Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15

by peacefulpete 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Acts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here I will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of Xtianity. The deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential. This theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from Jerusalem traveling back to Antioch to share with Paul and Barny, named Judas (yes another one) and Silas.

  22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they [l]sent this letter by them,

  Shortly afterward:

  33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 35 But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch...

  So Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem. However, the narrative continues with Paul having an angry fight with Barney over Mark and so Barney takes Mark with him:

  40 but Paul chose Silas, and went forth,...

  So now Paul is depicted as actually sharing his missionary travels with a prophet from Jerusalem. (not in Paul's letters) But this created an obvious problem in the narrative flow as it reads today. Silas left to go back to Jerusalem and here he is still in Antioch. That brings up vs 34.

  Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

  Fact is, the problem is more complicated that it might appear at first. Without getting too mired down with comparative manuscripts, (abbreviated MSS) suffice it to say the "oldest" MSS do not have verse 34. Yet these oldest MSS are about 250-300 years separated from the writing of Acts. The reading of the verse as shown above is reflected in MSS dating back to about the 9th century. However other versions of verse 34 date back to the 5th century. Those MSS that have a verse 34 very extensively in the reading of the verse.

  Codex C (5th c) reads, “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas that they should abide there still.”

  Codex D (6th century) Papyrus 127 (5th c) and a number of Old Latin manuscripts (8th c) read “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still, and Judas went on alone.”

  The 14th-century John Wycliffe Bible, an “Old Latin” copy, itw (15th century) and the Clementine Vulgate manuscripts (16th) have another version, “But it was seen to Silas, to dwell there; and Judas went alone to Jerusalem.”

  My point of this exercise is not due to any importance of this particular verse other than it resolves a narrative flaw. In fact, I chose this verse because it is doctrinally neutral. My point is more fundamental.

  Here we have manuscript proof that even as late as the 14th century, the text was being actively altered so as to "improve" the reading. It seems at least 4 separate alterations are evident dating back to the 5th century. Most textual critics assume the various inclusions of a vs 34 was made to resolve the narrative glitch, however we really have no reason to make that assumption other than through presumption the 4th century MSS are superior. Is that a reasonable presumption?

  It is logical believe that the primary restraint from altering the text was the weight of textual tradition, i.e., familiarity with the reading. It stands to reason then, the later the date the less free an editor would feel.

  How should this then affect the confidence of a reader using a text largely extrapolated from MSS dating from the 4th century? Is it reasonable to believe while abundant editing and interpolation (estimated 500,000 non-spelling variations) occurred after the 4th century that no meaningful editing was done prior? Would it not rather be more reasonable to assume the greatest tendency for editing took place when the number of copies was small and those familiar with them were few?

  In this example, is it possible the glitch in the narrative (assuming vs 34 is secondary) is the result of reordering the material? Was the linking of Silas with Paul a secondary thought? Is there something missing between the episodes that would explain Silas's presence? Any of these possibilities would explain the glitch.

  Who knows?
• 

  TD

  Interesting and thanks!
• 

  cofty

  Very interesting. I find textual criticism fascinating. Bart Ehrman's lectures on Great Courses are worthwhile.

  As JWs we were woefully ignorant of the history of the text.
• 

  TD

  The entire book of Acts strikes me as a mish-mash. Paul doesn't seem to be aware of the events described in chapter 15 later on, for example.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I kinda regret the ellipsis regarding Silas not being in the Paulines. It opens a whole other box of unresolvable puzzles. While it is everywhere stated that Silas and Silvanus are the same person, (even some translations substituting Silas in the Paulies) it is not as simple as that. They are different names with different roots. Suffice it to say, at least many believe the names were originally intended to identify the same character while a minority hold the connection to be secondary but found useful . I admit it could be either way.

  If the identification of Silas with Silvanus was originally intentional it might be another example of the author intending to unite the churches which were historically rivals. If the traditional linking of the names was secondary it serves the same purpose.

  Earlier I referenced Acts 6:

  5 What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.

  Here Acts includes a certain Nicolaus a proselyte (meaning converted to Judaism) of Antioch as among those authorized to dispense food equitably (7 deacons by Catholic tradition) when "Hellenists" declared they were being treated discriminately. Even here we see a cultural/religious division reported but presented as being corrected by the leaders of the Jerusalem church. "Hellenists" likely was a reference to a branch of Xtianity with affinity to Paul's particular brand. Further the Nicolaus of Antioch was a Paulinist who had his own branch of Xtianity. According to Irenaeus:

  3. The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

  Hippolytus describes him:

  But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols.

  Surely we see a pattern, Paulinist positions are being refuted while at the same time alleging the various branches had a peaceful united origin.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Some other links. Another of the 7 deacons was Philip the Evangelist who according to Acts hosted Paul on a different trip to Jerusalem.

  8 The next day we left and came to Caesarea, and we went into the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven, and stayed with him.

  Note the unmistakable effort to remind the reader that Jerusalem and Paul were friends.

  At least 2 of the other names (Prochorus and Parmenas) are those described by tradition as being bishops of Antioch/Asia Minor. Timan was believed a bishop in Syria, stretching the roots of Syriac Xtianity???
• 

  waton

  very tedious to try to reconstruct details after 2000 years, simple fact is,

  doctrine was not written exclusively by writers of the first century "Governing Body" only, , why should it be now?
• 

  peacefulpete

  In the same vein as the OP, we see two stories of Christians who had not heard of Christian baptism. Ponder that. These converts to Christianity knew ONLY the OT and yet became Christians in some sense. They never read Paul's works nor the Gospels and they practiced an Essenic Jewish baptism as John had. The writer of Acts includes these early 'Christians' as immediately adopting the "more correct" Proto-Orthodox version of Christianity.

  24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, [a]an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures. 25 This man had been [b]instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: 26 and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he was minded to pass over into Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him: and when he was come, he [c]helped them much that had believed through grace; 28 for he powerfully confuted the Jews, [d]and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

  Acts has name dropped a number of famous/infamous persons as part of this program of revisionism and does so here again. Apollos, someone otherwise known only from 1 Corinthians as a kind of rival to Paul is effectively rehabilitated into the proto-Orthodoxy.

  In the next chapter again in Ephesus we get another story of Christians who had been baptized as Essenes and had seemingly implausibly never heard of the 'holy spirit'.

  19 And it happened that while tApollos was at Corinth, Paul passed uthrough the inland1 country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, v“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, wwe have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, x“Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into yJohn’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, y“John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people zto believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, athey were baptized in2 the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And bwhen Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and cthey began speaking in tongues and dprophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

  It's easy to conclude that Christian roots lay in Hellenized Jewish circles who had extrapolated the Christ story from OT and related texts. IMO these passages seem to preserve an early tradition consistent with this model of Christian origins while at the same time subsuming this form of Christianity into the fold of orthodoxy 80-100 years later.
  
• 

  PetrW

  @peacefulpete (Act 15)

  I'll return briefly to your original post regarding Acts 15:

  The modern versions of the Greek NT omit verse 34 (see NA28), only reporting a variant.

  I think verse 34 unnecessarily addresses the question of where Silas was, and the problem is only apparent and stems from an incorrect translation at the previous verse 33.

  The translation you quoted (v. 33):

  After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out.

  supports the unnecessary question.

  A literal translation of v. 33, keeping with the grammatical order, would be:

  "They had done (loosely: spent) some time, they were parted (απελυθησαν) in peace from the brethren to those (who) sent them out."

  Of crucial importance here is the translation of the verb "were parted" (aorist passive of απολυω) and the missing addition of the decision to return to Jerusalem (which does not appear until v. 36).

  The meaning of "were parted" is specified shortly before in v. 30, which literally reads something like this:

  "These then, being parted (απολυθεντες, also aorist passive of απολυω) , went down to Antioch...."

  Conclusion: the whole (apparent) problem is solved, in my opinion, by a careful reading of the Greek text, which in v.33 only(!!!) communicates that the four (Paul, Barabbas, Silas and Mark) greeted the brothers at Antioch as a farewell (literally: were parted), but the decision to leave Antioch was made "a few days later" (v.36).

  Neither Silas nor Mark went to Jerusalem alone, and in all probability they did not leave Antioch for such a time or distance that they could not contact Paul and Barnabas again. Emendation of the text by v. 34 is unnecessary.

  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  Very creative. However, the adversative particle δέ would seem to differentiate Paul and Barney's actions from that of Judas and Silas.

  I have to accept that those whose first language was Greek would have understood the matter better than me using lexicons. They saw a problem. However, if you are correct, then we have a text written poorly and confusingly, not sure how that is a superior outcome to accepting a scribal glitch.