Wayside Gospel Chapel: Whither Barnabas and Saul? To and/or Fro? Texts and Translations for Acts 12:25, and “the least unsatisfactory decision”

Whither Barnabas and Saul? To and/or Fro?

Texts and Translations for Acts 12:25,

and “the least unsatisfactory decision”[1]

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem,

when they had fulfilled their ministry,

and took with them John,

whose surname was Mark.[2]

Βαρναβᾶς δὲ καὶ Σαῦλος ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ

πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν,

συμπαραλαβόντες Ἰωάννην

τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Μᾶρκον.^{^[3]}

A consideration of what appears to be a minor textual problem in Acts 12:25, which has led even the best of the textual critics to despair,[4] illuminates both:

1) the subjective extremes to which some critics will go in attempts at resolution, and,

2) the helpful approaches to be found in some modern translations.

The statement of the problem:

1. Contextual Expectation: “The natural impression one gets when reading the section 11.27 to 13.1 is that 11.30 refers to the arrival of Paul and Barnabas at Jerusalem and that 12.25 ought to tell of their departure from Jerusalem.”[5]

2. Lectio Difficilior: “…all canons of textual criticism favor the more difficult reading εἰς…”.[6]

3. Lectio Facilior:

1) “…divided against itself (ἀπὸ and ἐξ)…”, and,

2) “discredited by the fact that it is not the common usage of Acts to specify the place whence return is made…”.[7]

4. Syntax: The lectio difficilior “…cannot possibly be right if it is taken with ὑπέστρεψαν”.[8]

I. The Texts

On the textual variants concerning the preposition preceding “Jerusalem” in this verse the Nestle-Aland, the Byzantine Textform, and the Majority Text all agree that the evidence favors εἰς over the other two prepositional variants, ἐξ (found in the Received Text[9]), and ἀπὸ.[10]

The consolidated evidence for the six variant readings in the extant sources is displayed in the Table of Evidence for Variants below.

Metzger ascribes a {D} here for “the relative degree of certainty in the mind of the Committee for the reading adopted”[11] in agreement with the UBS 3rd ed.[12] which is the basis for his commentary.[13] This indicates "that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text". It is noteworthy that two decades later the rating of relative certainty was raised to {C}in the UBS 4th rev. ed., indicating “that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.”[14]

The following English language sources footnoted by Metzger[15] may be of interest for further study in the problems presented by the evidence for the textual variants here:

J. Vernon Bartlet, “Note on Acts xii 25”, Journal of Theological Studies O.S. IV:15 (1903), pp. 438-440; on Biblical Studies at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/004_438.pdf [accessed 1 APR 2014].

F. Blass, A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961; from Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 9th-10th eds., Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, n.d.), pp. 110–111, §205.

R. W. Funk, “The Enigma of the Famine Visit”, Journal of Biblical Literature 75:2 (JUN 1956), pp. 130–136.

Kirsopp Lake, “The Practical Value of Textual Variation, Illustrated from the Book of Acts”, Biblical World, N.S. XIX:5 (MAY 1902), pp. 364-366; in The Biblical World, New Series, Vol. 19, January-June 1902, ed. William R. Harper, et al. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1902), pg. 361; on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=s5kNAQAAIAAJ&lr&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed 29 MAR 2014].[16]

Pierson Parker, "Three variant readings in Luke-Acts", Journal of Biblical Literature, 83:2 (JUN 1964), pp. 168-170.

G. A. Simcox, “A Point in Pauline Chronology”, Journal of Theological Studies II:7 (JUL 1901), pp. 586-590; in The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. II, eds. C. H. Turner and W. Emery Barnes (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1901), on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=DThKAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed 1 APR 2014].

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction, Appendix, 2nd ed. (Cambridge and London, 1881, 1896); on the Westcott and Hort Resource Centre Bookshelf at http://www.westcotthort.com/books/Westcott_Hort_-_Introduction_to_the_New_Testament_in_the_Original_Greek_(2nd_1896).pdf [accessed 30 MAR 2014], pg. 94, s.v. Appendix I:” Notes on Select Readings”.

II. The Translations[17]

In exceptions to their standard practices three of the most widely used modern translations - the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New International Version (NIV) - apparently chose to differ from their normal adherence to the NA/UBS texts,[18] by translating one of the other variants, and mentioning the NA/UBS text or the translation of it in a note.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) stands relatively alone in rendering the phrase “Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem”.[19] The only other translation discovered doing the same is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).[20] These translations render εἰς, the preposition found in the NA/UBS texts, as it normally would be translated while letting the problem created by doing so stand.

The New Living Translation (NLT) presents an interesting solution in their rendering, “When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission to Jerusalem, they returned,*…”, to which is added the following note indicated by the asterisk:

“Or mission, they returned to Jerusalem. Other manuscripts read mission, they returned from Jerusalem; still others read mission, they returned from Jerusalem to Antioch.”[21]

In this rendering by the NLT echoes may be seen of part of the proposal of Westcott and Hort, and at least one aspect of the final proposal (“least unsatisfactory decision”) mentioned by Metzger:[22]

1) “εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ….cannot possibly be right if it is taken with ὑπέστρεψαν”.[23]

2) “Less violent to Greek syntax and lexical usage is the proposal that a comma be placed after ὑπέστρεψαν and εἰς be taken as the hellenistic equivalent of ἐν, so that the meaning would be “Barnabas and Saul returned, after they had fulfilled at Jerusalem their mission, bringing with them John whose other name was Mark.”[24]

This approach to the translation here is also indicated in a note in the New English Bible, “….or, as it might be rendered, their task at Jerusalem fulfilled, returned.”[25]

This “syntactical solution”[26] - which does not engage in either Westcott and Hort’s additional imagined alteration in the word order[27] or Metzger’s “hellenistic” translation[28] - would also appear to be the solution settled on by Darrell L. Bock,[29] David G. Peterson,[30] and I. Howard Marshall.[31]

Table of Evidence for Variants[32]

Variant	εἰς	ἐξ	ἀπὸ	εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν	ἐξ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν	ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν
Papyrii		P⁷⁴

Uncials	א	A	D	E (?)		E
	B		E (?)
	[L]		Ψ
	[P]

Miniscules	81	33	36	104	945	1175
	1409	945	181	323	1739
	M/Byz	1739 (?)	307	945 (?)	1891
		2344	323	1175 (?)
		al	453	1739 (?)
			610	pc
			614
			1175 (?)
			1678
			al

Lectionaries	Lect^pt		Lect^pt			l 1178
						l^AD

Versions			it^{ar, c, d, dem, gig, ph, ro}	it^{p, w} (?)	it^e,^{p, w}
			vg
	sy^h-mg			sy^p (?)	sy^p
	sa^ms	cop^sa-mss (?)	cop^{bo, meg}	sa (?)	cop^sa
		eth
	slav

Fathers	Chrysostom^mss	Chrysostom	Chrysostom^ms

Texts	M^pt	M^pt	M^pt
	RP	TR
	WH	Treg
	Cr
	NA²⁸

Translations	HCSB	KJV	NIV
	NRSV	NKJV	NASB
	NLT		ESV

Table of Usages of ὑpostrefw in Acts[33]

CH:VS	Verb Form	Preposition	Prepositional Object
1:12	ὑπέστρεψαν	εἰς... ἀπὸ	Ἰερουσαλὴμ…ὄρους τοῦ καλουμένου Ἐλαιῶνος
8:25	ὑπέστρεφον[34]	εἰς	Ἱεροσόλυμα[35]
8:28	ὑποστρέφων	none
12:25	ὑπέστρεψαν	εἰς	Ἰερουσαλὴμ
13:13	ὑπέστρεψεν	εἰς	Ἱεροσόλυμα
13:34	ὑποστρέφειν	εἰς	διαφθοράν
14:21	ὑπέστρεψαν	εἰς	τὴν Λύστραν καὶ εἰς Ἰκόνιον καὶ εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν[36]
19:1[37]	ὑποστρέφειν	εἰς	τὴν Ἀσίαν
20:3	ὑποστρέφειν	διὰ	Μακεδονίας
21:6	ὑπέστρεψαν	εἰς	τὰ ἴδια
22:17	ὑποστρέψαντι	εἰς	Ἰερουσαλὴμ
23:32	ὑπέστρεψαν	εἰς	τὴν παρεμβολήν

Notes:

1. Lk. 4:1; 24:9; and Heb. 7:1 are the only other exceptional occurrences of the preposition ἀπὸ associated with this verb in the New Testament:

Lk. 4:1 - ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου;

Lk. 24:9 - ὑποστρέψασαι ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου;

Heb. 7:1 - ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τῶν βασιλέων.

In each of these cases the phrase introduced by ἀπὸ is not coupled with another prepositional phrase introduced by εἰς as in Acts 1:12.

2. Another exceptional usage besides the three with ἀπὸ (listed in 1. above), and Acts 20:3, the solitary occurrence with διὰ (listed in the table above), is the sole occurrence in the New Testament when ἐξ is found associated with this verb:[38]

2 Pet. 2:21 - ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ τῆς παραδοθείσης.

3. There are twenty-one occurrences of this verb in Luke. Outside of these thirty-two occurrences in Luke/Acts (not counting Acts 19:1) there are only four other occurrences in the New Testament: Mk. 14:40; Gal. 1:17; Heb. 7:1; and 2 Pet. 2:21. Heb. 7:1 is listed under 1. above. 2 Pet. 2:21 is listed under 2. above. The other two are as follows:

Mk. 14:40 - ὑποστρέψας (no prepositional phrase associated with the verb);[39]

Gal. 1:17 - ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.

Table of Proposed Solutions

Rank	Solution	Proponents	Objections
1	Adopt the lectio difficilior (εἰς) as the text, and translate it with a syntactical association of the prepositional phrase with the participial clause that follows it rather than with the main verb which precedes it.	WH, NA²⁷, UBS^4c, RP, MT, NLT, NEB note, Bock, Marshall, Peterson	Grammatically harsh or clumsy.
2	Adopt the lectio difficilior (εἰς) as the text, then translate it as it normally would be, and leave the problem created by doing so to be addressed in exegesis or exposition.	WH, NA²⁷, UBS^4c, RP, MT, HCSB, NRSV	While an honest and literal approach to both translation and the problem, this fails to solve anything unless an actual return visit to Jerusalem is intended.
3	Adopt the lectio difficilior (εἰς) as the text, then translate it “…as the hellenistic equivalent of ἐν…”[40] (“in”).	WH, NA²⁷, UBS^4c, RP, MT, Ephraem, BDF, Metzger	Remotely possible as an exception, but not supported by any other usage in conjunction with this verb.
4	The lectio facilior reading in the Received Text (ἐξ) has impressive evidence in its favor. Therefore there is no reason to differ with it, especially considering the textual and/or syntactical gymnastics that inevitably are required by the other solutions.	TR, Burgon, Miller, Scrivener, Tregelles, WH^mg, Alford, KJV, NKJV	Tempting, but fails to apply principles of textual criticism consistently while departing from all modern texts which apply these principles.
5	Adopt the lectio facilior (ἀπὸ) as the text, since it has solid evidence in its favor, and eliminates the problem.	Bartlet², NIV, NASB, ESV	Violates standard principles of textual criticism in order to avoid the difficulty.
6	Posit a different original word order that has since been lost, since none of the evidence in the apographs reflects what must have been here in the autographs.	Westcott-Hort “Note”	Extreme, subjective, no evidence, no warrant when principles of textual criticism are applied.
7	Omit the prepositional phrase as a gloss or interpolation, and therefore not original.	Bartlet¹, Bruce	Extreme, subjective, no evidence, and no warrant when principles of textual criticism are applied.
8	Omit vs. 25 as a gloss or interpolation, and therefore not original.	Simcox	Most extreme, and highly subjective, with no evidence, and no warrant when principles of textual criticism are applied.

Documentation for “Proposed Solutions” by Rank:

1. Bock, ibid.; Marshall, ibid.; and Peterson, ibid.

2. Cited above. The following articles should be considered on the issue of a return visit to Jerusalem: R. W. Funk, “The Enigma of the Famine Visit”, Journal of Biblical Literature 75:2 (JUN 1956), pp. 130–136; and Pierson Parker, "Three variant readings in Luke-Acts", Journal of Biblical Literature, 83:2 (JUN 1964), pp. 168-170.

3. Frederick C. Conybeare, “The Commentary of Ephrem on Acts”, in James Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts, Vol. III in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1926), pg. 416, s.v. xii.25-xiii.3: “Shavul autem et Barnabas qui tulerunt cibaria sanctorum in Jerusalem, reversi sunt cum lohanne qui vocatus est Marcus, et Lucas Cyrenaicus (sic).” On the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/thebeginningsofc03foakuoft [accessed 1 APR 2014]; Blass, ibid.; Metzger, op. cit., pp. 399-400.[41]

4. Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, 4 vols., 7th ed. (London: Rivingtons, 1877), II:137; on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/stream/GreekTestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentaryByHenry/02.GreekTestament.CritExegComm.v2.Acts.Rom.Corinth.Alford.1877.#page/n9/mode/2up [accessed 2 APR 2014]; John William Burgon, The Revision Revised. Three Articles Reprinted from the Quarterly Review: I. The New Greek Text. II. The New English Version. III. Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory. To which is added a Reply to Bishop Ellicott's Pamphlet in Defence of the Revisers and their Greek Text of the New Testament: Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16 (London: John Murray, 1883; reprint Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics, n.d.), pg. 316; on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/a549037300burguoft [accessed 2 APR 2014]; Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: George Bell & Sons, 1886); on Holy Bible Institute at http://www.holybibleinstitute.com/files/guidetotextualcr00mill.pdf [accessed 4 MAR 2013], pg. 28; Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students, 2 vols., 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894), II:308-309; on Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/scrivener/ntcrit2/Page_308.html [accessed 2 APR 2014]; and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, The Greek New Testament, Edited from Ancient Authorities, with their Various Readings in Full, and the Latin Version of Jerome (London: Bagster; Stewart, 1857–1879); on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/greeknewtestamen00treg [accessed 2 APR 2014]; cited by M. W. Holmes, Apparatus for the Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Logos Bible Software, 2010).

5. “Bartlet subsequently changed his mind and argued for the originality of ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλήμ…”. Metzger, op. cit., pg. 399, note 16. Thus “Bartlet²” in the table distinguishes this change from that cited under 7. below for “Bartlet¹”. See J. Vernon Bartlet, “Note on Acts xii 25”, Journal of Theological Studies O.S. IV:15 (1903), pp. 438-440; on Biblical Studies at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/004_438.pdf [accessed 1 APR 2014].

6. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction, Appendix, 2nd ed. (Cambridge and London, 1881, 1896); on the Westcott and Hort Resource Centre Bookshelf at http://www.westcotthort.com/books/Westcott_Hort_-_Introduction_to_the_New_Testament_in_the_Original_Greek_(2nd_1896).pdf [accessed 30 MAR 2014], pg. 94, s.v. Appendix I:” Notes on Select Readings”.

7. F. F. Bruce’s most unsatisfactory opinion concerning “the most satisfactory one” is that εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ is “…a gloss inserted by a scribe in imitation of the expression in i. 12; viii. 25; xiii. 13; xxii. 17; Lk. ii. 45; xxiv. 33, 52.” He opts for this despite his own admission: “…even though it cuts the knot instead of untying it.”[42] Bruce enlists the following in support: J. Vernon Bartlet, “The Acts”, in The Century Bible (London, 1901), s.v. Acts 12:25.

8. G. A. Simcox, “A Point in Pauline Chronology”, Journal of Theological Studies II:7 (JUL 1901), pp. 586-590; in The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. II, eds. C. H. Turner and W. Emery Barnes (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1901), on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=DThKAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed 1 APR 2014].

Soli Deo Gloria,

John T. “Jack” Jeffery

Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel

Greentown, PA

29 MAR 2014

Revised:

30 MAR - 3 APR 2014

Whither Paul and Baranabas? To and/or Fro?

by John T. Jeffery

The use of excerpts or reproduction of this material is prohibited

without written permission from the author.

Contact information for the author:

Email: waysidegospelchapel at yahoo dot com

Bibliography

Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart, FRG: United Bible Societies, 1966, 1968, 1975).

Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart, FRG: United Bible Societies and Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993, 1994).

Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, 4 vols., 7th ed. (London: Rivingtons, 1877), II:137; on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/stream/GreekTestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentaryByHenry/02.GreekTestament.CritExegComm.v2.Acts.Rom.Corinth.Alford.1877.#page/n9/mode/2up [accessed 2 APR 2014].

J. Vernon Bartlet, “The Acts”, in The Century Bible (London, 1901), s.v. Acts 12:25.

J. Vernon Bartlet, “Note on Acts xii 25”, Journal of Theological Studies, O.S. IV:15 (1903), pp. 438-440; on Biblical Studies at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/004_438.pdf [accessed 1 APR 2014].

Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1952).

John William Burgon, The Revision Revised. Three Articles Reprinted from the Quarterly Review: I. The New Greek Text. II. The New English Version. III. Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory. To which is added a Reply to Bishop Ellicott's Pamphlet in Defence of the Revisers and their Greek Text of the New Testament: Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16 (London: John Murray, 1883; reprint Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics, n.d.); on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/a549037300burguoft [accessed 2 APR 2014].

The ESV Study Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).

R. W. Funk, “The Enigma of the Famine Visit”, Journal of Biblical Literature 75:2 (JUN 1956), pp. 130–136.

The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed., ed. Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, et al. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985).

H KAINH ΔIAΘHKH, The New Testament, The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 (London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1976).

Peter M. Head, “Acts and the Problem of its Texts”, on Tyndale House at http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/TextofActs.htm [accessed 1 APR 2014];

originally published in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993), pp. 415–444.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003).

M. W. Holmes, Apparatus for the Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Logos Bible Software, 2010).

Holy Bible with Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Version (New York: American Bible Society, 1989).

The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1978).

Holy Bible, New Living Translation (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1997).

I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction And Commentary, Vol. 5 in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, gen. ed. Leon Morris (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980; 2008 reprint).

Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (third edition) (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971).

Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition), 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/German Bible Society, 1994; United Bible Societies, 1971).

Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: George Bell & Sons, 1886); on Holy Bible Institute at http://www.holybibleinstitute.com/files/guidetotextualcr00mill.pdf [accessed 4 MAR 2013].

W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, eds., A Concordance to the Greek Testament, 4th ed., rev. H. K. Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963).

Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1898, 1993).

“NET Bible”, on Bible.org at https://bible.org/netbible/ [accessed 31 MAR 2014].

New American Standard Bible, Reference ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973).

New American Standard Bible, Text ed. (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995, 1997).

New English Bible, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961, 1970).

Pierson Parker, "Three variant readings in Luke-Acts", Journal of Biblical Literature 83:2 (JUN 1964), pp. 168-170.

David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentaries, gen. ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009).

Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005).

James Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts, Vol. III in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1926), pg. 416; on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/thebeginningsofc03foakuoft [accessed 1 APR 2014].

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students, 2 vols., 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894); on Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/scrivener/ntcrit2/Page_308.html [accessed 2 APR 2014].

Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894): With morphology, prepared by Maurice A. Robinson (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002).

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, The Greek New Testament, Edited from Ancient Authorities, with their Various Readings in Full, and the Latin Version of Jerome (London: Bagster; Stewart, 1857–1879); on the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/greeknewtestamen00treg [accessed 2 APR 2014].

[1] This resigned “double negative” alternative statement to “most satisfactory” is from Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (third edition) (Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1971), pg. 400.

[2] A.V.

[3] Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1898, 1993), pg. 357.

[4] “The Committee confesses that more than once K. Lake’s frank admission of despair reflected its own mood: “Which is the true text? No one knows.” Metzger, ibid., note 22; citing Kirsopp Lake, “The Practical Value of Textual Variation, Illustrated from the Book of Acts”, Biblical World, N.S. XIX:5 (MAY 1902), pg. 366. See note 16 below for my basis for correcting the title of Lake’s work.

[5] Metzger, op. cit., pg. 398.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid. Metzger notes here parenthetically that Acts 1:12 is the only exception in “…the twelve occurrences of the verb ὑπέστρεψαν in Acts”. See Table of Usages of ὑποστρέψω in Acts below.

[8] Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction, Appendix, 2nd ed. (Cambridge and London, 1881, 1896), Appendix I:” Notes on Select Readings”, pg. 94; on the Westcott and Hort Resource Centre Bookshelf at http://www.westcotthort.com/books/Westcott_Hort_-_Introduction_to_the_New_Testament_in_the_Original_Greek_(2nd_1896).pdf [accessed 30 MAR 2014]; cited by Metzger, ibid.

[9] Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894): With morphology, prepared by Maurice A. Robinson (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002), s.v. Acts 12:25; H KAINH ΔIAΘHKH, The New Testament, The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 (London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1976), pg. 245.

[10] Metzger, op. cit., pp. 398-400; Nestle, ibid.; Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005), pg. 279; and The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed., ed. Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, et al. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), pg. 416.

[11] Op. cit., pp. xxviii, 398. In his 2nd ed. (1994), pg. 350, Metzger lists the rating as updated to a {C} in agreement with the companion volume, the UBS 4th rev. ed.

[12] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart, FRG: United Bible Societies, 1966, 1968, 1975).

[13] Op. cit., pg. v.

[14] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart, FRG: United Bible Societies and Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993, 1994), pp. 3*, and 454.

[15] Op. cit., pp. 398-400, notes 14, 16, 21 and 22. Where available without subscription internet links have been included.

[16] Metzger erroneously refers to Lake’s title as “The Practical Value of Textual Criticism…”, (ibid.), but see the article in The Biblical World, New Series, Vol. 19, January-June 1902, ed. William R. Harper, et al. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1902), pg. 361; on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=s5kNAQAAIAAJ&lr&pg=PA361#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed 29 MAR 2014]. This was not corrected in Metzger’s 2nd ed. (1994), pg. 352, note 21.

[17] The textual bases for the translations mentioned below have been documented in footnotes where appropriate.

[18] New American Standard Bible, Reference ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973), pg. vii, “In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed.”

New American Standard Bible, Text ed. (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995, 1997), pg. iv, “In most instances the 26th edition of the Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece was followed.”

The ESV Study Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), pg. 22, “The ESV is based on….the Greek text of the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and the Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.”

The NIV is not as specific as the NASB and the ESV when it comes to what text it is translating. The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1978), pg. viii, “The Greek text used in translation the New Testament was an eclectic one….Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism….The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testament were used.”

[19] The Holy Bible: Holman Christian standard version (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2009), s.v. Acts 12:25.

“The textual base for the New Testament [NT] is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27^th edition, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 4^th corrected edition….Where there are significant differences….among Greek [Gk] manuscripts of the NT, the translators have followed what they believe is the original reading and have indicated the main alternative(s) in footnotes.” The Holman Student Bible (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), pg. ix. The “Interdenominational Translation Team” for this translation may be viewed on Holman Christian Standard Bible at http://hcsb.org/f/155/t/451.aspx [accessed 1 APR 2014]. 100 scholars are listed including William Warren who it listed as “Text-critical reviewer New Testament”.

[20] Holy Bible with Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Version (New York: American Bible Society, 1989), pg. 1274. This is a change from the Revised Standard Version which renders the preposition as “from” (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1971), s.v. Acts 12:25. Bruce M. Metzger explains the textual basis for the NRSV as follows: “For the New Testament the Committee has based its work on the most recent edition of The Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee)….Only in very rare instances have we replaced the text or the punctuation of the Bible Societies’ edition by an alternative that seemed to be superior.” Op. cit., s.v. “To The Reader”.

[21] Holy Bible, New Living Translation (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1997), pg. 623, s.v. Acts 12:25.

The translation team for Acts was D. A. Carson, William J. Larking and Roger Mohrlang, with Grant R. Osborne as “General Reviewer”, F. F. Bruce and Kenneth N. Taylor as “Special Reviewers”, and Philip W. Comfort as “N.T. Coordinating Editor”. Op. cit., pg. xxii. “The translators of the New Testament used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty-seventh edition, 1993).” Op. cit, pg. xvi.

[22] Metzger, ibid.

[23] Westcott and Hort, ibid.

[24] Metzger, op. cit., pp. 399-400.

[25] 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961, 1970), pg. 164. R. V. G. Tasker’s “…edition of The Greek New Testament (Oxford and Cambridge, 1964)…is to be regarded as lying behind The New English Bible (1961).” Metzger, op. cit., pg. xv. The text that the translators of the New English Bible followed for the 1970 ed. is “…The Greek New Testament, edited by R. V. G. Tasker (Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1962).” C. H. Dodd, “Introduction to the New Testament”, in The New English Bible, op. cit., pg. vi. The apparent anachronism in the publication dates cited by Metzger is due to the fact that Tasker was attempting to “…reconstruct the underlying Greek text of the New English Bible from its English text, since the translators otherwise had provided no Greek edition of their own.” Maurice A. Robinson, “The Text of this Edition”, in Scrivener’s Textus Receptus, op. cit.

The discrepancy in the publication date for Tasker in the citations by Metzger and Dodd is apparently due to the different editions of NEB New Testament involved, although Metzger’s data is identical in his 2nd ed. (1994), pg. xvi.

[26] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), pg. 435.

[27] Hort, ibid.; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, 1952), pg. 252.

[28] Metzger, op. cit., pg. 399.

[29]Bock, op. cit., pp. 434-435.

[30] The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentaries, gen. ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), pp. 370-371.

[31] Acts: An Introduction And Commentary, Vol. 5 in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, gen. ed. Leon Morris (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980; 2008 reprint), pg. 226, note 29.

[32] Consolidated from NA²⁷, UBS^4c, RP, and MT². Those in bold red font are cited for more than one variant. When a parenthetical question mark follows this indicates that the evidence primarily supports another variant.

[33] A Concordance to the Greek Testament, eds. W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, 4th ed., rev. H. K. Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), pg. 981, s.v. ὑpostrefw.

[34] RP and MT differ from the NA²⁷ and UBS^4c here with ὑπέστρεψαν (tense: aorist vs. imperfect).

[35] RP and MT differ from the NA²⁷ and UBS^4c here with Ἱερουσαλήμ (orthography). On the alternative Greek spellings for “Jerusalem” observed in Judaism and the New Testament see Eduard Lohse, “B. Zion-Jerusalem in Post-Biblical Judaism”, and “C. Zion-Jerusalem in the New Testament”, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), VII:319, 327-328.

[36] RP and MT differ from the NA²⁷ and UBS^4c here since they do not repeat the preposition before the second and third of the three substantives in this phrase.

[37] This variant listed by Moulton and Geden is not in any of the modern texts of the New Testament (NA²⁷, UBS^4c, RP, or MT). The twenty-seven words involved in this apparent interpolation are only documented in P^38-vid, D, and sy^hmg. Metzger refers to “twelve occurrences of the verb ὑποστρέφειν in Acts” (Op. cit., pg. 398; 2nd ed., pg. 351), but perhaps it would be more precise to refer to only eleven. I have included this one in the table only because Metzger obviously includes it in his total, and Moulton and Geden include it in their concordance.

[38] Unless, of course, one adopts the lectio facilior of the Received Text in Acts 12:25!

[39] This is the reading in RP and MT. The NA²⁷ and UBS^4c have ἐλθὼν here.

[40] Metzger, op. cit., pg. 399.

[41] In the 2nd ed. (1994) the pages are 350-352.

[42] Bruce, op. cit., pp. 251-252.

Wayside Gospel Chapel

Verse of the Day

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Whither Barnabas and Saul? To and/or Fro? Texts and Translations for Acts 12:25, and “the least unsatisfactory decision”

No comments: