Acts 18:21 and the additions by scribes in the Byzantine times

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD) Visiting Professor, Department of Liberal Education, Kyungpook National University, Sangju Campus, South Korea, Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College, Australia

One of the biggest problems we are sitting in the Christian times of the cross is the sloppiness with which the Bible was copied sometimes. I say sloppiness since it was not only the normal human errors that we had similar to Old Testament manuscripts of which the Dead Sea Scrolls gives us ample witnesses, it was theological axis to grind methodology, shortcuts, lengthy additions to explain things, adding and omitting from the original to settle partisan vehement debates among themselves and between East and West and lastly the involvement of the state-church of the post-Constantine era. The Septuagint suffered the same trauma and it is reported that Constantine gave orders that 50 copies of the Old Testament should be made in Greek “as fast as possible”. The can of worms that resulted in comparison with the Hebrew original speaks volumes.

So now we come to a case of a long reading for Acts 18:21 and a short reading for Acts 18:21. In the long reading, followed by the Old Afrikaans translation of 1933 by J. D. du Toit, E. E. van Rooyen, J. D. Kestell, H. C. M. Fourie, and BB Keet, Paul says the addition: “and said: I must surely (sekerlik) celebrate (vier) the coming festival in Jerusalem”. This translation may have led a number of individuals to insist that festivals should be introduced in Christian worship since if Paul is eager to celebrate the festival then we need to do the same. The conclusion from what one reads here is logical and probable based on this longer reading of Acts 18:21 provided that the manuscripts selected to do the longer reading from is stable, consistent, relatively older [although not a rule], void of additions and omissions in general, void of theological ax-grinding translation practices.

The short and long readings of Acts 18:21 are represented in the following selected translations:

NASB

“but taking leave of them and saying, ‘ will return to you again if God wills’he set sail from Ephesus”. [short]

Dutch State Translation (1637 completed and updated and 1657 prime edition):

“Maar hij nam afscheid van hen, zeggende: Ik moet ganselijk het toekomende feest te Jeruzalem houden; doch ik zal tot u wederkeren, zo God wil. En hij voer weg van Efeze”. [long]

Wycliffe’s Translation (Middle English 1364)

“but he made farewell to brethren, and said [and saying], [It behooveth me to make the solemn day coming at Jerusalem, and] again I shall turn again to you, if God will [God willing]; and he went forth from Ephesus.” [long]

Luther’s Translation from a 1912 edition:

“sondern machte seinen Abschied mit ihnen und sprach: Ich muß allerdinge das künftige Fest in Jerusalem halten; will's Gott, so will ich wieder zu euch kommen. Und fuhr weg von Ephesus”. [long]

João Ferreira de Almeida Translation of the 1719 (Portuguese).

“antes se despediu deles, dizendo: Se Deus quiser, de novo voltarei a vós; e navegou de Éfeso.” [short]

La Biblia de Casiodoro de Reina of 1569 (Spanish)

Sino que se despidió de ellos, diciendo: Es necesario que en todo caso tenga la Fiesta que viene, en Jerusalén; mas otra vez volveré a vosotros, queriendo Dios. Y salió de Efeso. [long]

Latin Vulgate of Jerome 396 (but based on manuscripts from the sixth and later ages also plusses and minuses at times)

“sed valefaciens et dicens iterum revertar ad vos Deo volente profectus est ab Epheso.” [short]

SBL Greek (Papyrus Bodmer [p⁷⁴]; א (Sinaiticus); A (Alexandrinus); B (Vaticanus); Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Coptic translations, Armenian translations and many other manuscripts.

ἀλλὰ ἀποταξάμενος καὶ ἀλλὰ ἀποταξάμενος καὶ  εἰπών ⸃· Πάλιν ἀνακάμψω πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοῦ θεοῦ θέλοντος ἀνήχθη ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐφέσου [short]

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (Uncial D) and many late minuscles and Byzantine readings

ἀλλὰ ἀποταξάμενος καὶ ἀλλὰ ἀποταξάμενος καὶ εἰπών dei me pantwς thn eorthn thn ercomenhn poihsai eiς Ierosoluma· Πάλιν ἀνακάμψω πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοῦ θεοῦ θέλοντος ἀνήχθη ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐφέσου  [long]

Discussion

1. The short reading is supported by most of the earlier and important Uncials and Papyri Bodmer that is used for the reading. The Uncials dates from the time of shortly after Constantine like Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus. The Vulgate of Jerome and the Coptic also supports the short reading. The Armenian also reads the short form. This means that they do not have the “festival celebration” concept of Paul in it.

2. The long reading is supported by Uncial D which is called Codex Bezae Cantrabrigensis. This late manuscript has many problems and the Adventist scholars George E. Rice and Sakae Kubo, among others, did a great deal on identifying the problems of Uncial D (G. E. Rice, “The Anti-Judaic Bias of the Western Text in the Gospel of Luke” AUSS vol. 18 no. 1 (Spring 1980): 51-57; ibid., The Alterations of Luke’s Tradition by the Textual Variants in Codex Bezae [Ph.D. Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1974], pp. 174-222; also Eldon J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts [Cambridge, England: 1966] (non-SDA); also S. Kubo, “The Nature and Quality of the Text of the New English Bible,” AUSS vol. 5 no. 2 [July 1967]: 131-157).  

   Compare the Anti-Judaic Bias in Acts 3:17 between Uncial B and Uncial D presented by Eldon Epp:

   Codex B                                                     Codex D

   And now brethren                                     And now men brethren

   I know                                                       we know

   that                                                           that (on the one hand)

   you acted                                                  you did evil

   out of ignorance                                        out of ignorance

   even as your rulers also                              even as your rulers also

    

   The rest of the witnesses in support of the long reading are minuscles that are all late and also Byzantine readings during the time that feasts and festivals were disputed in the churches.

   In 1562 the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis was taken from Lyon and given to Theodore Bezae the successor of Calvin and it can explain why this manuscript became so important some Bibles later even the Old Afrikaans Bible of 1933 probably following the Old Dutch State Translation.  

    

   Conclusion

   There is stronger evidence in favor of the omission of this “festival celebration” passage of Paul than the inclusion of it. Building a case for a doctrine of reviving the festivals in Christianity cannot be based on this text, is a definitely a problematic cause.