The “Western Text” of Acts in Codex Bezae and Its Text-Critical Issues
(avg. read time: 5–10 mins.)
Early last year, I had mentioned in my introduction to NT textual criticism that one of the significant issues that textual criticism must face is in how to explain what has been called the “Western text” of Acts preserved primarily in Codex Bezae. This is a peculiar codex in more ways than one, as it is a bilingual manuscript with Greek and Latin on facing pages. Even more interesting is that this manuscript preserves a text of Acts that is longer than what is preserved in Alexandrian and Byzantine texts (I have not seen a figure for how much longer it is than Byzantine texts, but it is apparently 8 percent longer than Alexandrian equivalents). One can find an accessible (but century-old) translation of that version of Acts here. Notably, this text does not feature any long-form additions. There are no additional episodes/stories, and there is nothing akin to what most scholars think (most likely wrongly) is the case for the ending of Mark or the story of John 7:53–8:11. The extra text compared with Alexandrian and Byzantine versions comes from numerous small portions spread out across stories. Unfortunately, we will never know just how much longer it was than Acts in totality because Bezae does not contain the rest of Acts beginning with 22:29 and it has various lacunae before that.
While I am aware of the issues, I must admit that I have not come to as firmly held conclusions on this subject as in my last extended analysis of textual criticism on Mark 16:9–20, in part because this subject involves much more text. There are various opinions on how the Western text relates to the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts and I cannot say that I have considered the arguments broadly enough to my satisfaction in light of a thorough analysis of the evidence. The majority position in scholarship as of now is that Bezae represents a later text than that of the Alexandrian, but my readers ought to know by now that I am not terribly concerned with majority opinions. I simply have not done the work to meaningfully support or dispute this point. The most comprehensive recent analysis of Bezae’s Acts is a four-volume study by Josep Ruis-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger titled The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition.1 If or when I return to this subject to give it due diligence, I imagine this book will be my primary point of reference (for agreement or disagreement) to evaluate the possibilities of relationships between the texts. I will say, though, that an inherent weakness in their approach is that they compare Bezae to Codex Vaticanus, a prime representative of the Alexandrian text, but there is no representative selected for the Byzantine text. Since Westcott and Hort in particular, I know that the focus of many textual critics has been on privileging Alexandrian texts, and the Alands have further buttressed the prejudice against Byzantine texts as necessarily inferior, but the analysis of this four-volume set would have been more valuable if it could have broken this conditioning and extended the comparison to the most widely represented (and still early) text-type. In any case, for now, I must settle with making my readers aware of the issues.
I had said in my NT textual criticism post:
In this case, we are not dealing with one large body that appears in some manuscripts but not in others, but several instances of consistent additions in one tradition and not another. Moreover, these additions are extended versions of narrative episodes, but not a rearrangement of them, nor does the Eastern text present any excisions of the same. In this case, the Western text typically matches the style, and it does not present obvious cases of theologically motivated emendations by copyists. As such, some have proposed a two-edition theory for Acts, which can take one of the following forms. 1) Luke wrote both, either with the second one being the more polished Eastern text or the more expanded Western text. 2) A scribe glossed the Eastern text with notes from Luke to produce the Western text. 3) The Western was the original edition while the Eastern text was produced later for wider circulation. 4) The Western text is the earliest recoverable text (but not the original) while another author produced the Eastern text by revising the Western text in light of his access to the original text.2
In case readers think I am tipping my hand here and elsewhere to say “additions,” I mean by that what others sometimes signify by saying “plusses.” That is, it is additional text compared to another text and not necessarily something that was added later. It may well be the case that they are “additions” in this latter sense too, as the majority of scholars claim, but I have not done my due diligence to assert this confidently.
This is also not a case in which there are early witnesses to one type of text, which is upheld throughout the early Church and beyond, contravened only by a few manuscripts, as was the case in Mark 16. There are early manuscripts that indicate a variety of readings, including some that side with Bezae. If we restrict our considerations to references typically dated before 500, we see the following representatives:
Alexandrian: א, A, B, P53 (9:33–10:1), 057 (3:5–6, 10–12), 0189 (5:3–21; the oldest parchment manuscript)
Mixed Alexandrian and Byzantine: C, P8 (4:31–37; 5:2–9; 6:1–6, 8–15), P57 (4:36–5:2; 5:8–10), 0175 (6:7–15), 0244 (11:29–12:5)
“Western”: D (1:1–8:28; 10:15–21:1; 21:11–15; 21:19–22:9; 22:21–28), P38 (18:27–19:6; 19:12–16), P48 (23:11–17, 25–29; said to be “Western” despite covering parts of Acts not featured in D), P127 (10:32–35, 40–45; 11:2–5, 30; 12:1–3, 5, 7–9; 15:29–31, 34–41; 16:1–4, 13–40; 17:1–10)
Unclear: P29 (26:7–8, 20), P45 (4:27–36; 5:1–20, 30–39; 6:7–15; 7:1–2, 10–21, 32–41, 52–60; 8:1, 14–25 34–40; 9:1–6, 16–27, 35–43; 10:1–2, 10–23, 31–41; 11:2–14, 24–30; 12:1–5, 13–22; 13:6–16, 25–36, 46–52; 14:1–3, 15–23; 15:2–7, 19–26, 38–41; 16:1–4, 15–21, 32–40; 17:9–17; closest to Alexandrian), P50 (8:26–32; 10:26–31), P91 (2:30–37, 46–3:2), P112 (26:31–32; 27:6–7), 048 (26:6–27:4; 28:3–31), 0165 (3:24–4:13; 4:17–20), 0166 (28:30–31), 0236 (3:12–13, 15–16)
Another borderline case is 076, which could be from the fifth or sixth century, features Acts 2:11–22, and is rather mixed, including a reading of 2:13 that agrees most with Bezae. Indeed, among some of the unclearly categorized, there are agreements with Bezae against Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts, even if the balance tends to favor the latter.
Among the early Christians, Acts was not as widely cited as the Gospels prior to the time of John Chrysostom. Thus, we are not left with as large of a base of references to deal with as in our analysis of Mark. But it is noteworthy that among the relatively few citations we have Tertullian, Cyprian, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus, along with the later Ephrem the Syrian and Augustine attesting to readings in agreement with Bezae.
The early testimony is not quite overwhelmingly suggestive, but it is fascinating that there exists early testimony to a variety of readings, including some more characteristic of the “Western” text. I list here a dozen examples of the differences of readings that are either distinctive to Bezae or which otherwise set the reading apart from Alexandrian readings:
1:23: Joseph is called “Barnabas” rather than “Barsabbas”
2:14: It is said that Peter stood with “the ten” rather than with “the eleven”
4:2: The word order varies so that it is said that Peter and John proclaimed “Jesus in the resurrection of the dead,” rather than “in Jesus the resurrection out of the dead”
4:31: There is an additional reference of “to all who wished to believe”
6:10–11: There is an additional description of Stephen’s opponents being unable to withstand him “because they were confuted by him with all boldness. Being unable to face the truth…”
8:24: In writing of Simon Magus’s suffering of consequences it is said, “he ceased not to shed many tears”
10:25: “And as Peter was drawing near to Caesarea, one of the servants ran forward and announced he was to come. Then Cornelius sprang up and met him and fell down at his feet”
10:41: There is an additional reference to Jesus appearing to his disciples for “forty days,” referring back to 1:3
13:33: There is a more expansive quotation of Ps 2 that includes v. 8 along with v. 7
14:2: A different and longer version of this verse says, “but the rulers of the synagogues of the Jews and the chief men of the synagogue raised up among them a persecution against the righteous/just … [the rest of the verse continues as in the Alexandrian text and then] But the Lord speedily gave them peace.”
15:2: A different and longer version of this verse says, “for Paul spoke strongly that they should remain so as when they came to faith, but those who had come from Jerusalem charged them…”
18:27: There is an additional remark here about how “certain Corinthians were sojourning in Ephesus, and having heard him, they exhorted him to cross with them into their own country; and when he consented the Ephesians wrote to the disciples in Corinth that they should receive the man. And when he sojourned in Achaia, he helped them much in the churches …”3
But again, some of the more expansive readings are supported by manuscripts elsewhere. As one example, 2:30 features after “fruit of his loins” that “according to the flesh he would raise the Christ,” of which some variation appears in the majority of manuscripts before “set him upon the throne.” In 3:22, the text of Bezae says Moses spoke “to our ancestors,” while the majority of texts also refer to “the ancestors” without the “our,” against the witnesses NA28 accepts that omit such a phrase altogether. There are others, but I offer these two simply as a reminder that not every addition is unsupported by other non-“Western” manuscripts.
One also cannot rely on some generalized characterization of Bezae to help in this argument. Bezae is often characterized as a manuscript that has a tendency to add text, but this is based primarily on the Acts text, not its general tendency with other books. In fact, as James Snapp, Jr. notes here, there are many cases in which it features a shorter reading than Alexandrian or Byzantine texts.
On the other hand, it is questionable whether there is even a proper “Western” text to speak of. There may be things more characteristic of texts in a certain tradition, but Pasi Hyttiäinen argues that we should see the so-called “Western” text as an evolving text rather than as a proper text-type.4 But this is something I bring to my readers’ attention without being settled in my own mind about the matter.
Josep Ruis-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition, 4 vols., LNTS (London: T&T Clark, 2004–2009).
For a survey of various proposals, see Thomas C. Geer, Jr., “The Presence and Significance of Various Lucanisms in the ‘Western’ Text of Acts,” JSNT 12 (1990): 59–76.
For more and on general issues in earlier studies of the “Western” text, see Frank Pack, “The ‘Western’ Text of Acts,” ResQ 4 (1960): 220–34.
Pasi Hyttiäinen, “Evolving Gamaliel Tradition in Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Acts 5:38–39: A Novel Application of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM),” TC 24 (2019): 1–22.