Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
It is by no means an exaggeration to claim that the tendency of modern textual critics and exegetes is to regard the long disputed text-critical issue of Luke's final pericope (Luke 24.50–3) as more or less settled in favour of the authenticity of the so-called ‘longer (non-Western) text’ (i.e. containing the phrases κα⋯ ⋯νεφέρετο εἰς τ⋯ν ούρανόν, v. 51 and προσκυνήσαντες αύτόν, v. 52). Typical of the scholarly consensus is the almost unanimous adoption of the disputed words by modern Greek text editions, translations and exegetical studies, a trend which is not least inspired by the fact that the disputed words are attested in the oldest surviving copy of the Gospel of Luke, Papyrus 75 ($$$ = Papyrus Bodmer XIV), an early third-century MS closely affiliated with Codex Vaticanus (B). In the opening chapter of Acts the Textual situation is not essentially different. Despite continuing scholarly debate concerning the antiquity and origin of the Western text tradition (infra), in general, contemporary scholarship supports the ‘Alexandrian’ text.
1 Above all, the analyses of Larrañaga, V., L'Ascension de Notre-Seigneur dans le Nouveau Testament (SPIB 50; Roma: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1938) 43–50, 145–213Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th ed. 1967) 138–45Google Scholar, and Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: UBS, rev. ed. 1975) 189–93Google Scholar, have helped to establish a scholarly consensus. Cf. Benoit, further P., ‘L'Ascension’, RB 56 (1949) 188–92Google Scholar; Guillaume, J. M., Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus (EtB; Paris: Gabalda, 1979) 224–8Google Scholar (both following Larrañaga); Dillon, R. J., From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word. Tradition and Composition in Luke 24 (AnBib 82; Roma: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1978) 182–4.Google Scholar
2 Na26, 27; UBS1 (within brackets); UBS2–4 (unbracketed; from a {D} rating to a {B} rating). The shorter text is still read by Huck, A., Greeven, H., Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien. Mit Beigabe der johanneischen Parallelstellen (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 13th ed. 1981) 281.Google Scholar
3 So the New RSV (1989). See further table 1 in: Parsons, M. C., The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts. The Ascension Narratives in Context (JSNT.S 21; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 31Google Scholar and Comfort, P. W., Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1990) 103–4.Google Scholar
4 For instance (post–1980); Nielsen, J. T., Het Evangelie naar Lucas 2 (PNT.N; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1983) 267–8Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost’, TS 45 (1984) 416–7Google Scholar; idem, The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (AncB 28A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 1590; Sabourin, L., L'Évangile de Luc. Introduction et commentaire (Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1985) 386, 404Google Scholar; Weiser, A., ‘Himmelfahrt Christi (I: Neues Testament)’, TRE 15 (1986) 332Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (NTD 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd ed. 1986) 249Google Scholar; Maile, J. F., ‘The Ascension in Luke-Acts’, TynB 37 (1986) 31Google Scholar; Kremer, J., Lukasevangelium (EB 3; Würzburg: Echter, 1988) 245Google Scholar; Tiede, D. L., Luke (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 444Google Scholar; Wiefel, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ThHK 3; Berlin: Evangelische, 1988) 413Google Scholar; Petzke, G., Das Sondergut des Evangeliums nach Lukas (ZWKB; Zürich: Theologischer, 1990) 206–7Google Scholar; Johnson, L. T., The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1991) 404Google Scholar; Bruggen, J. van, Lucas. Het evangelie als voorgeschiedenis (CNT; Kampen: Kok, 1993) 417Google Scholar; Nolland, J., Luke 18:35–24:53 (WBC 35C; Dallas: Word, 1993)1224.Google Scholar
5 Martin, V., Kasser, R., Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV. Évangiles de Luc et de Jean (2 vols.; Cologny/Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961)Google Scholar. Stricto sensu, the siglum $$$75 designates both Bodmer papyri XIV–XV, but we use it also when we refer to Luke (= Bodmer XIV) or John (Bodmer XV) individually. Furthermore, we do not always differentiate between the scribe and his text. Where relevant, it should be sufficiently clear from the context whether the scribe or his text is meant.
6 Martin, Kasser, Bodmer 1.13; Aland, K., Kurzgefaβte Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments 1 (Gesamtübersicht) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963) 33Google Scholar; Martini, C. M., Il Problema delta recensionalita del codice B alla luce del papiro Bodmer XIV (AnBib 26; Roma: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1966) 44Google Scholar. But cf. the reservations of J. Duplacy, ‘P75 (Pap. Bodmer XIV-XV) et les formes les plus anciennes du texte de Luc’, in: Neirynck, F., ed., L'Évangile de Luc/The Gospel of Luke. Problèmes littéraires et théologiques (BEThL 32; Leuven: Leuven University/Peeters, 2nd ed. 1989) 21–38Google Scholar (27).
7 According to Edwards, S. A., 'P75 Under the Magnifying Glass’, NT 18 (1976) 211Google Scholar, there is a 92% (!) agreement between $$$75 and B.
8 Parsons, , ‘A Christological Tendency in P75’, JBL 105 (1986) 463–79Google Scholar; idem, Departure, 29–52.
9 Ehrman, B. D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York/Oxford: OUP, 1993) 227–33Google Scholar. In contrast to Parsons, for Ehrman the heresy to be attacked is not so much gnostic, but docetic in character: the orthodox scribe who inserted the words opposed a high christology by stressing the human aspects of the ascension, see Ehrman, , Corruption, 255–6Google Scholar n. 145.
The shorter reading is also supported by (post-1980): Bouwman, G., ‘Der Anfang der Apostelgeschichte und der “westliche” Text’, in: Baarda, T., Hilhorst, A., Luttikhuizen, G. P., van der Woude, A. S., ed., Text and Testimony (FS A. F. J. Klijn; Kampen: Kok, 1988) 52Google Scholar; M.-É. Boismard, Lamouille, A., Les Actes des deux Apôtres 2 (EtB Ns 13; Paris: Gabalda, 1990) 142–3Google Scholar (= Act II); Evans, C. F., Saint Luke (TPI NT Commentaries; London: SCM, 1990) 916, 927–8Google Scholar [but led by the older study of Ph. Menoud, H., ‘Remarques sur les textes de l'ascension dans Luc-Acts’, in: Eltester, W., ed., Neutestamentliche Studien für R. Bultmann (BZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 2nd ed. 1957) 148–56!]Google Scholar; Williams, D. J., Acts (NIBC 5; Peabody: Hendrickson, rev. ed. 1990) 22.Google Scholar
10 The history of scholarship of the Western text has been summarized by Klijn, A. F. J., A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts (Utrecht: Kemink, 1949)Google Scholar; idem, ‘A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts (1949–1959)’, NT 3 (1959) 1–27; 161–73; idem, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts, Part Two (1949–1969) (NT.S 21; Leiden: Brill, 1969); Epp, E. J., The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (MSSNTS 3; Cambridge: CUP, 1966) 1–21Google Scholar; Metzger, , Commentary, 259–72Google Scholar; E. Grässer, , ‘Acta-Forschung seit I960’, ThR 41 (1976) 163–86Google Scholar; Boismard, and Lamouille, , Le texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres (reconstitution et réhabilitation) 1 (Paris: Recherche sur les Civilisations, Synthèse 17,1984) 3–10Google Scholar; Parsons, , Departure, 118–24Google Scholar; Strange, W. A., The Problem of the Text of Acts (MSSNTS 71; Cambridge: CUP, 1992) 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Head, P. M., EvQ 66 (1994) 87–91.Google Scholar
11 For a recent defence of the priority of the Western tradition over against the Alexandrian tradition in Luke 24, see Amphoux, C.-B., ‘Le chapitre 24 de Luc et l'origine de la tradition textuelle du Codex de Bèze (D.05 du NT)’, FilNT 4 (1991) 21–49.Google Scholar
12 Blass, F., ‘Die zweifache Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte’, ThStKr 67 (1894) 86–119Google Scholar; idem, Ada apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter. Editio philologica apparatu critico, commentario perpetuo, indice verborum illustrata (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895) 24–32; idem, Ada apostolorum secundum formam quae videtur romanam (Leipzig: Teubner, 1896); idem, Philology of the Gospels (London/New York: Macmillan, 1898) 96–189.
13 Zahn, Th., Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas (FGNK 9; Leipzig: Deichert-Scholl, 1916)Google Scholar; idem, Einleitung in das Neue Testament 2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs-Scholl, 2nd ed. 1900) 339–60.
14 Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 3rd ed. 1967) 28–34, 277–80.Google Scholar
15 Wilcox, M., ‘Luke and the Bezan Text of Acts’, in: Kremer, J., ed., Les Actes des Apôtres. Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BEThL 48; Gembloux: Duculot, 1979) 447–55.Google Scholar
16 É. Delebecque, , ‘Les deux prologues des Actes des Apôtres’, RThom 80 (1980) 628–34Google Scholar; idem, Les deux Actes des Apôtres (EtB NS 6; Paris: Gabalda, 1986).
17 Boismard, and Lamouille, , Texte 1–2Google Scholar; idem, Actes 1–3. Further: Strange, Problem (with some differences).
18 Epp, , ‘The Ascension in the Textual Tradition of Luke-Acts’, in: Epp, E. J., Fee, G. D., ed., New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis (FS B. M. Metzger; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 144–5.Google Scholar
19 Boismard and Lamouille, Actes 2.142 n. 1.
20 Textual witnesses are drawn from Aland, ‘Bedeutung’, 158; idem, Synopsis, UBS4 and NA27.
21 Contra the suggestion of G. D. Kilpatrick (in: Jeremias, Abendmahlsworte, 144 Anm. 4; now in Kilpatrick, , The Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism. Collected Essays Edited by J. K. Elliott (BEThL 96; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University, 1990] 307, 330)Google Scholar; Snodgrass, K., ‘Western Non-Interpolations’, JBL 91 (1972) 375Google Scholar; and some members of the UBS-Committee [see Metzger, , Commentary, 189–90]Google Scholar, that the eye of the scribe was distracted by the repeated NKAIA (v. 51).
22 It should be recognized that a classification according to text-types (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean and Byzantine) is surrounded by many methodological difficulties. The borders between the various text-types are fluid and the MSS themselves are not always homogeneous. Nevertheless we can be reasonably certain of the existence of the ‘Western’ text (apart from its tendentious nomenclature of course). I am here indebted to Prof. B. Aland (Münster) for some helpful comments and corrections. Cf. Metzger, , The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon, 3rd ed. 1992) 284–95Google Scholar, and the stimulating article of Epp, ‘The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission’, in: W. L. Petersen, ed., Gospel Traditions in the Second Century (Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame, 1989) 84–103Google Scholar (proposing new designations for classifying papyri).
23 Contra Ehrman, Corruption, 228, who exaggerates the significance of this ‘minor agreement’. With D Sinaiticus omits καί άνεφέρετο είς τόν ούρανόν, but with B retains προσκυνήσαντες αύτόν cf. Gräfe, F., ‘Der Schluβ des Lukasevangeliums und der Anfang der Apostelgeschichte’, ThStKr 61 (1888) 531Google Scholar; Plooij, D., ‘The Ascension in the “Western” Textual Tradition’, MNAW.L 67 A/2 (Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandse Uitgeverij, 1929) 45Google Scholar; Larrañaga, , Ascension, 145–6Google Scholar; Aland, ‘Bedeutung’, 171.
24 Its authenticity has been questioned by Gräfe, ‘Schluβ’, 522–41 and is discussed by Larrañaga, , Ascension, 148–65Google Scholar.
25 Parsons, , Departure, 39, 40Google Scholar (italics his). Cf. Rice, G. E., ‘Western Non-Interpolations. A Defense of the Apostolate’, in: Talbert, C. H., ed., Luke-Acts. New Perspectives from the SBL Seminar (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 3Google Scholar (comparing B and D).
26 Generally speaking, the study of Codex Bezae is complicated by the fact that Codex Bezae in Acts presents a text of a different character to that of the four gospels (see Parker, D. C., Codex Bezae. An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text [Cambridge: CUP, 1992] 248–9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But this does not affect the conclusions of the present investigation.
27 $$$75 has άπάρας, an obvious error of the scribe of $$$75; the same error is attested in John 4.35 and 7.49.
28 The absence of μεγάλης in B* is obviously an unintentional error. The missing word is inserted in the margin.
29 Έν τῷ ίερῷ is accidentally omitted in A*.
30 Άμήν (A B C2 Θ ψ 063 f 13 $$$ lat syp, h bomss) is a liturgical addition introduced by one or more copyists.
31 a b d e ff 1 Augustine, EpCath 10.26. On the Old Latin versions see Metzger, , The Early Versions of the New Testament. Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) 285–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 The inversion έπάρας δέ (D) instead of καί έπάρας is typical of Codex Bezae (118x according to Yoder, J. D., Concordance to the Distinctive Greek Text of Codex Bezae [NTTS 2; Leiden: Brill, 1961] 14Google Scholar, and the reverse, καί pro δέ 81x, Yoder, Concordance, 37). Zuntz's, G. count (‘On the Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles’, in: Opuscula Selecta. Classica, Hellenistica. Christiana [Manchester: University of Manchester, 1972] 211Google Scholar) is obviously mistaken. The omission of αύτο⋯ (D W ff2) is accidental. It is attested in VL (manus suas, manibus suis). The augmented ηύλόγησεν (א D W ψ pc) is a purely orthographic variant of εύλόγησεν (cf. BDR 672).
33 Nestle, Eb., Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3rd ed. 1909) 250.Google Scholar
34 Cf. Larrañaga, Ascension, 409–16.
35 In the LXX ἒως πρός occurs only in Gen 38.1; Ezek 48.1; cf. 48.2–8 (8x). Further in Polybius 3.82.6; 12.17.4; DiodS 2.43.2.
36 Jeremias, , Abendmahlsworte, 144.Google Scholar
37 Contra Kilpatrick, Principles, 35, who suggests the differences may have risen by homoeoteleuton (OYNTEΣ … OYNTEΣ).
38 Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 7th ed. 1977)71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Metzger, , Commentary, 190–1.Google Scholar
40 Lohfink, G., Die Himmelfahrt Jesu. Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (StANT 26; München: Kösel, 1971) 171–4.Google Scholar
41 Epp unfortunately restricts his analysis to the variants of v. 51.
42 Another rationale for excising προσκυνήσαντες αύτόν may be that in the only other instance of proskynesis in Luke (Luke 4.7, 8), the Lukan Jesus explicitly objects to it.
43 Cf. Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt, 170–1.Google Scholar
44 Westcott, B. F., Hort, J. F. A., ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek 2 (Cambridge/London: Macmillan, 1881; 2nd ed. 1896) 175–7.Google Scholar
45 Aland, ‘Bedeutung’, 156.
46 Aland, ‘Bedeutung’, 172.
47 G. D. Fee, ‘P66, P75, and Origen. The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria’, in: Longenecker, R. N., Tenney, M. C., ed., New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974) 19–45.Google Scholar
48 Cf. Martin, Kasser, Bodmer 1.2–29Google Scholar; Martini, , Problema, 42–5Google Scholar; Aland, ‘Bedeutung’, 303–16; Klijn, , Survey (1969) 37–8.Google Scholar
49 Colwell, E. C., Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 114.Google Scholar
50 Colwell, , Methodology, 117.Google Scholar
51 Birdsall, J. N., ‘Rational Eclecticism and the Oldest Manuscripts. A Comparative Study of the Bodmer and Chester Beatty Papyri of the Gospel of Luke’, in: Elliott, J. K., ed., Studies in New Testament Text and Language (NT.S 44; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 50.Google Scholar
52 Birdsall, ‘Eclecticism’, 51.
53 Metzger, Text, 41.
54 Martini, Problema; summarized (in Latin) in: ‘Problema recensionalitatis codicis B in luce papyri Bodmer XIV (p75)’, VD 44 (1966) 192–6.Google Scholar
55 Martini, , Problema, 57.Google Scholar
56 K. W. Clark, ‘The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament’ (1966) 15 = idem, The Gentile Bias and Other Essays Selected by J. L. Sharpe III (NT.S 54; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 118.
57 Martini, Problema, 151.
58 For what follows, see Parsons, Departure, 29–52, esp. 44–9.
59 Rice, ‘Non-Interpolations’, 1–16; idem, ‘Is Bezae a Homogeneous Codex?’, in: C. H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on the New Testament (FS F. Stagg; Macon: Mercer, 1985) 39–54.
60 Responding to criticism on Westcott-Hort's deliberate selection of Western non-interpolations by e.g. Aland, K, Aland, B., Der Text des Neuen Testaments. Einführung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben und in Theorie wie Praxis der modernen Textkritik (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1982) 28Google Scholar Anm. 6; Metzger, , Commentary, 102.Google Scholar
61 Rice, ‘Non-Interpolations’, 15: ‘The B text of Luke presents an unbelief on the part of the apostles, an unbelief that persists in the presence of evidence testifying to the resurrection. The Western text, led by D, alters Luke's account of these events and presents reasons for the unbelief, which can be seen in (1) the blocking of the tomb's entrance by an immense stone, (2) the role of two mysterious women, (3) the omission of the clear declaration of the resurrection given by the two men in shining clothing, (4) the omission of Peter's visit to the empty tomb, (5) the role played by the Emmaus disciples, and (6) the post-resurrection appearance to the group in Jerusalem.’
62 Parsons, , Departure, 48Google Scholar (added Greek mine).
63 Even those who argue for some underlying principle connecting the Western non-interpolations are cautious: cf. Rice, ‘Non-Interpolations’, 1–16 (in defence of the longer texts). Even Amphoux, ‘Chapitre 24’, 21–49 in his text- and style-critical analysis of Luke 24 (claiming Western priority for the rest of chapter 24) does not extend his conclusions to the Western non-interpolations of vv. 51, 52.
64 So Colwell, , Methodology, 108Google Scholar. On the terminology of ‘singular’ and ‘sub-singular readings’, see Epp, , ‘Toward the Clarification of the Term “Textual Variant”’ (1975), in: Elliott, ed., Studies, 153–73Google Scholar, esp. 160ff.
65 Statistics based on Martini, , Problema, 184–7.Google Scholar
66 Martini, , Problema, 152Google Scholar n. 6.
67 We will here proceed pragmatically, by restricting our analysis to those instances brought forward in some way or another by Parsons.
68 Parsons, , Departure, 44–5Google Scholar; Martini, , Problema, 61, 171Google Scholar; Fee, ‘Myth’, 32; Fitzmyer, , Luke, 1154Google Scholar. Contra Clark, , ‘Relevance’ (1980) 118 [(1966) 15]Google Scholar, who (inadvertently?) holds the scribe of $$$75 responsible for the expansion of the text.
69 Colwell, , Methodology, 121.Google Scholar
70 Parsons, , Departure, 45.Google Scholar
71 As actually in 1604 είελθεῖν αύτόν.
72 Cf. Martini, , Problema, 140.Google Scholar
73 So the inversion τό παιδίον το⋯το 9.48 ($$$75 D $$$ 205 579 1342 1506 pc lat) = Matt 18.4; αύτήν pro αύτούς 11.31 ($$$46, 75 1424 pc d vgms) = Matt 12.42; the omission of αύτῷ 23.3 ($$$75 lat sa bomss) = Matt 27.11 (however αύτῷ is read by A B W Θ $$$1, 13 1006 1342 1506 $$$ lat sy mae) and αύτόν pro αύτούς 8.21 ($$$75 b*) = Matt 12.48. The latter is in the Lukan context mistaken.
74 Parsons, , Departure, 46Google Scholar says: ‘This word, glory, may serve as a theologically “loaded” term for the scribe and may represent in a succinct way the mood of the resurrection narrative’, but then adds: ‘It is difficult to move beyond the point of conjecture, but the possibilities of this variant are multifarious.’
75 = traditional, cf. Schneider, G., Die Apostelgeschichte 2 (HThK 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1982) 165Google Scholar Anm. 16.
76 Cf. Martini, , Problema, 141.Google Scholar
77 Parsons, , Departure, 46Google Scholar. But contrary to Luke 16.19 the identity of the person in Luke 24.3 (even with the shorter reading) is quite clear!
78 See Grobel, K., ‘… Whose Name is Neves’, NTS 10 (1963/1964) 373–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzmyer, ‘Papyrus Bodmer’, 176 n. 23; idem, Luke, 1130, 1135–6 (with bibliographic references). Perhaps the v.l. John 10.7 (ό ποιμήν) ($$$75 sa ac2 mf) is to be explained in similar terms.
79 Parsons, , Departure, 46.Google Scholar
80 King, M. A., ‘Notes on the Bodmer Manuscript of Luke’, BS 122 (1965) 239.Google Scholar
81 Contra Metzger, Commentary, 226–7.
82 We need only refer to Menoud, , ‘The Western Text and the Theology of Acts’, BSNTS 2 (1951) 19–32Google Scholar and Epp, Tendency. But see the reservations of Barrett, C. K., ‘Is There a Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae?’, in: Best, E., Wilson, R. McL., ed., Text and Interpretation. Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (London: CUP, 1979) 15–27Google Scholar, who argues that the Western text develops what is already in the text (e.g. the assumed ‘anti-Judaistic tendency’) to make the stories more vivid and interesting. At least for the ascension narratives this does not hold (see infra). Cf. Head, further, ‘Acts and the Problem of Its Text’, in: Winter, B. W., Clarke, A. D., The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (BAFCS 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993) 415–44Google Scholar for a general discussion.
83 The pericope consists of three two-membered clauses. But note the valuable criticism of Ehrman, , Corruption, 258Google Scholar n. 184!
84 Larrañaga, , Ascension, 174–207Google Scholar (followed by Guillaume, , Luc interprète, 227–8Google Scholar); Creed, J. M., ‘The Text and Interpretation of Acts i, 1–2’, JThS 35 (1934) 176–82Google Scholar; Metzger, , Commentary, 273–7Google Scholar; Parsons, , Departure, 126–34Google Scholar = ‘The Text of Acts 1.2 Reconsidered’, CBQ 50 (1988) 58–71.Google Scholar
85 Coppieters, H., De historia textus Actorum Apostolorum (Diss. quam ad gradum doctoris s. theologiae; Leuven: Linthout, 1902) 133Google Scholar; Ropes, J. H., The Text of Acts (Beg 3; London: Macmillan, 1926) 256–61Google Scholar; Clark, A. C., Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933) 2Google Scholar; Enslin, M. S., ‘The Ascension Story’, JBL 47 (1928) 62Google Scholar; Wilder, A. N., ‘Variant Traditions of the Resurrection in Acts’, JBL 62 (1943) 311Google Scholar; Bouwman, ‘Anfang’, 52.
86 See Rius-Camps, J., ‘Las variantes de la recensión occidental de los Hechos de los Apóstolos (Hch 1,1–3.4–14)’, FilNT 6 (1993) 59–68; 219–29Google Scholar, for a general treatment of the variants between the Alexandrian and Western tradition in Acts 1.1–14.
87 Here we follow the reconstruction of Boismard, and Lamouille, , Texte 1.123–4Google Scholar. For older attempts, see Larrañaga, , Ascension, 182–8Google Scholar; idem, ‘El proemio-transición de Act. 1:1–3 en los metodos literarios de la historiografia griega’, MBib 2 (Roma: Schola typographica Pio X, 1934) 311–74, esp. 327–31. Recent reconstructions of the primitive Western text are made by: Epp, ‘Ascension’, 142–3; Bouwman, ‘Anfang’, 46–55.
88 The article before Ίησοες (omittunt B D) should certainly be retained (Metzger, , Commentary, 272–3Google Scholar; BDR 260.1).
89 Holtzmann, H. J., Die Apostelgeschichte (HC 1/2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 3rd ed. 1901) 23Google Scholar; Ropes, , Text, 256–61Google Scholar; Clark, , Acts, 336Google Scholar; Plooij, ‘Ascension’, 13 (51); Haenchen, , Apostelgeschichte, 145Google Scholar Anm. 2; Metzger, , Commentary, 275Google Scholar; Boismard, and Lamouille, , Texte 2.2–3Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles. Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester: Apollos, 3rd ed. 1990) 98–9Google Scholar. Contra Harris, R. J., A Study of Codex Bezae (TaS 2/1; Cambridge: CUP, 1891) 154–5Google Scholar; Weiss, B., Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte (TU 2; Heft 3/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897) 53Google Scholar; Hilgenfeld, A., ‘Der Eingang der Apostelgeschichte’, ZWTh 41 (1898) 620Google Scholar; Zahn, Urausgabe, 241, and recently Delebecque, ‘Prologues’, 628–34, who identify the primitive Western text with the text of Codex Bezae (at first also Blass, , Acta (philologica), 41–2Google Scholar, who later rejected this view [Acts (romanam), xxxiii–xxxiv].
90 As D does elsewhere in e.g. Acts 2.14,45–6; 12.7; 13.15; 13.31.
91 Cf. the comprehensive presentation of textual evidence by Larrañaga, , Ascension, 175–9Google Scholar; further Ropes, , Text, 2–3, 256–61Google Scholar and the apparatus of NA27 and UBS4.
92 As in Augustine ConsEv 4.8 (PL 34.1222); EpFund 9 (PL 42.179); ContFel 1.4 (PL 42.521); EpCath 11.27 (PL 43.309). Further gig t; Ps-Vigilius ContVar 1.31; 3.71.
93 So Delebecque, , ‘Ascension et Pentecôte dans les Actes des Apôtres selon le codex Bezae’, RThom 82 (1982) 80Google Scholar n. 7.
94 The phrase would, with Delebecque, ‘Ascension’, 79 (‘Prologues’, 630–3) match perfectly with Acts 28.31. In the NT κελεύω occurs 7x in Matt and further exclusively in Luke-Acts. Luke's use of the verb κηρύσσω does not differ from the other NT authors: Luke-Acts 17x against 43x in the rest of the NT (MGM). The absolute κηρύσσω τò εὐαγγέλιον occurs only in Mark 13.10 (no par.); 14.9 (no par. in Luke; some MSS add το⋯το harmonizing with Matt 26.13); [16.15]. Matt always adds a further qualification; Mark does so occasionally (1.14 το⋯ θεο). Though the exact phrase κηύσσειν τò εὐαγγέλιον does not occur in Luke-Acts, it has a corresponding phrase (Luke 8.1 κηρύσσων κα⋯ εὐαγγελιζόμενος τ⋯ν βασιλείαν το⋯ θεο⋯). Luke (as anyone else!) could have found the combination of κηρύσσω and εὐαγγέλιον in the early church: Gal 2.2; Col 1.23; 1 Thess 2.9. Theoretically, the addition in Acts 1.2 could be Lukan.
95 Cf. Larrañaga, , Ascension, 181Google Scholar. According to Chase, F. H., The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae (London/New York: Macmillan, 1893) 4Google Scholar, an originally Syriac interpolation by the Bezan scribe from Mark 16.
96 Haenchen, , Apostelgeschichte, 146Google Scholar Anm. 1.
97 The inversion αὐτ⋯ν βλεπόντων (cf. NA27) is an idiosyncrasy of B.
98 Blass, Acta (philologica), 26 explains καὐτά as a contamination of the τα⋯τα of Luke's first edition (β = Western text) by a supralinear καί drawn from Luke's second edition (α = Alexandrian text).
99 Acts 17.18 συνέβαλλον/συνέλαβον; 20.15 παρελάβομεν/παρεβάλομεν, cf. Delebecque, ‘Ascension’, 81 n. 8; Boismard and Lamouille, Texte 1.12; Epp, ‘Ascension’, 137 n. 8. Cf. also Chase, Syriac Element, 9. In the NT ὑποβάλλω is only attested in Acts 6.11, in which it has (as in Appian BellCiv 1.74 [341]; TestXII.Sim 3.3; Dan 3.9 Θ v.l.; Josephus Bell 5.10.4 [439]; MartPol 17.2 [2x]) a figurative sense: ‘heimlich anstiften’ (Bauer, s.v.). The suggestion of Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums (Stuttgart: Cotta, 5th ed. 1924), 1.41Google Scholar Anm. 2, that ὑπέβαλεν is not a scribal error, but a deliberate change (‘die Wolke schob sich ihm unter’) fails in that he (wrongly) attributes the middle sense to the active form (see LSJ 1875).
100 Ropes, , Text, 5Google Scholar n. 9; Plooij, ‘Ascension’, 14 (52); Metzger, , Commentary, 282.Google Scholar
101 Boismard, and Lamouille, , Texte 1.16.Google Scholar
102 Contra Delebecque, ‘Ascension’, 81 n. 8; Boismard, and Lamouille, , Texte 1.16Google Scholar, who hold the article as indispensable. The article is equally absent in Luke 19.42; cf. Acts 26.18). There is admittedly a slight difference in meaning, as without the article ⋯πò ⋯φθαλμ⋯ν αὐτ⋯ν may be an idiomatic expression for ‘from them’, while with the article the expression has a more ad litteram sense (BDR 2596).
103 Unless, of course, we are to understand the second clause as an epexegeticum (‘he was lifted up, that is, a cloud took him away’). In that case the Western scribe simply made explicit what the text already implied and thus prevented the text from being misinterpreted.
104 ‘Yπολαμβάνω does not normally mean ‘envelop’ but ‘take up by getting under’ (LSJ 1886) [Herodotus Hist 1.24; Plato Rep 5.453; Josephus Ant 11.6.9 (238)]. But it should be noted that composita with the prefix ὑπο often carry the connotation ‘underhand, secretly’ (LSJ 1875 F III with reference to ὑποθέω, ὑποθωπεύω, ὑποκορίζομαι, ὑπόρνυμι, but many other examples could be adduced) so that the prefix ὑπο in the Western text is not necessarily strictly local. LSJ 1886 in addition gives the meaning ‘take up, seize, come suddenly upon’. Νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτόν may accordingly be translated as ‘a cloud took him away secretly’ or ‘a cloud suddenly came upon him’ (so Epp, ‘Ascension’, 138). Ropes, Text, 5 n. 9, and Plooij, ‘Ascension’, 14 (52), translate: ‘and a cloud enveloped him’ (my emphasis).
105 Ropes, Text, 292.
106 There is of course the grammatical question of the subject of ⋯πήρθη. Was Jesus taken away from them, or (maintaining the subject of the first part of the phrase) was the cloud taken away from them? But this does not essentially affect the narrative picture.
107 The nominative participle τα⋯τα εἰπών in the B-text corresponds to the (unexpressed) subject of ⋯πήρθη, sc. Jesus, whereas the use of the absolute genitive εἰόντος ατοὐ⋯ is the proper way to distinguish the subject of the main sentence (sc. νεφέλη) from the subject of the genitive construction (sc. the speaker, Jesus).
108 It seems then that the Western scribe is more consistent than Epp, ‘Ascension’, 142–3 believed! There was no need to delete εἰς τòν οὐρανόν as ὃν τρόπον prohibited misunderstanding, and they are words of the angeli interpretes after all!
109 Έν ⋯σθ⋯τι λευκῇ is attested by $$$56* D E $$$ gig sy. The dat. pl. ⋯σθήσεσι (except Luke 24.4 v.l. only here in the NT; further 2 Mace 3.33; 3 Mace 1.16; Eusebius HistEccl 2.6.7; Philo, VitMos 3.18)Google Scholar is not from ἔσθησις (so Bruce, , Acts, 104Google Scholar; Thayer, , Lexicon, 252Google Scholar; the nom. ἔσθησις is not attested prior to the second half of the second century AD), but from ⋯σθής (1 Ezra 8.68, 71; 2 Mace 8.35; 11.8; Luke 23.11; 24.11; Acts 10.30; 12.21; Jas 2.2, 3), ‘wobei die Dativendung zur Verdeutlichung gleichsam nochmals gesetzt ist’ (instead of ⋯σθ⋯σιν), see Bauer, s.v.; BDR 47.4. The authentic reading is therefore ⋯ν ⋯σθήσεσι λευκαῖς (
56c א A B C Ψ 81 323 945 1175 1739spc lat; Eus). As for D, it might be considered whether the Latin column (in veste Candida) has influenced the reading.
110 The choice between βλέποντες ($$$74 א* B E 33 81 323 945 1241 1739s 2495 al) and ⋯μ-βλέποντες ($$$56 א A C D (⋯νβλ) Ψ $$$ Eus) is difficult to make, since both readings are evenly balanced in the MSS tradition and both readings are possible. Metzger, Commentary, 282–3, UBS4 and NA27 leave the matter undecided, by reading [⋯μ]βλέποτες; Schneider, Apostel-geschichte 1.196 Anm.i, opts for the simple form.
111 Haenchen, , Apostelgeschichte, 156Google Scholar Anm. 6; Metzger, , Commentary, 283Google Scholar (by the Committee's majority); Parsons, , Departure, 134.Google Scholar
112 So Ropes, , Text, 6Google Scholar; with reservations also Epp, ‘Ascension’, 139.
113 Delebecque, ‘Ascension’, 79–89, esp. 79–82.
114 Delebecque, ‘Ascension’, 80.
115 Bλεπόντων αὐτ⋯ν (A) ⋯πήρθη (B) (κα⋯) νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτόν (B΄) ⋯πò τ⋯ν ⋯φθαλμ⋯ν αὐτ⋯ν (A΄).
116 See Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt, 186–7; 193–4; 200–2.Google Scholar
117 Likewise, Head, ‘Christology and Textual Transmission. Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic Gospels’, NT 35 (1993) 112–13.Google Scholar
118 Not in the modern ‘technical’ sense of the word of course, because the Western scribe still remains within the confines of a ‘mythological’ world-view (three-decker universe etc.). What he ‘demythologizes’ is not the underlying world-view, but the christological affirmation that Jesus went bodily into heaven.
119 The objection that Codex Bezae does not delete Mark 16.19 as well (Epp, ‘Ascension’, 143–4) does not affect our argument, since it is not the Bezan scribe who is reponsible for the textual emendation, but one of his ‘Western’ predecessors.
120 See e.g. Larrañaga, , Ascension, 492–601Google Scholar; Davies, J. G., He Ascended into Heaven. A Study in the History of Doctrine (BaL 1958; London: Lutterworth, 1958).Google Scholar
121 Of course they only make more explicit what Luke's text already said; but the fact that they stress this particular aspect of the ascension, suggests an apologetic context, where the physical nature of the ascension was an issue under criticism. Interestingly, Origen openly rejected a literal interpretation of the ascension, but, unlike the Western scribe, did not emend the text, but simply took refuge in an allegorical exegesis, cf. Origen, De Oratione 23.2Google Scholar (PG 11.486–7).
122 Tertullian, E.g.De Resurrectione 51.1–2Google Scholar (CChr.SL 2.993–4); Hippolytus ContNoet 4.76 (PG 10.809–10); Hippolytus (ace. to Theodoret) (PG 10.609); Novatian, De Trinitate 13Google Scholar (PL 3.907).
123 This concurs with the opinon of Aland, B., ‘Entstehung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. westlichen Textes untersucht an der Apostelgeschichte’, EThL 62 (1986) 5–65Google Scholar that the Western text tradition came into existence in various stages during the second and third centuries AD.
