Acts 11:2

Acts 11:2 o[te de. … peritomh/j {A}

The text of several Western witnesses (D if^{d, p} vg^mss syr^{h with *} cop^G67) differs widely from that preserved in other witnesses. Codex Bezae reads o` me.n ou=n Pe,troj dia. i`kanou/ cro,nou hvqe,lhse poreuqh/nai eivj VIeroso,luma\ kai. prosfwnh,saj tou.j avdelfou.j kai. evpisthri,xaj auvtou,j( polu.n lo,gon poiou,menoj( dia. tw/n cwrw/n dida,skwn auvtou,j\ o]j kai. kath,nthsen auvtoi/j kai. avph,ggeilen auvtoi/j th.n ca,rin tou/ qeou/) oi` de. evk peritomh/j avdelfoi. diekri,nonto pro.j auvto,n (“Peter, therefore, for a considerable time wished to journey to Jerusalem; and having called to him the brethren and having strengthened them [he departed], speaking much throughout the country [and] teaching them; he [lit. who] also went to meet them ²⁰⁶ and reported to them the grace of God. But the brethren of the circumcision disputed with him, saying …”).

According to Clark the omission of the passage from the other Greek witnesses is to be accounted for by homoeoteleuton, when “the eye of a copyist passed from tou/ qeou/ at the end of ver. Acts 11:1 to tou/ qeou/ later on.” ²⁰⁷ This explanation, however, accounts for only part of the difference between the Western text and that of the old uncials, for after th.n ca,rin tou/ qeou/ codex Bezae goes on with oi` de. evk peritomh/j avdelfoi. diekri,nonto, whereas the other witnesses read o[te de. avne,bh Pe,troj eivj VIerousalh,m( diekri,nonto pro.j auvto.n oi` evk peritomh/j. Since the information given in the Alexandrian text (that Peter went up to Jerusalem) is (as Clark admits) “indispensable to the sense,” it is obvious that parablepsis on the part of a scribe is not sufficient to explain the differences between the two forms of text.

The motives for the expansion in the Western text appear to be connected with the tendency in that text to avoid putting Peter in a bad light. ²⁰⁸ In order to prevent the reader of the Alexandrian text from gaining the impression that the conversion of Cornelius compelled Peter to break off his missionary work and go to Jerusalem in order to justify himself, the Western reviser introduces a passage (in the style ²⁰⁹ of Acts 8:25 and Acts 15:3) that describes how Peter continued his missionary work for a considerable length of time, and how, finally, on his own initiative, he went up to Jerusalem, where, so far from being called to give an account of himself, he voluntarily sought out the brethren at Jerusalem “and reported to them the grace of God.” ²¹⁰

²⁰⁶ I.e. the Jerusalem representatives. It should be observed that nowhere in the Alexandrian text of Luke-Acts is katanta/n construed with the dative case; indeed, the construction, as Ropes says, “is hardly tolerable.”

²⁰⁷ A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 347.

²⁰⁸ See Joseph Crehan. “Peter according to the D-Text of Acts,” Theological Studies, XVIII (1957), pp. 596—603, and E. J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts, pp. 105—107.

²⁰⁹ Except for the construction of katanta/n (see footnote 206[1] above).

²¹⁰ Crehan finds a desire in the Western text to enhance the position of Peter by “pairing off” episodes in the history of Peter with those in the history of Paul; “for at Acts 15:41 and Acts 16:1 there is just such a passage as this about Paul, and The word katantaœ is used again of his turning aside from Cilicia to visit Derbe and Lystra” (op. cit., p. 598).

²⁰⁶ I.e. the Jerusalem representatives. It should be observed that nowhere in the Alexandrian text of Luke-Acts is katanta/n construed with the dative case; indeed, the construction, as Ropes says, “is hardly tolerable.”