Acts of the Apostles, 1-7 in the Bible Encyclopedia - ISBE
LITERATURE
I. Title.
It is possible, indeed probable, that the book originally
had no title. The manuscripts give the title in several
forms. Aleph (in the inscription) has merely "Acts"
(Praxeis). So Tischendorf, while Origen, Didymus, Eusebius
quote from "The Acts." But BD Aleph (in subscription) have
"Acts of Apostles" or "The Acts of the Apostles" (Praxeis
Apostolon). So Westcott and Hort, Nestle (compare Athanasius
and Euthalius). Only slightly different is the title in
31,61, and many other cursives (Praxeis ton Apostolon, "Acts
of the Apostles"). So Griesbach, Scholz. Several fathers
(Clement of Alex, Origen, Dionysius of Alex, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Chrysostom) quote it as "The Acts of the
Apostles" (Hai Praxeis ton Apostolon). Finally A2 EGH give
it in the form "Acts of the Holy Apostles" (Praxeis ton
Hagion Apostolon). The Memphitic version has "The Acts of
the Holy Apostles." Clearly, then, there was no single title
that commanded general acceptance.
II. Text.
(1) The chief documents. These are the Primary Uncials
(Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus,
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae), Codex Laudianus (E)
which is a bilingual Uncial confined to Acts, later Uncials
like Codex Modena, Codex Regius, Codex the Priestly Code
(P), the Cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the
Harclean Syriac and quotations from the Fathers. We miss the
Curetonian and Syriac Sinaiticus, and have only fragmentary
testimony from the Old Latin.
(2) The modern editions of Acts present the types of text
(Textus Receptus; the Revised Version (British and
American); the critical text like that of Westcott and Hort,
The New Testament in Greek or Nestle or Weiss or von Soden).
These three types do not correspond with the four classes of
text (Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, Neutral) outlined by
Hort in his Introduction to the New Testament in Greek
(1882). These four classes are broadly represented in the
documents which give us Acts. But no modern editor of the
Greek New Testament has given us the Western or the
Alexandrian type of text, though Bornemann, as will
presently be shown, argues for the originality of the
Western type in Acts. But the Textus Receptus of the New
Testament (Stephanus' 3rd edition in 1550) was the basis of
the King James Version of 1611. This edition of the Greek
New Testament made use of a very few manuscripts, and all of
them late, except Codex Bezae, which was considered...
Read More
