Replying to Robert
January 30, 2019
Acts: An Exegetical Commentary by Craig S. Keener, $163.21
= = =
Joseph B. Tyson (Editor): Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Paperback: $29.00
The Acts of the Apostles is not history.
Acts was long thought to be a first-century document, and its author Luke to be a disciple of Paul—thus an eyewitness or acquaintance of eyewitnesses to nascent Christianity. Acts was considered history, pure and simple. But the Acts Seminar, a decade-long collaborative project by scholars affiliated with the Westar Institute, concluded that dates from the second century. That conclusion directly challenges the view of Acts as history and raises a host of new questions, addressed in this final report.
The Acts Seminar began deliberations in 2001, with the task of going through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluating it for historical accuracy.
= = =
Richard Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible – $74.34
The Acts of the Apostles joins the Gospel of Luke with the ministry of Paul. Renowned New Testament
scholar Richard I. Pervo shows how this masterful storyteller worked his magic, drawing on first-century
literary techniques of narration and characterization. *Luke’s literary skills did not prevent scribes from re-writing
his masterwork…*
Steefen: This sounds like instead of Misquoting Jesus with Jesus Interrupted, this is Misquoting Luke with Luke Interrupted
= = =
Hi Bart,
You brought to the attention of the general public errors and manipulations of the gospels. It seems with Richard Pervo’s commentary on Acts, scribes rewrote his masterpiece? Do you totally agree? In what classes you teach do you teach your students about that? In which of your textbooks or trade books do you teach students about that? It seems to be an important sequel to your reveals about the gospels to go one book further and discover the reveals about Acts of the Apostles.
I’m working on an “Acts of the Apostles” search here on the Bart Ehrman Blog to see what you posted about that book of the New Testament.
Bart February 1, 2019
Actually, I’m not sure what he means about scribes rewriting it, unless he’s referring to the fact that we have two separate textual traditions of Acts, the so-called Western text and the Alexandrian text, that have some significant differences between them.
I’m thinking all of the Bible in English in the United States and Britain are using the Western text.
The Greek Orthodox use the Alexandrian text?
Should we explore the significant differences you mention?
= = =
In the meantime, a google result:
Bruce Metzger on the “Western Text” of the Book of Acts
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), pp. 259-72.
The text of the book of the Acts of the Apostles circulated in the early church in two quite distinct forms, commonly called the Alexandrian and the Western. The former, which has been traditionally regarded as the authentic text of Acts, is represented by p45 p74 א A B C Ψ 33 81 104 326 and 1175. The other form is represented chiefly by D and the fragmentary papyri p29 , p38 , and p48, by the readings marked with an asterisk or standing in the margin of the Harclean Syriac version (syrh with *, syrh mg), by the African Old Latin ms. h (a fifth or sixth century fragmentary palimpsest that preserves about 203 of the 1007 verses of Acts), and by the citations of Acts made by Cyprian and Augustine. These, which are the primary witnesses to the Western text in Acts, are sometimes joined by others that present mixed texts with a relatively high proportion of Western elements. Among such are the Armenian version of the commentary on Acts by Ephraem Syrus, the Old Georgian version of Acts, several mixed Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts, and a few Greek minuscule manuscripts that were included by von Soden in his I-group. More recent discoveries of witnesses with decided Western affiliations include a Palestinian Syriac fragment (syrms K) from the Kastellion Monastery at Khirbet Mird, dating from the sixth century, and a Coptic manuscript (copG67) written in the Middle Egyptian dialect and dated by its editor in the late fourth or early fifth century.
The two forms of text differ in character as well as length. The Western text is nearly one-tenth longer than the Alexandrian text, and is generally more picturesque and circumstantial, whereas the shorter text is generally more colorless and in places more obscure.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
= = =
Bart, I’m sorry to say this, but this is the first time hearing about this.
Bart
The Alexandrian is typically understood to be the closest to the originals, the most accurate; the Western is an early aberrant form of the text; the Byzantine is the later smoothing out of the text that became the standard text for many centuries, until about 140 years ago.
Yes, lots of books on this, any Introduction to Textual Criticism. The most authoritative account is Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament.
(Robert, I guess you read this book, if not studied it and was tested on it in school.)
Thanks Robert! I’ve been looking for an entré into the wonderful world of CBGM and the Watchel/Holmes looks like the way to go. I’ve been working up to asking Prof Ehrman his thoughts and probably will at some point. In the meantime have their been any exciting revelations (pardon the pun) yet as the result of this methodology? (Exciting that is to a NT textual critic and not necessarily to a layman.)
Robert,
What do you think of the book by Tommy Wasserman and Peter Gary?
- ISBN-10: 9781628371994
- ISBN-13: 978-1628371994
A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (Resources for Biblical Study 80) Paperback – November 17, 2017
Robert said: Unlike the Western noninterpolations in Luke, which do have an effect on interpreting the theology of ‘Luke’, the changes in the Western text of Acts seem relatively inconsequential, ‘though I’ve never studied them in depth. ** you do not have permission to see this link **‘s a 1923 English translation of the Western text of Acts as contained in Codex Bezae (D) by Roger Pearse. The additions are bolded and the omissions are in brackets. Pearse seems to have believed that both versions were authored by Luke and that the longer version was the first version. That’s an unusual view.
The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (1923) is by Canon James Maurice Wilson (1836-1931). Roger Pearse hosts the website and does superb work searching out information on early church writer.
Robert said
Thanks for pointing that out Steven. I was confused by Pearse’s website.
Your welcome.
And I should send Roger a note to put in the author. Done. Note, it is on the Intro page for the books.
=======================
The super resource on the Western text today, in line with the OP question, is from these authors, a 4-volume work!
The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae (vol 2): A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition
** you do not have permission to see this link **
They have lots of interesting material online, eg.:
“The Variant Readings of the Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles ** you do not have permission to see this link **» Vol. 45-88″
by Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger – Filología Neotestamentaria Vol. 17 (2004) 45-88
Here are three sections from their work:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
================================
They do have a good discussion of Acts 8:37. including an apparatus and discussion on p. 130-131.
Acts 8:37 apparatus and discussion
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Acts 8:37 (AV)
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said,
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
The verse has extremely powerful evidence for authenticity, although the modern textcrits are largely stuck in their Vaticanus-primacy mode.
Bart Ehrman hints at this powerful evidence in Orthodox Corruption.
… in the addition attested by a wide range of Greek and versional witnesses, Philip tells the eunuch that he first must profess (the orthodox) faith: “And Philip said, ‘If you believe from your whole heart, it is possible (to be baptized].’ And he answered, ‘I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.’”185 Now the text embraces yet more clearly the confession insisted on by the orthodox, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (one and the same), a confession essential for those who wish to join the people of God. It is no surprise to find that Irenaeus quotes the interpolated text against his Gnostic opponents {Adv. Haer. Ill, 12, 8).
Text
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Footnote
** you do not have permission to see this link **
A far better apparatus than footnote 185 is:
LaParola
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Yet even that needs a lot of tweaking.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)