσωσιν.

* Scholz’s 299 : but he leaves us in uncertainty as to this ; for he incorrectly quotes the other three MSS. in ver. 17, without noticing that they insert tòv ; in this Tischendorf has followed Scholz ; and as he inserts the word Ἰησοῦν in his text in both verses, the want of accuracy as to the wording of his authorities is of all the more consequence.

(S.P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament pp. 194-196)