Acts 1:2

Acts 1:2 h`me,raj … avnelh,mfqh {A}

The text of the opening sentence of Acts circulated in several different forms in the early church. The ordinary text, witnessed by all extant ancient Greek manuscripts with the exception of codex Bezae, can be rendered as follows:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and to teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen (…a;cri h-j h`me,raj evnteila,menoj toi/j avposto,loij dia. pneu,matoj a`gi,ou ou]j evxele,xato avnelh,mfqh).

The text of codex Bezae, on the other hand, differs in two respects: (1) avnelh,mfqh is moved forward so that it follows a;cri h-j h`me,raj, and (2) after evxele,xato it adds a further clause so as to read as follows:…a;cri h-j h`me,raj avnelh,mfqh evnteila,menoj toi/j avposto,loij dia. pneu,matoj a`gi,ou ou]j evxele,xato kai. evke,leuse khru,ssein to. euvagge,lion. A text like that of codex Bezae is attested by Thomas of Harkel for the Greek manuscript that he collated at the Monastery of the Antonians, except that in this manuscript dia. pneu,matoj a`gi,ou probably followed evxele,xato. The Sahidic version also agrees with D in moving avnelh,mfqh earlier in the sentence, but after a`gi,ou it seems to have rendered a Greek text that read khru,ssein to. euvagge,lion ou]j evxele,xato.

Before proceeding further an attempt must be made to understand how this form of the Western text should be construed. Is kai. evke,leuse to be coordinated with avnelh,mfqh? In this case the sequence is very awkward, particularly in view of the statement that the ascension terminates the Third Gospel. On the other hand, to coordinate the finite verb evke,leuse with the participle evnteila,menoj, while satisfactory from the standpoint of sense, is grammatically intolerable. The only remaining possibility is to take the added clause as parallel with evxele,xato and to render “whom he had chosen and commanded to proclaim the gospel.” It must be acknowledged, however, that this destroys the balance of the sentence, which has already expressed the idea of Jesus’ giving commandment to the apostles (evnteila,menoj).

Another form of the Western text, which does not involve the difficulties exhibited by the Bezan text, is preserved in several Old Latin witnesses, particularly in codex Gigas and in the quotations of Augustine and Vigilius. On the basis of what is assumed to be the common text lying behind these Latin witnesses, which differ slightly from one another, Blass, followed by Clark and, in most respects, by Ropes, reconstructed the following Greek text: evn h|- h`me,ra| tou.j avposto,louj evxele,xato dia. pneu,matoj a`gi,ou kai. evke,leusen khru,ssein to. euvagge,lion. This text (and what goes before) may be rendered as follows:

(In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,) on the day when he chose the apostles through the Holy Spirit and commanded them to proclaim the gospel.

This form of text differs in two particulars from the text of all other witnesses: (1) no mention is made of the ascension, and (2) the “day” that is specified is the occasion during Jesus’ public ministry when he chose the apostles. According to the opinion of Ropes and Clark, whose text-critical views usually differ from each other, this form of the Western text must be regarded as original and the Alexandrian as corrupt, while the text preserved in D syr^hmg cop^sa is a conflation of the two.

The following considerations, however, seem to the present writer to lead to the conclusion that the Old Latin form of Western text, though stylistically smoother than the Bezan form, is equally difficult to accept as original.

First, it is incredible that Luke should have said that Jesus’ public ministry began when he chose his apostles; the third Gospel records many details of what Jesus began to do and to teach prior to Luke 6:13 ff. (= choosing the Twelve).

Second, as Lake points out in a note in which he expresses dissent to Ropes’s reconstruction of the text, “in a preface to the second book the important point to be noticed is that which was reached at the end of the first, so that a;cri is essential to the sense.” ⁴⁵

Although Lake regarded the greater part of the Alexandrian text of ver. Acts 1:2 as original, he agreed with Ropes in rejecting avnelh,mfqh, and accepted Ropes’s view that the omission of avnelh,mfqh in the Old Latin is to be connected with the omission (in a* D Old Latin) of kai. avnefe,reto eivj to.n ouvrano,n in Luke 24:51.

It can be agreed that the two omissions belong together, and that (as Lake pointed out) “it is surely illogical to do as Westcott and Hort did, namely, select a text of the gospel which does not mention the ascension, and a text of Acts which says that the gospel did mention it.” ⁴⁶ Lake’s attempt, however, to reconstruct the Greek text of verses Acts 1:1-4 without avnelh,mfqh ⁴⁷ can hardly be pronounced successful. The main verb in the clause that begins with a;cri must be parh,ggeile of ver. Acts 1:4, and this, as Lake candidly admits, “makes a very bad sentence.” ⁴⁸ There are, as Creed pointed out, at least three objections to Luke’s having written such a prefatory sentence: (1) the exceptionally long parenthesis, extending from oi-j at the beginning of ver. Acts 1:3 to sunalizo,menoj auvtoi/j in ver. Acts 1:4, though grammatically possible, is stylistically intolerable; (2) evnteila,menoj … parh,ggeilen is badly redundant; (3) whereas on the usual punctuation sunalizo,menoj runs happily with parh,ggeilen, it makes a weak third to ovptano,menoj auvtoi/j and le,gwn ta. peri. th/j basilei,aj tou/ qeou/. ⁴⁹

If it be assumed that the original text was that which is testified by all known Greek manuscripts except D, simple explanations lie near at hand to account for the several forms of the Western text. Codex Bezae moved avnelh,mfqh earlier in the sentence in order to make its construction with a;cri clearly apparent, and added kai. evke,leuse khru,ssein to. euvagge,lion in order to make explicit what is implied in evnteila,menoj. The Old Latin translator(s), who were often exceedingly free in their rendering, were perfectly capable of modifying the text on which they were working so as to omit the reference to the ascension.

If, however, for the sake of the argument it be assumed that a Greek text once existed which lacked reference to the ascension, its origin can be explained on the basis of either doctrinal or stylistic reasons. Plooij argued that the alteration in ver. Acts 1:2 is only part of a deliberate attempt made by the Western reviser (whose work is seen also in Acts 1:9 and Acts 1:11 as well as in Luke 24:51) to excise as much as possible of what might imply the bodily ascension of Jesus into heaven. ⁵⁰ Without referring to doctrinal considerations Creed made a strong case that the real difficulty is stylistic and is inherent in the narrative itself. He writes:

“Here as so often in the Lucan writings, a smooth surface covers real incongruity. The author of Acts begins with part of a Preface, composed in the accepted manner, which resumes the contents of the preceding volume. This leads us to expect that he will take up the thread where he has dropped it. But instead of this, what he does is to give us a new version of the last scene between Jesus and the disciples…This overlapping of Gospel and Acts inevitably dislocates a preface which presupposes continuity of narrative. Luke covers up the seam by introducing a relative clause after avnelh,mfqh which enables him to return to the last appearance. Ropes’ defense of the Old Latin text on the grounds that it avoids a premature reference to the avna,lhmyij before the narrative of the last appearance is based upon a true perception of the difficulty, but he does not recognize that the difficulty is inherent in Gospel and Acts, apart from the particular word avnelh,mfqh…Since the slenderly supported omission of avnelh,mfqh creates a number of other difficulties to which no satisfactory answer is forthcoming, the word should be retained with all the Greek MSS.” ⁵¹

⁴⁵ Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, The Acts of the Apostles, vol. V (London, 1933), p. 2 (hereafter referred to merely as The Beginnings of Christianity).

⁴⁶ K. Lake, “The Practical Value of Textual Variation, Illustrated from the Book of Acts,” Biblical World, N.S. XIX (1902), p. 363; compare also F. Graefe, “Der Schluss des Lukasevangeliums und der Anfang der Apostelgeschichte,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken, LXI (1888), pp. 522—541; and ibid., LXXI (1898), pp. 136—137.

⁴⁷ For the Greek text see The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V, p. 2, and for an English translation see ibid., vol. IV, pp. 2—4.

⁴⁸ The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V, p. 2.

⁴⁹ J. M. Creed, “The Text and Interpretation of Acts i 1—2, ” Journal of Theological Studies, XXXV (1934), p. 180.

⁵⁰ D. Plooij, The Ascension in the ‘Western’ Textual Tradition (= Mededeelingen der koninklijke Akademie von Wetenschappen, Afdeeling letterkunde, Deel 67, Serie A, no. 2; Amsterdam, 1929), p. 15 [= p. 53].

⁵¹ Op. cit., p. 181.