Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
The striking text which Codex Bezae presents, aside from evoking much controversy and several novel theories, has long been at the center of the yet unsolved mystery of the so-called “Western” text, which is itself one of the most urgent and yet most enigmatic areas of New Testament textual criticism. B. H. Streeter did not exaggerate when he said that many a scholar “… has met his Waterloo in the attempt to account for, or explain away, the existence of the Bezan text.”
1 For example, Blass' theory of two editions by Luke himself; Harris' theory of Latinization; Chase's theory of Syriac origin; Torrey's of Aramaic; and A. C. Clark's theory that the D-text was abbreviated to form the B-text.
2 B. H. Streeter, “Codices 157, 1071, and the Caesarean Text,” Quantulacumque, Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake (London, 1937), p. 150Google Scholar.
3 See Harris, J. Rendel, “New Points of View in Textual Criticism,” Expositor VIII, 7 (1914), 319 fGoogle Scholar., cf. 322; Riddle, D. W., “Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline,” Angl. Theol. Rev., 18 (1936), 221Google Scholar.
4 Harris, Codex Bezae, A Study of the So-Called Western Text of the New Testament (Texts and Studies, II, 1. Cambridge, 1891), pp. 148–153Google Scholar; 228–234; idem, Side-Lights on New Testament Research (London, 1908), pp. 6Google Scholar, 29–35, 107–110; idem, Expositor VIII, 7 (1914), 316–334; idem, “Was the Diatessaron Anti-Judaic?” Harv. Theol. Rev., 18 (1925), 103–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Bulletin of the Bezan Club, 3 (1926), 4–7; 6 (1929), 2; 9 (1931), 8.
5 Lake, K., The Influence of Textual Criticism on the Exegesis of the New Testament (Oxford, 1904), pp. 8–23Google Scholar.
6 Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge, 1882)Google Scholar, II, 282–283.
7 Riddle, , “Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline,” Angl. Theol. Rev., 18 (1936), 220–233Google Scholar.
8 Parvis, , “The Nature and Tasks of New Testament Textual Criticism: An Appraisal,” Journal of Religion, 32 (1952), 165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Clark, K. W., “Textual Criticism and Doctrine,” Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan septuagenarii (Haarlem, 1953), pp. 52–65Google Scholar; idem, “The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism upon New Testament Studies,” The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, eds. Davies, W. D. and Daube, D. (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 44–46Google Scholar.
10 Fascher, , Textgeschichte als hermeneutisches Problem (Halle, 1953)Google Scholar.
11 In addition to Harris (above, note 4) and Fascher (above, note 10), see, for example, the following: Lagrange, M.-J., Critique textuelle, II, La critique rationnelle (Paris, 1935), pp. 388–394Google Scholar; 54–55; Williams, C. S. C., Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1951)Google Scholar, passim; P. H. Menoud, “The Western Text and the Theology of Acts,” Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Bulletin II (1951), 19–32; Crehan, J., “Peter according to the D-Text of Acts,” Theol. Studies, 18 (1957), 596–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Detailed evidence for this view may be found in the writer's doctoral dissertation, of which this paper is a part: “Theological Tendency in the Textual Variants of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis: Anti-Judaic Tendencies in Acts” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1961Google Scholar. 251pp.). [See the précis in Harv. Theol. Rev., LIV (1961), p. 299.]
In such an investigation, the interest is not, of course, in the viewpoint of the late fifth century manuscript D itself, but in the early “Western” text of perhaps the second century, of which D is the best Greek representative. D has textual strata more recent than this, but these can be avoided by not basing judgments on D-variants opposed by other “Western” witnesses, notably, for Acts, Old Latin Codex h, syhmg, syh cum *, Iren, Cypr, Aug, Ephr. Where none of these is available, D must be given its due weight as a “Western” witness.
13 Conzelmann, Hans, Die Mitte der Zeit (Tübingen, 1960 8), pp. 78–85Google Scholar; English trans., The Theology of Saint Luke (London, 1960), pp. 85–93Google Scholar. (He confines himself to the B-text.)
14 Ibid., German, 19572, pp. 75, 77, 139–140; Eng. trans., pp. 90, 92, 162n2. But, with German, 19572, p. 75, cf. Conzelmann's 3rd German edition, 1960, p. 83, where he apparently is not so sure that these contrasting views are due to Luke's source and to Luke's own view, respectively. Nevertheless, these contrasting views in Luke remain.
15 Ibid., German3, pp. 84–85, 151; Eng. trans., pp. 92, 162n2.
16 Black, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1954 2), p. 179Google Scholar, cites these variants as examples of synonyms which could be viewed as different attempts at translation from an original Aramaic, but, he adds, they could also have arisen in Greek texts “in the process of διóρωσις” at an early period.
17 Th. Zahn, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lucas (Leipzig, 19228), I, 154h62. Harnack, Theol. Literaturzeitung, 32 (1907), 399, viewed μέν as secondary, since, he claimed, there was no contrast here. Once seen as an anti-Judaic passage, however, the contrast is both evident and meaningful.
18 Harnack (ibid.) thought that the introduction to this speech in D went back to that in Acts 15:7 (B and D), ἅνδρες ἀδελφοί, ὐμεῖς ἐπίστασθε ὅτι. … The function of ὐμεῖς, however, is quite different; μέν is not accounted for, and, if 15:7 were the source, why did the D-text not simply take over ὐμεῖς ἐπίστασθε ὅτι …, which would have made perfect sense in 3:17 (and cf. 10:28; 19:25), or why not ἐπίσταμαι? The first person plural is not accounted for from 15:7.
19 According to Harnack (ibid.) and Weiss, B., Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte (Texte und Untersuchungen, XVII, 1. Leipzig, 1897), p. 61Google Scholar, πονηρóν is secondary because it is in conflict with κατὰ ἅγνοιαν. This, however, is just the point here — according to the D-text, the Jews cannot be guiltless because of their ignorance.
20 Menoud, “Western Text,” p. 28.
21 Πονηρóν D lat Chr2,480 (but not 2,492). Cf. inicum = iniquum d; nihil mali itp1; nihil male q.
22 D reads πονηρóν also in Acts 5:4, in Peter's question to Ananias: τί ὅτι ἕθον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σον ποιῆσαι πονηρòν τοῦτo; (B om ποιῆσαι and reads τò πρᾶγμα for πορηρóν), and in Lk. 5:22, in Jesus' reply to the scribes and Pharisees: τί διαλογίξεσθε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ύμῶν πονηρά; (D it). The latter case is undoubtedly a harmonization with Mt. 9:4, and the former is patterned after it, as is shown by the parallelism in Acts 5:4D and Lk. 5:22D. No such relationship appears with reference to Acts 3:17 or Lk. 23:41, so that they remain separate cases. Whether these additional occurrences of πονηρóν in D are sufficient to indicate a preoccupation with this term by the D-text is not clear because of the evidence of harmonization. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the term was found or remembered in the parallels and used consciously according to a predilection for it.
23 Menoud, “Western Text,” p. 28n32, says Lk. 23:34 is the only parallel, rightly rejecting I Cor. 2:8, which speaks of heavenly powers, not Jews. He has, however, overlooked Acts 13:27, which is discussed below. Note that Ephrem, for example, brings together the two passages (Acts 3:17 and Lk. 23:34); quoting Acts 3:17, he says these are the very words which the Lord used, “They do not know what they do” [see J. H. Ropes, The Text of Acts (Vol. III of The Beginnings of Christianity. Part I. The Acts of the Apostles, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. 5 vols.; London, 1920–33), p. 398].
24 Lacking in D* (add DL) d 
B W θ pc a b sy8 sa bo eth.
25 Harris, Expositor VIII, 7 (1914), 333–334; cf. 324–325, 331 ff. See also Harnack, , Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche. I. Zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik (Berlin, 1931), pp. 91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 96–98, who defends the originality of the prayer of forgiveness and its subsequent excision for dogmatic reasons — because of anti-Judaic feelings. See also Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (London, 1924), pp. 138–139Google Scholar. (This view assumes that the αὐτοῖς refers to the Jews, not to the Romans.) The refusal of Hort to admit any dogmatic alterations in the New Testament has been noted earlier; observe his comment on this passage (The New Testament in the Original Greek, II, “Notes on Selected Readings,” p. 68): ‘Wilful excision, on account of the love and forgiveness shown to the Lord's own murderers, is absolutely incredible: no various reading in the New Testament gives evidence of having arisen from any such cause.” This view, here and elsewhere, cannot bear the weight of evidence against it; thus Harnack, Studien, I, 98.
26 See F. H. Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge, 1864), p. 444, note to Fol. 468b; the editions of Blass, F. [Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter. Editio philologica (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895)Google Scholar], Hilgenfeld, A. [Acta Apostolorum, Graece et Latine secundum antiquissimos testes (Berlin, 1899)]Google Scholar, Ropes [see above, note 23], and Clark, A. C. [The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford, 1933)]Google Scholar; Chase, F. H., The Old Syriac Element in Codex Bezae (London, 1893), pp. 89 ffGoogle Scholar.; and Zahn, Th., Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas (Leipzig, 1916)Google Scholar, ad loc., who says συνιέντες is assured through d.
27 Zahn, Urausgabe, p. 283.
28 Conzelmann, German3, p. 147n4, cf. p. 83; Eng. trans., p. 158n4, cf. p. 90. Conzelmann's assumption here that τὰς φωνὰς τῶν προφητῶν is the object of ἀγνοήσαντες is also questionable. The choice is whether the καί of the B-text is copulative or epexegetic, and thus whether both τοῦτον and τὰς φωνάς are objects of ἀγνοήσαντες, or only τοῦτον, with τὰς φωνάς as the object of ἐπλήρωσαν. See Jacquier, E., Les Actes des Apôtres (Paris, 1926), p. 400Google Scholar. Compelling reasons for one choice over the other are lacking. Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1956), p. 91Google Scholar [Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen, 1951) p. 83Google Scholar], excises τοῦτον, making “the voices of the prophets” the only object of ἀγνοήσαντες. He apparently follows Ropes (Text of Acts, p. 262), but Ropes' view was based on his explanation of the D-text — that the “Western” reviser wished to clarify the simple reading άγνοήσαντες sine τοῦτον and substituted μὴ συνιὲντες. The B-text, says Ropes, supplied a new object, τοῦτν. Unfortunately for this view, there is no evidence for the readingἀγνοήσαντες sine τοῦτον except the reading of D d (i.e., μὴ συνιέντες sine τοῦτον), and the explanation about to be given for D's lack of τοῦτον and its reading of μὴ συνιέντες for ἀγνοήσαντες obviates the need for Ropes' elaborate explanation.
This is not, however, to gloss over the textual problem in 13:27–29. The texts of both B and D do offer difficulty. Reconstructions of the “Western” text, however, generally follow D (Hilgenfeld, Zahn, Clark, Ropes), though Ropes deletes καὶ κρείναντες in favor of the same word in the next line (verse 28), Ropes, Text of Acts, pp. 261–263. The text of D, then, can be accepted (with this possible exception) as the early “Western” reading.
29 See Acts 3:13—18; note τοῦτον in 13:27 and the vg codices which read hunc Christum/Iesum here. This assumes the view that τοῦτον refers to the Iησοῦν of verse 23: ὁ θεòς … ἥγαγεν τῷ 'Iσραὴλ σωτῆρα 'Iησοῦν [Lake and Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity, IV, 153; Ernst Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen, 195912), p. 352], and not to ὁ λóγος τῆς σωτηρίας (verse 26). For the latter view, see Zahn, Apostelgeschichte3–4, II, 439.
30 Reicke, Bo, Glaube und Leben der Urgemeinde (Zürich, 1957), p. 67Google Scholar.
31 Nor does the fact that 13:27 is in a speech of Paul require that ἅγνοια be interpreted in a Pauline fashion, for two reasons: 1.) Though in Paul ἅγνοια is regularly guilt-laden, Acts 3:17 and 13:27 alone in the New Testament use the term in quite another connection. Thus Gärtner, B., The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala, 1955), p. 234Google Scholarn2, cf. pp. 229–240; see also Fascher, E., “Gott und die Götter,” Theol. Literaturzeitung, 81 (1956), 298Google Scholar. 2.) The parallelism shown here between Acts 3:17 and 13:27 (not to mention other evidence) reveals the hand of Luke in each, rather than providing evidence for the unity of the preaching of Peter and Paul (Haenchen, Apostelgeschichte, p. 352).
32 Dibelius, Studies, p. 56n89, think ὐπεριδῶν is a stronger term than παριδῶν. However, Gärtner, Areopagus Speech, p. 230, thinks the two terms give the same sense — that God does not intervene to change the situation.
33 Haenchen, Apostelgeschichte, p. 463.
34 Gärtner, Areopagus Speech, p. 234n2, distinguishes carefully the use of ἅγνοια in 3:17 (to be taken with 13:27) from its meaning in 17:30, and in the epistles, LXX, Philo, pagan philosophy, etc. See his excellent discussion of the “ignorance” theme, pp. 229—240.
35 A passage closely related to 17:30 and one to which the “ignorance motif” might be applied is Acts 14:16, in the Lystra speech: (B and D) δς ἐν ταῖς παρῳχημέναις γενεαῖς εἵασεν πάντα τὰ ἕθνη πορεύεσθαι ταῖς óδοῖς αὐτῶν. The specific mention of ἕθνη, however, excludes any confusion as to Jewish or Gentile reference.
36 These passages are discussed in Theological Tendency in the Textual Variants of Codex Bezae, pp. 66–77.
37 Another notable case of consistency in D is the lack of καὶ πνικτοῦ(-óν) or καὶ πνικτῶν in 15:20; 15:29; and 21:25, and the additional negative “Golden Rule” in 15:20 and 29 (though not in 21:25).
38 Other instances of leniency or favor toward the Roman officials in the D-text of Acts appear in the context of 16:39 and elsewhere; see Theological Tendency in the Textual Variants of Codex Bezae, pp. 200–205.
39 Δίκαιος is used of Jesus also in Mt. 27:19, 24 (though not in B or D); Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14. Note also that in Acts 14:2D δίκαιοι is used of the Christians.
40 Other cases of such paralleling by the D-text occur in Acts 4:13 and 4:21; see Theological Tendency in the Textual Variants of Codex Bezae, pp. 167–168; 171–172.
