Whither Barnabas and Saul? To and/or Fro?
Texts and
Translations for Acts 12:25,
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
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]
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]
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”.
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]
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]
|
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
|
Lectpt
|
|
Lectpt
|
|
|
l 1178
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lAD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Versions
|
|
|
itar, c, d, dem, gig, ph, ro
|
itp,
w (?)
|
ite, p, w
|
|
|
|
|
|
vg
|
|
|
|
|
|
syh-mg
|
|
|
syp (?)
|
syp
|
|
|
|
sams
|
copsa-mss
(?)
|
copbo, meg
|
sa (?)
|
copsa
|
|
|
|
|
eth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slav
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fathers
|
Chrysostommss
|
Chrysostom
|
Chrysostomms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texts
|
Mpt
|
Mpt
|
Mpt
|
|
|
|
|
|
RP
|
TR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WH
|
Treg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NA28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations
|
HCSB
|
KJV
|
NIV
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRSV
|
NKJV
|
NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
NLT
|
|
ESV
|
|
|
|
|
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:
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, UBS4c, 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, UBS4c, 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, UBS4c, 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, WHmg,
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
Copyright 2014 by
John T. Jeffery.
All rights
reserved.
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].
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.).
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).
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].
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).
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].
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].
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].
[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, 27th
edition, and the United Bible Societies’ Greek
New Testament, 4th 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,
UBS4c, 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 UBS4c here with ὑπέστρεψαν (tense: aorist vs. imperfect).
[35] RP and MT differ from the NA27 and UBS4c
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 UBS4c 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,
UBS4c, RP, or MT). The
twenty-seven words involved in this apparent interpolation are only documented
in P38-vid, D, and syhmg. 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 UBS4c
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.
