Acts 16-28
Acts 16-28
Attention in these chapters is focused on the significance of the "we” passages. Dibelius thought that these passages indicated the existence of an "itinerary” source (perhaps a travel diary) that Luke used for much of this narrative. 62 We have argued above that the best explanation of the "we” in these texts is that Luke himself was with Paul on these occasions. His own eyewitness recollection (combined perhaps with notes he may have taken), along with close personal contact with Paul himself, fully accounts for the material in Acts 16-28.
TEXT
The text of Acts presents as interesting a problem as the text of any New Testament book. This is because the text has been preserved in two distinct forms: the form that is represented by the great uncials Sinaiticus (a) and Vaticanus (B), which is the basis for all modern Greek texts and English translations; and the form represented by the uncial Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D). The latter form of the text, often called Western because of its alleged geographic origin, is about 10 percent longer than the usually accepted text. These additions are of various kinds, extending from single words to whole sentences.
Some of these additions are very interesting. As we noted above, it is the Western text that identifies Luke as a native as Antioch by inserting in Acts 11:28 the words,
"And there was much rejoicing. And as we were gathered together....” The Western text furnishes the wholly likely information that Paul used the rented quarters of Tyrannus in Ephesus "from 11 A.M. to 4 P.M.,” that is, during the hot hours of the day when Tyrannus himself was not using the hall. An ethicizing tendency can be observed in the Western version of the apostolic decree. In place of the shorter text’s prohibition of food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, meat of strangled animals, and "blood”—a mixture of ritual and ethical points—Codex D and its allies list idolatry, sexual immorality, and "blood,” and adds after the list, "and not to do to others what they would not like to be done to themselves.”
Scholars take three basic standpoints in their assessment of this Western text in Acts. A few have argued that it represents the original Lukan text, which a, B, and others have abbreviated. 63 Others have thought that it might represent a completely separate recension that could have come from Luke himself. 64 The great majority, however, view the Western form of the text in Acts as a secondary modification of the generally accepted text. 65 This is almost certainly right. A comparison between the Western text and the text of tfand B shows generally that the Western text tends to smooth out grammatical difficulties, clarify ambiguous points, expand references to Christ, and add notes of historical detail and interest. 66 Accepted canons of textual criticism state that such features are typical of secondary texts. This is not, of course, to say that the Western text may not at points preserve the original reading. But the text, as a whole, must be considered a third- or fourth-century revision of the original, shorter text of Acts.67