Roger Pearse

I've placed online J. M. Wilson's English translation (1923) of the text of the Acts of the Apostles as found in Codex Bezae, in the longer or 'Western text' version. The additional material is shown in bold.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#Acts_Long

I suspect that it might be of interest to one or two people here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The Tertullian Project (tertullian.org)
Additional Fathers online in English (tertullian.org/fathers)
QuickLatin (quicklatin.com)
Promoting interest in Tertullian studies <><

hatsoff

Very strange.

So let me try and understand this... the text was discovered in the 16th century, but has been dated by handwriting to the 10th century. What's this I hear about the 6th century? And why would an edited copy dated any later than the 2nd century suggest the author himself to be the editor?

Ben C Smith

The hit parade continues at www.tertullian.org. Thanks a ton, Roger!

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Actually, the handwriting is usually dated to the 5th century.

To some critics, the style of a lot of the variant readings seem quite Lukan.

Stephen

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Roger. That's very useful stuff.

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

You are truly an angel. This is fabulous stuff.

It gives us much greater insight into early Christianity and demonstrates how the later New Testament editors falsified history.

For example look at the orginal chapter 15 in Codex Bezae:

And certain men came down from Judaea and were teaching the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised and walk after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, for Paul spake strongly maintaining that they should remain so as when they believed; but those who had come from Jerusalem, charged them, Paul and Barnabas and certain others [of them], to go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders that they might be judged before them about this question. They therefore, being brought on their way by the Church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received in great fashion by the Church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them. But those who had charged them to go up to the elders, being certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, rose up saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.

The Christians from Jerusalem who ordered Paul to Jerusalem were Pharisees. Later editors cut out both references to this fact in the passage. (They also cut out that Paul was literally put on trial before the leadership in Jerusalem for his position against circumcision.) This makes clear that among the leadership of the Jerusalem Church of God were Pharisees. This almost certainly included James and Peter. Why else would the Pharisees be in such a high position in the Church and why else would they order Paul to submit to James and Peter on such an important matter? They must have thought that James and Peter held the same pro-circumcision position that they did. How embarassing that the Apostles were Pharisees. No wonder the editors cut this from later versions of Acts.

This passage should be seen in light of Jacob Maccoby's (Mythmaker)concept of Jesus being a Pharisee. While the passage says nothing about Jesus, it does lend support to the idea of the Apostles James and Peter who worshipped Jesus being Pharisees.

It is also noteworthy that the fact that Paul and Barnabas was received "in great fashion" in Jerusalem was cut. With it restored in makes clear that the reference in "needful to circumsize them" is to Paul and Barnabus. It is clear that Paul was not Jewish by birth.

This is important when we relate it to the ending of the codez in chapter 22.

Then the chief captain came and asked him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? and he said, I am. And the chief captain answered, I know with how great a sum I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am [a Roman] born. Then they departed from him...

This makes no sense. Why does the captain suddenly start talking about how much money he paid for his Roman citizenship. We may assume that a prior editor mixed up the dialogue of the Captain and Paul. the original text ran:

Then the chief captain came and asked him, "Tell me, art thou a Roman?"
and he said, "I am and Paul said, "I know with how great a sum I obtained this citizenship." And the chief captain said, "But I am [a Roman] born. Then they departed from him.

Reconstructed this way, we now understand why the captain did not release Paul. Paul had paid for his Roman citizenship, while the captain had been born Roman.

But if he was not born Jewish, as Codex Bezae now tells us, then what was he paying for? I suggest that the real question here was not citizenship, but freedom. This was the original exchange:

Then the chief captain came and asked him, "Tell me, art thou a Roman Freeman?"
and Paul said, " I am and I know with how great a sum I obtained this Freedom." And the chief captain said, "But I am [Free] born. Then they departed from him.

This explain why the chief captain still treats Paul with distain, even after learning about Paul's situation. It is natural that a born free man would treat a man born a slave who purchased his freedom with contempt. It makes little sense that a man who purchased Roman citizenship would treat a born Roman with disdain. In fact, it logicall follows that the Roman Captain would have treated Paul with more respect if that had been the original text.

What Codex Bezae is hiding, as do the subsequent rewritings of Acts is the fact that Paul was a slave.Unfortunately, I did not have this particular evidence from Codex Bezae to put in my book Evolution of Christs and Christianities, [https://xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdi...p?bookid=29224]
The evidence I present here should be added to the evidence I present in the book to show the fact (highly embarassing to later Christians) that Paul was born a slave.

This stuff is just wonderful. Thanks again.

Sincerely,

PhilosopherJay

Roger Pearse

Does the confusion stems from the (very common) tendency to confuse the work contained in a manuscript with the manuscript itself?

Manuscript books move around like bumble-bees. This manuscript first becomes known to scholarship in the 16th century, when Beza acquires it. Of course it existed much earlier than this.

Working out how old manuscripts are was always difficult. In the 18th century the Benedictine Dom Jean de Mabillon compiled a list of manuscripts whose scribes had included at date or dateable reference at the end, with examples of the handwriting in which they were written. Out of this some very clear patterns emerged, which showed how this handwriting had changed down the centuries, and allowed other undated manuscripts to be fitted into this. This was the origin of paleography.

From these techniques, the codex Bezae dates to the 5th century AD. Therefore it spent 1000 years in places unknown, before Beza acquired it.

The works contained in the manuscript are of course older than this copy, since those works consist of the New Testament and the Old Testament, in both Greek and Latin.
All these works have been copied several times (at least) from one copy to another, until the 5th century scribe copied them into codex Bezae.

The date at which the different version of Acts was compiled is not related to the date of the manuscript, except that it must be older; first or early second century. I'm not familiar with the modern scholarship on this issue, which is, of course, a different issue from the one above.

I hope that helps! It can be confusing if one thinks of 'manuscript' = 'author's manuscript' instead of 'manuscript' = 'handwritten copy made before printing was invented.'

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Thanks for the kind words everyone -- glad to help.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

For a good overview of Codex Bezae D (05), including dating, contents and description, go here: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Man...cials.html#uDe

It is a truly unique MS, especially in Acts.

Julian

triffidfood

Wow.

Reading about textual alterations/ variations is one thing, being able to actually read them ~ in *English* is another. Amazing stuff.

Just out of curiosity, are there any other English translations of other similar old (ca. 350-500) manuscripts ~ Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, etc .. available anywhere online, that anyone knows about?