The Textual Traditions of Acts: What Has Discourse Analysis Contributed?

THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS: WHAT HAS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS CONTRIBUTED? I. INTRODUCTION In recent years various modern linguistic approaches have begun to make their way into the field of textual criticism to assess the character of textual variants 1. One major effort is Jenny Read-Heimerdinger’s application of discourse analysis to assess the character and message of the book of Acts in Codex Bezae. This effort first began with her published doctoral thesis, TheBezanTextofActs, and then grew into a multi-volume textual commentary in collaboration with Josep Rius-Camps that compares Codex Bezae with the Alexandrian tradition 2. As a response to this work the purpose of this essay will be twofold: (1) to evaluate Read-Heimerdinger’s use of discourse analysis as the method by which she seeks to demonstrate the priority and Jewish perspective of the Bezan text of Acts, and (2) to consider the place of discourse analysis in the field of textual criticism more broadly. As a test case on which to base evaluations I have chosen the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 for a number of reasons. First, it is a text unaffected by the lacunae of Codex Bezae. Second, whereas variant readings that occur in clusters are often treated by textual critics as independent variants without considering the influence of other variants in the same vicinity, an approach using discourse analysis can potentially account for contextual influences that can shed light on the relationship between variants. The Apostolic Decree is suitable for this reason as well; it is issued in Acts 15,29 but appears proleptically in 15,20 and referentially in 21,25, 1 See S.E. PORTER – A.W. PITTS, Fundamentals ofNew Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI 2015) 129-136, where a whole chapter in their mid-level introduction to textual criticism is dedicated to the use of modern linguistic principles in assessing internal matters of textual variants. 2 See J. READ-HEIMERDINGER, The Bezan Text of Acts. A Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Textual Criticism(JSNTSup 236; Sheffield 2002); J. RIUS-CAMPS – J. READHEIMERDINGER,TheMessageofActsinCodexBezae.A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition(LNTS 257, 302, 365, 415; 4 vols; London 2004-2009). Since the fourth installment, Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger have published a fifth volume that is meant to serve as a complement to their commentary; see J. RIUS-CAMPS – J. READ-HEIMERDINGER, Luke’sDemonstrationtoTheophilus.The Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles according to Codex Bezae(London 2013). Additionally, numerous sections of the analysis in these volumes are published as individual articles in FilologíaNeotestamentaria. BIBLICA 󰀁󰀀󰀀.󰀄 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀉) 󰀅󰀄󰀄-󰀅󰀆󰀇 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 544 doi 10.2143/BIB.100.4.0000000 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 545 and each instance contains multiple variants that represent a complex, interconnected textual history. The decree thus provides an opportunity to showcase the ability of discourse analysis to account for interdependent variants. Third, discourse analysis is concerned with language in use — that is, the role language plays in its social environment. The particular set of textual problems of the Apostolic Decree stands to gain clarification from discourse analysis in this regard because of the exegetical difficulty of understanding the nature of the abstentions in the decree. The main exegetical question is whether the list of abstentions for Gentiles pertains to ritual (cultic) or ethical purity, and part of this issue concerns the alternative variants in the list itself, which is, among other things, a matter related to the social backgrounds of the competing textual witnesses. As a procedure I will begin by introducing the problem of the text of Acts and Codex Bezae’s place in it. I will then explain Read-Heimerdinger’s linguistic approach to the text of Acts, first by outlining aspects of her discourse analysis model, and then by showing how her model is meant to validate her thesis. Next, I will evaluate the Alexandrian and Western witnesses concerning the items in the Apostolic Decree based on traditional criteria for assessing textual variants, which will serve to demonstrate that Read-Heimerdinger’s argument contrasts with the evidence yielded from traditional ways of weighing evidence. Finally, I will show that the weight and nature of the evidence yielded from the text-critical analysis of the Apostolic Decree actually challenges Read-Heimerdinger’s assessment regarding the Jewishness of Codex Bezae, which will not only challenge her thesis, but will also challenge the validity of her method. From this exercise I will draw some conclusions regarding the use of discourse analysis in textual criticism. II. THE PROBLEM WITH THE TEXT OF ACTS The text of Acts is unique among the New Testament documents as a text that exists in two distinctive forms — that is to say, the Western text of Acts contains so many differences from the Alexandrian witnesses that it is justifiable to consider it a separate version of the book in its own right. Moreover, the relationship between the versions and which one preceded the other are uncertain matters, but the decision made about one variant can carry with it the implicit statement of which book of Acts is seen as the preferred version. This problem has been a matter of scholarly debate ever since textual criticism emerged as a distinct discipline. It was in the eighteenth century when Bengel, Wettstein, and Semler identified the 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 545 11/12/19 10:20 546 ZACHARY K. DAWSON Western group of witnesses, but Codex Bezae and the other Western texts were deemed to be of an inferior status 3. It was not until the nineteenth century that developments in textual criticism allowed the rise of more developed hypotheses regarding the texts of Acts. Starting with this time period, I will provide a brief overview of the main hypotheses and methods that have characterized the history of this research, which will show where Read-Heimerdinger falls in this debate and what distinguishes her method from those who have gone before her. W.A. Strange has helpfully divided the history of research on the text of Acts into three periods based on major trends in the field of textual criticism. These include: (1) the period before World War II, where we find the classic solutions to the problem; (2) the post-war period, when we see the eclectic method exercising influence through scholars such as Martin Dibelius, before others emerge arguing for theological tendencies in the two text-types 4; and (3) the period after 1970 when new directions arise that propose various nuanced views of the classical theories 5. The three scholars who stand out in the pre-war period as having the most influential hypotheses about the text of Acts are Friedrich Blass, James Hardy Ropes, and Albert C. Clark. Blass’s thesis, which he first articulated in an 1894 article and then substantiated with a critical edition of Acts published in 1895 6, challenged the view of Westcott and Hort that the Western text is the result of a scribal copying process where scribes freely attempted to clarify the text with their own interpolations 7. According to Blass, only a person who had personal knowledge of the recounted events could be responsible for the types of differences found in the Western text 8. Blass’s thesis, then, argues that the Western text with its generally rougher and wordier readings is the author’s first draft that he later revised into a second edition, which the Alexandrian tradition 3 See W.A. STRANGE, TheProblemoftheTextofActs(SNTSMS 71; Cambridge 1992) 2-3. 4 I use the term “text-type” here and throughout this article strictly for the sake of expediency with an awareness of the problems surrounding the concept of text-types, especially that they were probably developed with only the Gospels in mind (the book of Acts belongs to a very different textual history); see D.C. PARKER, An Introduction to New Testament ManuscriptsandTheirTexts(Cambridge 2008) 171-174, 286. 5 STRANGE, ProblemoftheText, 1-34. The historical sketch in this section is indebted to Strange’s review of these major time periods. However, the observations about the major views are my own and tie directly into the focus of this article. 6 F. BLASS, “Die Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte”, TSK67 (1894) 86-119; F. BLASS, Acta apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter, Editio Philologica (Göttingen 1895). 7 B.F. WESTCOTT – F.J.A. HORT, TheNewTestamentintheOriginalGreek.Introduction and Appendix(New York 1882), 122-126. 8 BLASS, ActaApostolorum, 31. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 546 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 547 reflects 9. Whereas Blass convinced several scholars of his view, including Theodor Zahn, Eberhard Nestle, F.C. Conybeare, and J.M. Wilson 10, the prevailing view in this period was established by James Hardy Ropes in his 1926 volume The TextofActsin the monumental BeginningsofChristianity, afive-volume work edited by Kirsopp Lake, F.J. Foakes-Jackson (vols 1-3), and Henry J. Cadbury (vols 4-5). The scale of this project was the largest that had ever been done on the book of Acts at the time, and it was seen as so well done that it became the foundation for subsequent Lukan scholarship. Ropes’s study explained the Western text of Acts as a revised version of the earlier Alexandrian text; it is neither the work of the same author (contra Blass) nor is it the product of isolated interpolations (contra Westcott and Hort). Moreover, while detecting in the Western text a distinct concern for Gentiles, Ropes concluded that the text was not systematically revised, as would be argued by later scholars, such as Philippe H. Menoud, Eldon Jay Epp, and others (see below) 11. The last scholar of this time period whose thesis of the text of Acts gained adherents was Albert C. Clark, who argued from principles of abbreviation that the Alexandrian text is an abbreviated version of the longer Western text. In effect, Clark explained the omissions in the Alexandrian text as motivated by various contextual reasons that indicate the Western text must be the earlier of the two 12. If the theories of the text of Acts prior to World War II tended to address the problem with large-scale solutions, then one of the responses moving into and beyond the war period was the eclectic method (or “reasoned eclecticism”) that argued that each variant should be treated in its own right before notions regarding the nature of the two traditions were permitted to inform analysis 13. Martin Dibelius in particular argued for this method. He believed that neither the Alexandrian nor the Western witness should be exclusively followed (contra the NA27/28 and UBS4/5, which never follow the Western reading when it diverges from the Alexandrian tradition), because neither invariably possesses 9 BLASS, ActaApostolorum, 32. See T. ZAHN, IntroductiontotheNewTestament (3 vols; Edinburgh 1909) III, 8-41; E. NESTLE, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (London 1901) 224; F.C. CONYBEARE, “Two Notes on Acts”, ZNW20 (1921) 36-42, here 4142; J.M. WILSON, TheActsoftheApostlesTranslatedfromtheCodexBezæ(London 1923). 11 J.H. ROPES, TextofActs, III, TheBeginningsofChristianity:TheActsoftheApostles (eds. F.J. FOAKES-JACKSON – K. LAKE) (London 1926)ccxxxiii. 12 A.C. CLARK, TheActsoftheApostles.A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages(Oxford 1933) xlv-xlvii. 13 See STRANGE, ProblemoftheText, 12. 10 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 547 11/12/19 10:20 548 ZACHARY K. DAWSON the original text 14. Several other scholars of this time period, including George D. Kilpatrick, Matthew Black, and Max Wilcox, also adopted this approach, believing that each variant deserves critical attention 15. The discourse analyst can see in these two periods of textual criticism a tension between prioritizing what discourse analysts refer to as “topdown” and “bottom-up” approaches to analysis. On the one hand, a “topdown” approach considers how larger structures, such as a whole discourse, paragraphs, clause-complexes, etc., constrain texts at smaller levels, such as words, phrases, clauses, etc. (this notion can also be extended to explain how context constrains text). This resembles the process by which the classical views have explained the character of the versions of Acts, with supposed contextual features influencing the variants in some way. On the other hand, a “bottom-up” approach considers how smaller units “add up to” or constitute the larger structures of the discourse (this notion can also be extended to explain how texts reflect and contribute to shaping their contexts). This approach correlates with reasoned eclecticism because variants are usually defined at the word or word-group levels of meaning (e.g., prepositional phrases, nominal phrases, etc.), and these are considered in isolation before looking at the influence that context might have exercised on a variant or group of variants. While discourse analysis can privilege one view over the other for various reasons, they are nevertheless seen as complementary, one approach being a means of validating or clarifying the findings of the other 16. The text-critical studies on the texts of Acts, however, have not tended to treat the problem of the text of Acts according to this notion of bi-directional analysis, but has instead privileged one or the other. Philippe H. Menoud is one example of a scholar who attempted to use the eclectic method to move all the way up to the level of theology. In a 1951 article, Menoud argued contra Ropes that there is indeed a systematic revision evident in Codex Bezae which betrays a distinct theological tendency 17. By focusing mainly on the Apostolic Decree, Menoud argued 14 See the chapter titled “The Text of Acts. An Urgent Critical Task”, a reprint of the original 1941 publication, in M. DIBELIUS, StudiesintheActsoftheApostles(trans. M. LING; New York 1956)84-92. 15 See G.D. KILPATRICK, “An Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts”, BiblicalandPatristic StudiesinMemoryofRobertPierceCasey(eds. J.N. BIRDSALL – R.W. THOMSON) (Freiburg 1963) 64-77; M. BLACK, AnAramaicApproachtotheGospelsandActs(Oxford 31967); M. WILCOX, TheSemitismsofActs(Oxford 1965). 16 For further explanation on bottom-up and top-down processing, see G. BROWN – G. YULE, DiscourseAnalysis (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge 1983) 234236. 17 P.H. MENOUD, “The Western Text and the Theology of Acts”, StudiorumNoviTestamentiSocietas, Bulletin2 (1951) 19-32. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 548 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 549 that the Western text contains an anti-Judaism tendency and an insistence on the greatness and unity of the church according to the features that separate Christianity from Judaism, including the Holy Spirit and Jesus as Christ and Lord 18. Moreover, Eldon Jay Epp in his 1966 TheTheologicalTendencyofCodexBezaeCantabrigiensisinActswent further in criticizing the top-down orientations of previous studies that tried to interpret the versions of Acts according to a reconstructed textual history and instead ssought to identify a theological tendency in Codex Bezae through reasoned eclecticism. This work picks up on Ropes’s notion that the Western text is concerned with Gentiles but, like Menoud, highlights the anti-Judaism tendency in the text and the way Christianity was set apart from Judaism 19. Epp’s intent, rather than seeking to determine the original text, is more concerned with explaining the textual history of Acts as a text that has been interpreted, and therefore changed, by copyists 20. A major criticism of his work, however, is that he simply assumes rather than demonstrates the Western text to be a revised version of Acts, which heavily influences his conclusions of the development of thought in early Christian history. The studies on the text of Acts since the 1970s, the third period, present, for the most part, revised and nuanced views of older theories, though there are exceptions. C.K. Barrett, for example, in a 1979 article respondd to Epp’s study, challenging the view that Codex Bezae has a theological tendency 21. According to Barrett, if Codex Bezae has an anti-Judaism disposition, this characteristic does not reveal a theological development of Acts’ textual history, but rather simply reflects Luke’s own anti-Judaism theology, which is also apparent in his Gospel. Rather than being a tendency of the text, Codex Bezae exaggerates the anti-Judaism that was already present in it 22. Barrett’s hypothesis thus amounts to a return to Ropes’s view, where Codex Bezae contains some revisions that display ethnic concerns. Whereas Barrett’s hypothesis is inclined more towards Ropes’s view, it seems that French scholars in this period are more inclined towards Blass’s view, which is observable in the works of Edouard Delebecque, M.-É. Boismard, and A. Lamouille. Delebecque is concerned with the style 18 MENOUD, “Western Text”, 22. E.J. EPP. TheTheologicalTendencyofCodexBezaeCantabrigiensisinActs(SNTSMS 3; Cambridge 1966) 41-164. 20 EPP, TheologicalTendency, 12-21. 21 C.K. BARRETT, “Is There a Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae?”, TextandInterpretation.Studies Presented to Matthew Black (eds. E. BEST – R. MCL. WILSON) (Cambridge 1979) 15-27. 22 See esp. BARRETT, “Theological Tendency”, 26. 19 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 549 11/12/19 10:20 550 ZACHARY K. DAWSON of the Western variants of Acts; his conclusion is that both versions not only attest to good facility in Hellenistic Greek, but that the Western text’s additions display the same style as the text in which both versions agree 23. For Delebecque, this is evidence that Luke was the author of both versions, and that the Western text reflects Luke’s later revision of the work 24. Thus, Delebecque’s hypothesis comes out as the inverse of Blass’s. Whereas Blass believes the Alexandrian text represents the second draft, Delebecque argues that the Western text is the revised and expanded version. The work of Boismard and Lamouille, on the other hand, contrasts with Delebecque’s at this point. Their joint effort amounts to a thorough investigation of the development of the text by means of accounting for stylistic evidence in the two versions 25. Contrary to Delebecque, however, Boismard and Lamouille attempt to demonstrate that the style of the Western text more closely resembles Luke’s Gospel, and therefore conclude that the Alexandrian text is a revised version done by the same author 26. Accordingly, the position of Boismard and Lamouille is very close to that of Blass. In many ways, as will be shown below, Read-Heimerdinger’s approach and conclusions share similarities with the study of Boismard and Lamouille. A final study to consider, which is in certain respects set apart from those discussed above, is the work of David Parker on the whole of Codex Bezae published in 1992. Parker, assembling the insights from the most thorough studies on each of the Gospels and Acts in Codex Bezae, demonstrates the character of the whole codex rather than focusing exclusively on Acts. As the principal witness of the Western text-type for Acts, this is significant because Parker detects a theological tendency that spans the entire codex. According to Parker, “The text of Codex Bezae is our most eloquent witness to the fact that the early church could and did alter the transmitted sayings of Jesus [...] and of the apostles” 27. Parker offers specific examples of Luke’s writings that display this freedom — namely, Luke 6,4 and the Apostolic Decree in Acts, which in both cases Parker believes is an alteration meant to carry forward the theological importance of the original reading to a new situation 28. Another means by which this argument is supported, particularly with regard to the text of Acts, is in 23 E. DELEBECQUE, LesDeuxActesdesApôtres(EBib 6; Paris 1986) 212. DELEBECQUE, LesDeuxActesdesApôtres,373-380. 25 M.-É. BOISMARD – A. LAMOUILLE, Le Texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres. Reconstitution et rehabilitation (Synthèse 17; Paris 1984). 26 BOISMARD – LAMOUILLE, LeTexteoccidentaldesActesdesApôtres, 9. 27 D.C. PARKER, CodexBezae.An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text(Cambridge 1992) 285-286. 28 PARKER, CodexBezae, 286. 24 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 550 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 551 Parker’s comparison between the Greek and Latin columns of Acts (Codex Bezae is a bilingual codex). Here Parker finds that “there is, behind the Latin, a text of Acts which [...] lacked many of the additions and paraphrases so characteristic of D. The comparison of the columns has allowed us a glimpse of this older stage in the longer recension of Acts. The fairly low number of differences between the columns outside these additions suggests the older Latin version to have been derived from a shorter version of the present D text” 29. The purpose of this brief and selective sketch of the history of research is to contextualize Read-Heimerdinger’s hypothesis in light of other hypotheses and approaches that have vied for acceptance. Read-Heimerdinger’s approach stands out in this field for a few reasons. First, her thesis counters the previous views of Ropes, Menoud, Epp, and others who have seen a demonstrable concern for Gentiles or, stated negatively, an anti-Judaism bias in Codez Bezae, by arguing the opposite — that is, the character of Codex Bezae represents a predominantly Jewish view (see below). Her view also argues for the priority of the Western text according to a hypothesis very different from that of Blass and others who have often wanted to see Luke as the author of both versions. Finally, her approach has the potential to show evidence for her hypothesis from both a topdown and bottom-up perspective, which could set her method apart from many previous studies. Read-Heimerdinger’s work needs to be more fully considered before an evaluation of the distinctive features of her approach can be given. III. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, TEXTUAL CRITICISM, AND THE TEXT OF ACTS I will begin with Read-Heimerdinger’s conclusion and work back from there. She states: “There is [...] a considerable number of factors that emerge from an application of the tools of discourse analysis to a comparison of the texts of Acts and that all point to the same conclusion — namely, that the form of the book of Acts attested by Codex Bezae predates that of the Alexandrian MSS examined” 30. To evaluate this claim it is necessary to understand what Read-Heimerdinger means by “discourse analysis”, what are the tools that she refers to, and how she makes use of these tools to support her thesis. 29 30 PARKER, CodexBezae, 249. READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 355. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 551 11/12/19 10:20 552 ZACHARY K. DAWSON According to Read-Heimerdinger, “[d]iscourse analysis looks at language as communication [...] It considers the formal features of language, but it also pays attention to the relationship between language and the realworld in which it is spoken or written” 31. She goes on to clarify, “The general object of study for discourse analysts, then, is ‘language in use’. The larger concern is with the overall purpose of language as a vehicle of human communication. Within this concern, a discourse is viewed as a semantic unit” 32. When a discourse is understood as a semantic unit, as it is here, it becomes essentially coterminous with the notion of “text” as a unified instance of language communication 33. Following the main lines of recent scholarship on discourse analysis 34, Read-Heimerdinger concludes: “It is recognized that the meaning of a discourse is derived both from its internal features (its structure or form) and from the situation outside the discourse (the context, the people involved in the communication, thought processes, social conventions, and so on)” 35. Based on this notion, Read-Heimerdinger expresses the need for an integrated approach, “which considers both the internal features of a discourse and its situation in the real world as two aspects of language that inherently belong together” 36. The potential that this approach has for the problem with the text of Acts pertains to the lack of knowledge we have about its context; if the internal features must in some way reflect their context, then “discourse analysis can help us tell how to account for certain features in the text because they serve as evidence of such things as the identity and situation of the author or of the addressees” 37. In describing her methodological procedure, Read-Heimerdinger stresses that discourse analysis looks at language above the level of the sentence: “Discourse analysis looks not only at the sentence and its components but also at the larger units which group sentences together in an organized structure of paragraphs, episodes and chapters, for example, up to the level of the whole discourse” 38. While it is unclear how Read-Heimerdinger 31 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 26. READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 27-28. 33 See M.A.K. HALLIDAY – R. HASAN, CohesioninEnglish (English Language Series; London 1976) 2, who explain that “a text is best regarded as a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning”. 34 The resources Read cites most often include BROWN – YULE, DiscourseAnalysis; D. SCHIFFRIN, Approaches to Discourse (Malden, MA 1994); and HALLIDAY – HASAN, CohesioninEnglish. 35 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 28. 36 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs; cf. SCHIFFRIN, ApproachestoDiscourse, 23-31. 37 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 31. 38 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 28. 32 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 552 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 553 defines paragraphs, episodes, and chapters as distinct semantic units — like that of a clause, or even that of a text or discourse —, it is clear that she is concerned with explaining how smaller units of meaning are constrained by larger ones. She goes on to state that discourse analysis “looks for lexical or syntactical patterns and considers the factors by which they are established. It seeks to identify the elements that are central to the main idea of the discourse, and to establish how they are distinguished from the peripheral elements” 39. As a result, it seems that Read-Heimerdinger believes that the analysis of lexical features and patterns of syntax is a sufficient means for identifying the larger ideas or contextual features that motivate their use. More will be said on this below. The primary tools of discourse analysis in Read-Heimerdinger’s study are those that relate to cohesion and coherence, where cohesion is understood as a feature that holds a discourse together as a meaningful unit, and where coherence refers to the continuity of meanings that maintain the intelligibility of the text 40. These tools include audience monitoring, deixis, markedness, information structure, and salience, among other tools 41. Read-Heimerdinger drew several conclusions from her discourse analysis of the book of Acts in Codex Bezae. In her study she analyzed a number of discourse features such as word order, the use of the article, prepositions, connectives, and other features such as the consistency of spelling and purpose of names and characters in Acts 42. Each of these in some way identified features of cohesion or coherence in the Bezan text of Acts. With regard to these discourse features, Read-Heimerdinger concluded that Codex Bezae “displays striking features of discourse cohesion”, much more so than the Alexandrian manuscripts 43. Also, where the Alexandrian manuscripts tend to use unmarked connectives (e.g., καί), Codex Bezae makes systematic use of marked connectives (e.g., δέ) to achieve a “consistent forcefulness”, which functions to make sure that “the audience grasp[s] clearly what is being said” 44. This contrasts with the Alexandrian witness, which “frequently appears flat and bland” 45. She admits that this critique has been used to support the argument that Codex Bezae is a later revision of an earlier edition that more closely 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 28-29. READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 38-39. See READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs,34-38. See READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs 62-344. READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 350. READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 350 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 351. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 553 11/12/19 10:20 554 ZACHARY K. DAWSON resembled the Alexandrian text-type, but she counters with the following argument: “The text of Codex Bezae does not resemble that of an enthusiastic storyteller who has got carried away with the pleasure of his craft. It is controlled, methodical and precise, and all concords with a single goal” 46. For Read-Heimerdinger this counts as clear evidence that Codex Bezae could not have been a revision of an existing text at a late stage, and so it becomes possible (or probable in Read-Heimerdinger’s estimation) that Codex Bezae was actually the earlier of the two versions of Acts 47. However, this judgment seems somewhat slanted because it presumes that a later editor would have been unrestrained in the revision process. Could not a skilled editor with a clear goal set out to accomplish the task of clarifying the text for a later audience? Numerous arguments have been made along these lines for over a century now, beginning with James Hardy Ropes, and including other scholars such as Philippe H. Menoud, Eldon Jay Epp, and David Parker, who see clear theological tendencies in the Western text. Unfortunately, Read-Heimerdinger does not engage with these views in detail nor does she offer any serious response to them 48. Read-Heimerdinger concludes that the textual variants between Codex Bezae and the Alexandrian manuscripts “reveal an underlying difference in the mentality of the respective editors of the two textual traditions” 49. According to her view, Codex Bezae displays a particularly Jewish way of thinking, which repeatedly surfaces in the way the editor/narrator addresses “problems of practice and belief” from an insider Jewish perspective rather than from an outsider’s perspective” 50. Thus, in Read-Heimerdinger’s judgment, the Jewish perspective factors significantly into the overall message that the editor of Codex Bezae wants to communicate. A consideration of the Apostolic Decree, however, will expose a bias in Read-Heimerdinger’s argument because an author with a Jewish viewpoint would have grasped the full significance of the background associated with the four abstentions listed in the Alexandrian manuscripts; the Bezan text, as I will demonstrate, actually displays a more limited Jewish understanding of the text 51, and seems to emend the Apostolic Decree so not to confuse an audience that does not have Jewish ears to hear. 46 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 351. READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 351. 48 See ROPES, Text of Acts, viii-x, who argues that the Western text was a deliberate creation of an earlier text. Cf. B.M. METZGER – B.D. EHRMAN, TheTextoftheNewTestament.Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford 42005) 307. 49 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 352. 50 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 352. 51 Contra RIUS-CAMPS and READ-HEIMERDINGER, MessageofActs, III, 214. 47 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 554 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 555 Read-Heimerdinger’s study tends to process information from a topdown perspective; she attempts to show how elements of discourse at the word-level (e.g., the article, prepositions, word spellings, and the like) and at the phrase-level (e.g., the position of adjectives and the nouns they modify, the position and types of genitives, among others) reflect the larger contextual factor of a Jewish perspective. The limitation here is that larger units of meaning such as full clauses and clause-complexes are not considered for the role they play in the variations between the two text traditions of Acts. It is with these larger units of texts that the development of ideas in a text can be more clearly observed, and it would seem that if Codex Bezae displays a Jewish perspective, this would be realized more saliently in the larger units of meaning. Read-Heimerdinger even states in her explanation of discourse analysis that “in its study of form, discourse analysis looks at ‘language above the sentence’” 52. Thus, in moving directly from words and phrases to a large statement about the message of Acts, multiple levels of meaning are omitted that could contribute to either strengthening or refuting Read-Heimerdinger’s argument. It is my contention that the additional clause added to the Apostolic Decree, καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γείνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε (“and whatever you do not want to happen to yourselves, do not do to others”), is a major instance where the alternative readings in Codex Bezae undermine Read-Heimerdinger’s thesis. Before coming back to make this point, I will turn to a text-critical analysis of the Apostolic Decree so that ReadHeimerdinger’s methodology can be compared to traditional means of weighing variants. IV. A TEXT-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE APOSTOLIC DECREE The main exegetical question regarding the Apostolic Decree is as follows: Does the list of abstentions for Gentiles pertain to ritual (cultic) or ethical purity? The answer to this question is determined in part by deciding how many items belong in the list; does the list contain four abstentions (i.e. things sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication) or three, where either “things strangled” or “fornication” is omitted? The answers given to these questions have profound implications for the function of the Apostolic Decree in the book of Acts because it directly relates to the issue in the early church concerning the relationship 52 READ-HEIMERDINGER, Bezan Text of Acts, 28, quoting SCHIFFRIN, Approaches to Discourse, 23. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 555 11/12/19 10:20 556 ZACHARY K. DAWSON between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Further, what one decides about the place of Codex Bezae in this discussion greatly affects the resolution of this question. 1. ConsideringtheWitnesses The textual evidence of the number of items in the Apostolic Decree, as well as the particular items attested, can be divided into three groupings. First, the Alexandrian witnesses attest to the four items that appear in the NA28 and UBS5 base text, which include: 10‫א‬, A02, B03, C04, and Ψ044. Numerous other manuscripts not of the Alexandrian type also attest to this reading, including P33 (sixth century) 53, P74 (seventh century), E08, as well as the majority of minuscules, the Byzantine uncials, and numerous attestations in the Greek Fathers. The second group is the Western text, which omits πνικτοῦ (or πνικτῶν), “what is strangled”, and adds a negative form of the Golden Rule in 15,20 and 29. Codex Bezae (D05) is the most important witness for the Western reading, but several tenthto twelfth-century minuscules (323, 945, 1739, 1891) contain this reading as well, including where one scribe has cited Irenaeus and Eusebius as second- and fourth-century support for this reading in the margin of minuscule 1739. A third group can be compiled that omits the item τῆς πορνείας. These manuscripts include P45 (a third-century Alexandrian witness) and the Ethiopic witness, which dates to around the beginning of the sixth century. As for this third group, which includes an important Alexandrian papyrus, the omission of τῆς πορνείας is probably an attempt to harmonize the list according to Jewish table fellowship rituals 54. Three items in the Apostolic Decree can readily be collectively subsumed under the category of food laws, but “sexual immorality”, not apparently relevant to table fellowship, may have been omitted for its apparent dissimilarity. Bruce Metzger comments that this consideration logically accounts for the absence of τῆς πορνείας, but he instead argues for its inclusion because it is more likely that τῆς πορνείας was the abstention that encompassed a warning against marrying in violation of certain Levitical guidelines (Lev 18,618), or marrying pagans (Num 25,1), or it could have encompassed pagan 53 P33 is a fragmentary account of Acts with only the lists in 15,29 and 21,25 being attested; the manuscript begins at 15,21, the verse immediately following the first list. 54 R.L. OMANSON, ATextualGuidetotheGreekNewTestament(Stuttgart 2006) 258. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 556 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 557 worship, which offered religious prostitution in temples 55. This response to P45 assumes that all four abstentions have a direct dependency on Old Testament law, which could make the argument for a ritual background all the more compelling. However, recent scholarship has brought to light that the items in the list resemble an early form of the Noahide laws of Rabbinic Jewish tradition, particularly as evidenced in Jubilees7–8, and this suggests that the four abstentions can recur together without being tied directly to the Old Testament 56. Therefore, it is important to consider new insights into what the abstentions, taken together, meant in the social environment of Acts, and then to consider how τῆς πορνείας might have been interpreted and omitted in a later manuscript such as P45 where certain contextual awareness may have been lost. In the remainder of this article I will focus on the differences between the first and second groupings where most of the textual debate resides. Since James H. Ropes’s book TheTextofActswas published in 1926, it has become customary to compare the witness of Codex Vaticanus (B03) and Codex Bezae (D05) as representative texts of the Alexandrian and Western text-types, respectively 57. Thus, in the chart below I set these two texts side by side to show how they parallel; the two texts are identical in several respects, only differing significantly with one of the abstentions. 55 B.M. METZGER, ATextualCommentaryontheGreekNewTestament(Stuttgart 21994) 380. An often-recited option for the appearance of τῆς πορνείας is Richard Bentley’s conjectural emendation that πορνείας was originally πορκείας (“swine’s flesh”), which would keep the items in the list all pertaining to food. Rendell Harris made the comment in 1908, after referring to this conjecture, that Bentley was expected by his admirers to “deal freely in conjectures” (R.J. BENTLEY, Side-Lights on New Testament Research. Seven Lectures Delivered in 1908, at Regent’s Park College, London [The Angus Lectureship 6; London 1908] 188). Fortunately, unattested possibilities such as this do not carry the explanatory power that they once did. 56 See Z.K. DAWSON, “The Books of Acts and Jubilees in Dialogue. A LiteraryIntertextual Analysis of the Noahide Laws in Acts 15 and 21”, JGRChJ13 (2016) 9-40; T.R. HANNEKEN, “Moses Has His Interpreters. Understanding the Legal Exegesis in Acts 15 from the Precedent in Jubilees”, CBQ77 (2015) 686-706. Cf. C.S. KEENER, Acts.An Exegetical Commentary,4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI 2014) III, 2260-2269. Others, however, continue to see a direct reliance on Leviticus 17–18: see, e.g., E.J. SCHNABEL, Acts(ZECNT 5; Grand Rapids, MI 2012) 644-645; R.I. PERVO, Acts.A Commentary(Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2009) 376-378; D.G. PETERSON, TheActsoftheApostles(Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI 2009) 434-436. 57 See PARKER, Introduction, 288. Ropes used the older scheme of “Old Uncial”, “Western”, and “Antiochian” to designate what are commonly referred to today as the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine text-types, respectively. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 557 11/12/19 10:20 558 ZACHARY K. DAWSON Table 1: Acts 15,20 Codex Vaticanus (B03) Codex Bezae (D05) διο εγω κρεινω μη παρενοχλειν τοις απο των εθνω επιστρεφουσιν επι το ΘΝ· αλλ επιστειλαι αυτοις του απεχεσθαι των αλισγηματων των ειδωλω και της πορνειας και πνικτου και του αιματος διο εγω κρεινω μη παρενοχλειν τοις απο των εθνων επιστρεφουσιν επι τον ΘΝ αλλα επιστειλαι αυτοις του απεχεσθαι των αλισγηματων των ειδωλων και της πορνειας και του αιματος και οσα μη θελουσιν εαυτοις γεινεσθαι ετεροις μη ποιειτε Therefore, I have decided not to trouble those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, but to write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality and things strangled and from blood. Therefore, I have decided not to trouble those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, but to write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality and from blood, and whatever they do not want to happen to themselves, do not do to others. The Alexandrian manuscripts, as well as the majority of other witnesses, attest to the four abstentions appearing in B03 above: (1) τῶν ἀλισγήματων τῶν εἰδώλων, (2) τῆς πορνείας, (3) (τοῦ) πνικτοῦ, and (4) τοῦ αἵματος. Codex Bezae (D05) as well as 323, 614, 945, 1739, 1891, sa (a thirteenth-century Old Latin text), and other witnesses have the following statement after αἵματος or καὶ τῆς πορνείας 58: καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γείνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε (“and whatever they do not want to happen to themselves, do not do to others”). By adding this negative form of the Golden Rule, these witnesses effectively change the Apostolic Decree from what might be regarded as ceremonial restrictions of cultic purity into clear ethical demands 59. 2. ArgumentandEvidence The larger number of manuscripts and the priority generally given to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as the Alexandrian witness support the fourfold list that includes (τοῦ) πνικτοῦ (texts with and without the article are both attested), and this is the reading that is confidently given in the UBS5 base text 60. In the UBS5, Codex Bezae is consistently 58 There is variance in the order of the abstentions in the manuscripts that attest the negative Golden Rule. 59 See RIUS-CAMPS – READ-HEIMERDINGER, MessageofActs,III, 222-223. 60 The UBS5 divides up the textual problems of verse 20 into three different notes (6-8), all of which are interrelated, and so it is a little confusing that these would receive different ratings (notes 6 and 8 are both given {A} ratings and note 7 is given a {C} rating). It 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 558 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 559 considered inferior to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. This, however, does not reflect the scholarly debate over the last century and a half where many scholars have advocated for the priority of Codex Bezae, which has made Codex Bezae a rival of the Alexandrian witness as the representative of the original exemplar 61, or at least the earlier of the two traditions 62. As a result, whereas the guiding principles of textual criticism should be carefully considered when weighing both external and internal evidence, enough scholarship has called into question the priority of the Alexandrian text of Acts to the point that the debate now largely revolves around matters of internal evidence. For present matters, however, I will consider both kinds of evidence in accordance with the traditional practice of weighing variants. a. Considering External Evidence When weighing textual variants, external criteria are generally considered to be more objective than internal criticism, and thus should be given priority before internal matters are allowed to give sway 63. The date of Codex Bezae is generally considered to date to sometime around the year 400 CE 64. However, the witness of Acts 15,20 attested in Irenaeus shows that the Greek reading (Codex Bezae is a Greek-Latin bilingual codex) dates to the second century when most scholars date the emergence of the Western text-type 65. This suggests that the Bezan reading of Acts 15,20 is early 66. Further, the term “Western” has been widely acknowledged as a misnomer because the characteristic readings associated with this text-type appears that the uncertainty expressed with note 7 involves whether or not to take the article τοῦ with πνικτοῦ, and so the doubt is not related to the witness of D05 at all. 61 K.E. PANTEN, “A History of Research on Codex Bezæ”, TynBul47 (1996) 185-187, here 185. 62 READ-HEIMERDINGER, BezanTextofActs, 355. 63 METZGER – EHRMAN, TextoftheNewTestament, 305-306. 64 For a brief overview of the different opinions concerning the date of Codex Bezae, see D.C. PARKER, “The Palaeographical Debate”, CodexBezae.Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994 (eds. D.C. PARKER – C.-B. AMPHOUX) (NTTS 22; Leiden 1996) 329-354, here 332. Whereas others have suggested a date as late as 450 and as early as the second half of the fourth century, Parker suggests a date of 400 with the intention of exercising “proper caution” (332). Parker agrees with Holtz that a fourth-century date is possible; since the scribe was versed in Latin (as was the first corrector of the text), the date needs to be determined by the Latin text, but Parker, unlike Holtz, is not convinced that the hand parallels the Livy Epitome (P.Oxy.1532) well enough to push the date back to the middle of the fourth century (332). See also L. HOLTZ, “L’écriture latine du Codex de Bèze”, CodexBezae.Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994 (eds. D.C. PARKER – C.-B. AMPHOUX) (NTTS 22; Leiden 1996)14-55, here 25-30. 65 METZGER – EHRMAN, TextoftheNewTestament, 308. 66 The codex as a whole has been shown to share more textual connections with Irenaeus; see HOLTZ, “L’écriture latine”, 32-36. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 559 11/12/19 10:20 560 ZACHARY K. DAWSON have been found over a wide geographical distribution including some Eastern versions such as the Sinaitic Old Syriac and the Coptic 67. Codex Bezae in particular has been shown to share numerous readings with Codex Glazier (CopG67), a fifth century Coptic manuscript of Acts 1,1 – 15,3 68. Thus, based on a wide distribution and parallels with early witnesses, Codex Bezae carries notable weight with regards to external criteria. The Alexandrian witness, like the Western text-type, is considered by many scholars to date back to the second century 69. However, the number and distribution of manuscripts attesting to the abstentions found in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus far outweigh the reading found in Codex Bezae. As stated above, these witnesses include: 01‫א‬, A02, B03, C04, and Ψ044 (all Alexandrian witnesses); P33 (sixth century) 70, P74 (seventh century), E08, as well as the majority of minuscules, the Byzantine uncials, and numerous attestations in the Greek Fathers. Provided the rule that the best readings are more objectively decided by external evidence as opposed to internal criticism, the UBS5 is well within reason to confidently side with the Alexandrian tradition. b. Considering Internal Criteria Before assessing the internal criteria for the different witnesses of Acts 15,20 it should be acknowledged that discourse analysis, by its own definition, is entirely relegated to internal criticism; it is concerned with what the text says. But more than this, discourse analysis considers why texts communicate in the way they do; it seeks to determine how contextual factors influence the production and content of texts, and so is concerned with what is going on outside the text (i.e., in the context of situation). The danger in this for textual criticism is that the further one ventures from the physical manuscripts themselves, the more subjective decisions become. This point is even more salient when dealing with texts where the context is simply unknown, or where, as with the case of Codex Bezae, 67 METZGER – EHRMAN, TextoftheNewTestament, 307. See esp. E.J. EPP, “Manuscript G67 and the Rôle of Codex Bezae as a Western Witness in Acts”, PerspectivesonNewTestamentTextualCriticism.Collected Essays,19622004 (NovTSup 116; Leiden 2005) 15-39; M.-É. BOISMARD, “Le Codex de Bèze et le Occidental des Actes”, CodexBezae.Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994 (eds. D.C. PARKER – C.-B. AMPHOUX) (NTTS 22; Leiden 1996)257-270. 69 See S.E. PORTER, HowWeGottheNewTestament.Text, Transmission, Translation (Grand Rapids, MI 2013) 62; E.J. EPP, “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism. Moving from the Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century”, Rethinking New TestamentTextualCriticism (ed. D.A. BLACK) (Grand Rapids, MI 2002) 17-76, here 38, 41. 70 P33 is a fragmentary account of Acts with only the lists in 15,29 and 21,25 being attested; the manuscript begins at 15,21, the verse immediately following the first list. 68 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 560 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 561 many suspect that the text has been revised to answer questions in a different context of situation than the one in which the original author wrote. If a text is suspected as having undergone a thorough revision, then how can we tell whether it is the editor’s or the original author’s context that has been preserved in the text? Are there tools used in linguistic or discourse analysis that can help us with this issue? I think that there are, but the subjectivity in their employment can create further issues of their own for textual criticism. Indispensable, then, for the textual issues on Acts 15,20 are the principles associated with transcriptional probabilities. Generally, more difficult readings are considered more likely to be original 71. Of the two readings shown in Table 1, neither is difficult to read grammatically or syntactically, but Codex Vaticanus has the reading that is more difficult to understand conceptually; this is evidenced by the variants within the Alexandrian manuscripts themselves regarding the inclusion of τῆς πορνείας, as well as by the failure of biblical scholars to come to a consensus on what the background of the abstentions are and whether they belong to ritual or ethical purity codes. The Alexandrian witness is more difficult and thus bears more weight than Codex Bezae. Second, it is generally accepted that shorter readings are preferred to longer ones 72. By both word count and complexity of syntax Codex Vaticanus is preferable to Codez Bezae in this regard. Third, because Codex Vaticanus contains τῶν πνικτῶν and Codex Bezae provides the generalizing negative Golden Rule, Codex Vaticanus can be said to be less harmonized than Codex Bezae, making the former more likely to represent the original. These three points contrast with ReadHeimerdinger’s conclusion, which is susceptible to a greater degree of subjectivity based on her appeal to context. After considering both the external and internal evidence, it is more likely that the Alexandrian witness of Acts 15,20 preceded the reading of Codex Bezae. V. A RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE JEWISH PERSPECTIVE OF CODEX BEZAE To avoid downplaying both the importance of context for understanding textual differences and Read-Heimerdinger’s emphasis on this in her 71 While the maxim lectiodifficiliorlectiopotiorusually holds true,Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland warn that this rule should not be followed too mechanically (TheText of the New Testament. An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism[trans. E.F. RHODES; Grand Rapids, MI 21989] 281). 72 As the maxim goes: lectio brevior lectio potior, but again this rule should not be followed too mechanically (ALAND – ALAND, TextoftheNewTestament, 281). 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 561 11/12/19 10:20 562 ZACHARY K. DAWSON approach, I will specifically engage her argument here that the perspective in Codex Bezae is more Jewish-minded than that of the Alexandrian tradition. Based on the way Read-Heimerdinger frames her argument, there are two options for responding to her view: (1) one could argue that the Alexandrian tradition contains a more Jewish-oriented perspective of the two, or (2) one could demonstrate that Codex Bezae contains alterations that obscure meanings that were contingent on a Jewish background and, therefore, is less Jewish-minded. The latter will prove to be more suitable as the Jerusalem Decree remains the object of analysis. A selective survey of recent commentators shows a lack of consensus regarding the background of the four abstentions given in Acts 15,20, 29, and 21,25. Craig S. Keener, after considering four options, favors the Noahide laws as the most likely background, even while adding the qualification that he does not mean the fully formed list of Noahide laws that were a later development in Rabbinic Judaism, but rather a range of early Jewish traditions that attest to what God required from Gentiles based on retellings of the covenant made with Noah, which are found in Jubilees as well as Josephus and Philo 73. Schnabel, surveying six options, argues for an Old Testament polemic against idolatry and a reliance on Leviticus 17– 18 74. David G. Peterson considers five views but argues for a so-called “scriptural” background and denies any other extra-canonical influences 75. Richard I. Pervo does not consider various views, but simply explains that the precepts derive from Leviticus 17–18. In each of these views there is the commonality that the Apostolic Decree is influenced by Jewish religious texts, but opinions differ as to which texts are in view and how they relate to the decree. The two major differences between the two textual traditions are the presence of πνικτοῦ in the Alexandrian text and the presence of the negative Golden Rule in Codex Bezae. Both of these textual features need to be addressed. First, regarding Codex’s Bezae omission of πνικτοῦ RiusCamps and Read-Heimerdinger write: Without the mention of πνικτοῦ, as in Codex Bezae, the three practices James mentions are the three essential things that a Jew must always follow in every circumstance, even if threatened with death; they are all contained in Leviticus 17–20 where Moses is given a series of commandments for all the people of Israel: idols (17.2-9; 19.4; 20.2-6, 27), illicit sexual relationships (ch. 18; 20.10-21) and bloodshed (17.2-4, 10-14). These laws are absolutely binding; infringement of them incurs permanent defilement and 73 74 75 KEENER, Acts, III, 226-269. SCHNABEL, Acts, 644-645. PETERSON, ActsoftheApostles, 434-436. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 562 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 563 carries the penalty of exclusion from Israel and even death if they are infringed (17.4, 9, 10, 14; 18.29). The Gentiles, according to James, should be required to respect the same mandatory laws 76. Thus, according to Read-Heimerdinger and her colleague Rius-Camps, the absence of πνικτοῦ (“things strangled”) makes the list of abstentions more intelligible according to the background text of Leviticus 17–20, and the idea is that Gentiles are to follow the Law of Moses insofar as these matters are concerned. James in Acts, therefore, espouses a theological position that Gentiles who become Christians are bound to the Mosaic Law according to the matters that applied to Israelites in any circumstance. However, this argument relies heavily on the word αἷμα referring specifically to bloodshed (i.e. murder) as opposed to the consumption of blood. This view is difficult to defend even if Leviticus 17–20 is the main background text in view because the consumption of blood is a major matter dealt with in these chapters (cf. 17,10-16). It may well be that πνικτοῦ hearkens back to the prohibition that no meat with the animal’s lifeblood still in it is permitted to be eaten; this would be the case if an animal were strangled rather than drained of its blood before it was cooked, meaning that its blood was still in it. As a result, the abstentions of αἷµα and πνικτοῦ appearing next to each other could be mutually clarifying. However, Leviticus is probably not the only important text in view regarding the list of abstentions. The book of Jubilees has recently been shown to be much more important to the background of the Apostolic Decree than previously thought. Todd Hanneken points out that Jubilees is often cited in discussions on the Apostolic Decree, but not in an accurate way: “Somehow one verse from Jubileesmade the list of what many scholars feel obliged to mention, but it is the wrong verse” 77. The verse that scholars routinely cite is Jub.7.20 where the phrase “fornication and uncleanliness and all iniquity” is given in a list formally similar to the list of abstentions in the Apostolic Decree. Rather than focusing on this verse, however, Hanneken argues that the whole of chapters 6 and 7 should be considered because they refer to all the precepts in the Apostolic Decree. Prohibitions concerning the consumption of blood are present in Jub. 6.78, 12-13, 38; 7.29-32. The lexeme αἷμα is also used with regard to shedding blood, which is employed multiple times (6.8; 7.23, 25-26, 29). Since the shedding of blood collocates with iniquity in 7.23, this suggests 76 77 RIUS-CAMPS – READ-HEIMERDINGER, MessageofActs, III, 213. HANNEKEN, “Moses Has His Interpreters”, 697. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 563 11/12/19 10:20 564 ZACHARY K. DAWSON — according to discourse analysis tools of cohesion — that violence is included in “all iniquity” in 7.20. Scholars debate whether αἷμα refers to the consumption of blood, the shedding of blood, or both, in the abstentions in Acts, but most believe that only eating blood is in view. However, if Jubilees is a text residing in the cultural background of Acts, then a hypernymic use of αἷμα is quite plausible, which would subsume multiple issues pertaining to blood in the social context, encompassing both eating and shedding blood (i.e. murder). The additional collocation of πνικτοῦ, however, arguably clarifies that matters of consumption are more relevant to the context of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 for reasons including the matters of table fellowship that are raised with Peter’s involvement with Cornelius earlier in Acts, which is recapitulated at the start of the council. Such an explanation would be more oriented towards the concerns of Jewish Christians in multi-ethnic churches who were concerned with becoming ritually unclean in their contact with Gentile Christians 78. The significance of Jubilees as a background text still needs to be identified. This book, being a valued Jewish religious text that would have been widely used in the first century 79, is one of the texts out of which the so-called Noahide laws developed and earned their name. These “laws” get their name from their inclusion in the rewritten Noahic covenant, a tradition that apparently traces back to a Book of Noah 80 and is also found in the retelling of the story of God’s covenant with Noah in the book of Jubilees, which is made into a conditional covenant contingent on the maintenance of purity that God re-established after his wiping away of a wholly polluted humanity in the flood. Thus, the Noahide laws pertain to Jewish codes of purity and pollution. Moreover, scholars have shown that Jubileesis concerned with the purity of Jews, and the book takes this 78 As regards the other abstentions, mentions of sexual immorality appear explicitly in Jub. 7.20-21, and perhaps euphemistically in Ham’s act of seeing his father naked in 7.8. And while idolatry is not explicitly mentioned in Jubilees6–7, it appears implicitly with the announcement that demons have begun their seductions in Jub.7.27 because demon worship is directly connected with idolatry in Jub. 1.11 and 22.17-18. See Hanneken, “Moses Has His Interpreters”, 689. Cf. A.Y. REED, “Enochic and Mosaic Traditions in Jubilees. The Evidence of Angelology and Demonology”, EnochandtheMosaicTorah. The Evidence of Jubilees (eds. G. BOCCACCINI – G. IBBA) (Grand Rapids, MI 2009) 353368. 79 See HANNEKEN, “Moses Has His Interpreters”, 686-687. 80 This are no extant manuscripts of this book, but other sources, such as 1QapGen 5.29 and T.Levi attest to its existence and affirm the claims in Jub.1.29, 33.16 and 50.13 that Noah and Moses taught the same law. See T.R. HANNEKEN, TheSubversionoftheApocalypses in the Book of Jubilees (Early Judaism and Its Literature 34; Atlanta, GA 2012) 288-289. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 564 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 565 as far as promoting a Jewish separationist stance towards Gentiles 81. Herein lies the significance of the use of the Noahide laws in the Apostolic Decree: rather than being used to promote a Jewish separationist ideology, they are used instead to promote the integration of Jewish and Gentile Christians. The contextualized meaning of the abstentions recognizes the legitimacy of Jewish values of purity, while combatting other Jewish views in the culture that would prompt Jewish Christians to withdraw from multiethnic churches. This dimension of the decree, however, is only recoverable through knowledge of Jewish texts and cultural values of the first century. Codex Bezae seemingly misses these contextual aspects of the Apostolic Decree, however, and thus adjusts the abstentions to make them less specific to the needs of multi-ethnic Christian communities. The more likely reason for this is that later Christian communities were not characterized by the same conflicts as the original Lukan audience, and it may well be that the Jewish background of the Apostolic Decree was unknown to the editor of the Bezan text. Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger do not observe the relevance of the Noahide laws for the Apostolic Decree. They instead see a Jewish perspective manifested in the Apostolic Decree with the presence of the negative Golden Rule: The Jewish perspective of Codex Bezae is confirmed by the summary James adds to his list of essential requirements, for the formula that he uses corresponds to the traditional Jewish summary of the law for a proselyte (Tob. 4.15; Sir. 31.15) [...] The absence in the Alexandrian text of the Jewish summary of the Law for Gentiles is further evidence that the text of James’ speech has been adapted to a Christian, rather than a Jewish, context82. This explanation makes claims that are problematic when the supporting texts that are cited are examined. The context of Tob 4,15 is the message of a Jewish father nearing death, who instructs his son, Tobias, on how he wants him to live his life, which includes taking care of his mother, marrying within his tribe, being charitable to the poor, and the like, as Tobit nears his death (Tob 4,1-19). The text does not reflect any formulaic sayings and is not directed towards Gentiles nor does it have Gentiles in 81 See L. DOERING, “Purity and Impurity in the Book of Jubilees”, Enochandthe MosaicTorah.The Evidence of Jubilees (eds. G. BOCCACCINI – G. IBBA) (Grand Rapids, MI 2009) 261-275, who states in regard to Jub.22.16-18, that the message “is a comprehensivecall for the separation from the nations, entailing prohibitions against eating with them, behaving as they do, and becoming their companion [...] While one of the concerns is idolatry, ‘eating’ with Gentiles may include dietary and perhaps ‘ritual’ issues” (272). 82 RIUS-CAMPS – READ-HEIMERDINGER, MessageofActs, III, 214. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 565 11/12/19 10:20 566 ZACHARY K. DAWSON mind, other than to prohibit Tobit from marrying one. It thus makes little sense why Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger reference this text as support. The reference to Sir 31,15 is also perplexing, first because it does not contain the language of the negative Golden Rule, and second because it is the middle-part of a discussion on table etiquette, which, if anything, would serve as a better reference to those supporting the Alexandrian tradition that emphasizes a closer link between the Apostolic Decree and Peter’s vision prior to his encounter with Cornelius, which called old distinctions between clean and unclean into question. In fact, the very next verse reads, “Eat what is set before you like a well brought-up person” (Sir 31,16) (NRSV). Neither of these references support the view that James’s summary consists of a Jewish perspective. The better explanation, then, as demonstrated above, is that the list of items in the Alexandrian tradition reflects a much more Jewish-oriented text. VI. CONCLUSION The consideration of external evidence and internal criticism, coupled with a reconsideration of the background text of the Apostolic Decree, calls into question Read-Heimerdinger’s main argument that the Bezan text is earlier and more Jewish-minded than the Alexandrian witness. Where Read-Heimerdinger’s argument lends its support to a moral understanding of the Apostolic Decree, her analysis is questionable for several reasons. It involves moving directly from the word and word-group levels to the level of context. Moreover, the long-accepted internal criteria used in the discipline of textual criticism contradict her conclusions. In addition, the Alexandrian text reflects a more Jewish-oriented set of abstentions that is lost in the Bezan text, and the negative Golden Rule does not confirm a Jewish perspective as Read-Heimerdinger and her colleague Rius-Camps state. What does this say, then, about the role discourse analysis should play in the discipline of textual criticism? The appropriate place for discourse analysis in textual criticism should be in a supportive role rather than a constitutive role for making text-critical decisions, especially when the goal is to argue for a large-scale thesis, such as that found in Read-Heimerdinger’s study 83. This article has demonstrated that the selective use of discourse 83 This is consonant with Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland’s basic rule: “Internal criteria (the context of the passage, its style and vocabulary, the theological environment of the author, etc.) can never be the sole basis for a critical decision, especially in opposition to external evidence” (TextoftheNewTestament,280). 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 566 11/12/19 10:20 THE TEXTUAL TRADITIONS OF ACTS 567 analysis tools can be used to support highly objectionable conclusions. This does not speak to the problems of the linguistic tools themselves, but rather to how they are used in the hands of an analyst. McMaster Divinity College Hamilton, ON Canada Zachary K. DAWSON SUMMARY This article assesses Jenny Read-Heimerdinger’s application of discourse analysis to the problem of the two textual traditions of the book of Acts. Based on an analysis of the textual variants of the Apostolic Decree and a consideration of Jewish perspective of both traditions, this article concludes, contrary to Read-Heimerdinger, that the Alexandrian tradition is more likely to represent the original text and contains a more Jewish-oriented perspective, which calls her application of discourse analysis into question and reaffirms the primacy of the Alexandrian text. 101884_Biblica_2019-4_05_OT_Dawson.indd 567 11/12/19 10:20