Using All
the Evidence
Acts 15:32-35Is the Textus Receptus ever wrong? Of course it is.
After all, it wasn't actually produced by a careful comparison of the some 5,000 extant Greek manuscripts now available (as well as four times as many Latin).
But by providence and good fortune, the manuscripts (MSS) selected were excellent, and although those MSS were imperfect, they presented a consensus text very close to the agreement later found in the full majority of trustworthy manuscripts.
One such place where the Byzantine tradition took a minor hit was in the book of Acts 15:33. Another accidental error hit very close to this same spot, in the Alexandrian textual stream, Acts 15:34.
Surprisingly, even though both branches were damaged, we can restore the most probable original text by using BOTH traditions, along with our knowledge of scribal habits.
The first thing to observe is that all the variants at this place have no doctrinal importance at all, and in fact not even any historical relevance. Nor do any of the variants affect the ultimate meaning of the text. In fact, even the historical data lost in the damage to the text is essentially irrelevant.
All this points toward one thing: These variants are all either utterly accidental, or simply benign and naive; well-meaning meddling at the very most. No motive can be found to alter the text here, not even for art's sake. This is pure error, plain and simple.
Because we have two separate text-streams (Byzantine and Alexandrian), and we have two separate accidents, we can reverse both, and reconstruct the original text as if the ink was still wet on Luke's autographed copy!
Byzantine Text Damaged
One interesting place is Acts 15:34. First lets admit the Byzantine text is damaged here also: We know this, because the Byzantine witnesses are also themselves divided in this instance, because of mixture, probably crossing over from the Alexandrian text. Had the Byzantine witnesses been united, there would be no discernable issue here.
Lets look at the Byzantine text first:
Acts 15:32-35 (Byzantine - part = TR)
ιουδας δε και σιλας και αυτοι
προφηται οντες δια λογου πολλου
παρεκαλεσαν τους αδελφους και
επεστηριξαν ποιησαντες δε χρονον
απελυθησαν μετ ειρηνης απο των
αδελφων προς τους αποστολους []
εδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι αυτουπαυλος δε και βαρναβας διετριβον
εν αντιοχεια διδασκοντες και ευαγ-
γελιζομενοι μετα και ετερων πολλων
τον λογον του κυριου
The underlined black line is the line which has been dropped by the Alexandrian tradition (Aleph/B etc.) and even a significant part of the Byzantine textual witnesses also.
Surely this omission is OLD, since we can see it in a lot of copies; it was re-copied and re-mixed into the Byzantine text too, because of its early prevalence, extent and apparent credibility.
We can also see a few similarities at the beginning and end of the line with the previous one (in uncial script, the letters are even more similar), although the connection is too weak to explain such a pervasive booboo. .
A Secondary Oddity and a Clue
So now lets look at the Alexandrian Text:
ιουδας τε και σιλας και αυτοι
προφηται οντες δια λογου πολλου
παρεκαλεσαν τους αδελφους και
επεστηριξαν ποιησαντες δε χρονον
απελυθησαν μετ ειρηνης απο των
αδελφων προς τους αποστειλαντας αυτους
...............................παυλος δε και βαρναβας διετριβον
εν αντιοχεια διδασκοντες και ευαγ-
γελιζομενοι μετα και ετερων πολλων
τον λογον του κυριου
Here we see the more varied and longer, more complex and ambiguous text (highlighted in red).
These readings are contrary to what we know about Alexandrian scribes; the changes are not any kind of "Attic Stylistic improvements" or grammatical fixes. This is plainly the more primitive text.
The previous line to the omitted one reads,
The Byzantine Text reads:
The Homoioteleuton Appears
.ν προς τους αποστειλαντας αυτουςεδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι αυτου
This was an accidental omission by homoioteleuton in the early Alexandrian text.
What then happened to the Byzantine text? An entirely different haplographic error:
Here was the original line and how it ended up:
προς τους αποστειλαντας αυτουςπρος τους αποστολους
Probably in his mind, the word "apostle" loomed large, and the vowel was automatically 'corrected' by a simple itacism.
But now, the evidence of the original homoioteleuton by the Alexandrian scribe has been obscured, and so some other cause (deliberate editing, scribal gloss) was probably speculated.
The Alexandrians couldn't restore the lost line from their own (otherwise more accurate) text, and the Byzantines had lost the evidence of the cause of the original error, and were unable to recognise it or show it was a common scribal omission.
The Reconstructed Text
Two innocent and minor haplographic errors have conspired to hide each other, and also the original text, which we can now reconstruct below:
.............................ιουδας τε και
σιλας και αυτοι προφηται οντες
δια λογου πολλου παρεκαλεσαν
τους αδελφους και επεστηριξαν
ποιησαντες δε χρονον απελυθησ-
αν μετ ειρηνης απο των αδελφων
προς τους αποστειλαντας αυτους
εδοξεν δε τω σιλα επιμειναι αυτου
παυλος δε και βαρναβας διετριβον
εν αντιοχεια διδασκοντες και ευαγ-
γελιζομενοι μετα και ετερων πολλ-
ων τον λογον του κυριου ...
The Alexandrians provide the first half of the paragraph, and the Byzantines provide the second half, explaining both the haplographic omission in the Alexandrian, and also the unconsious emendation in the Byzantine.
Does it matter? Not really in this case. But it shines clear light on the fact that most variants are random, and not doctrinally motivated, but are simple accidents.
It also goes a little way toward using ALL our text-critical resources (even the older MSS) to achieve a truly accurate text, as opposed to critical texts produced by rejecting en bloc large portions of the available textual evidence.
