ii. Tkxt axi) Transmission.— Although our authorities for the transmission of the Acts are in the main similar to those for the Go.spels, they are fewer in number. Like the Gospels, it is contained in the five leading Uncials (n A B C I)) , in the Vulg., in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac, in the two chief Coptic VSS, and there are quotations from it in the leading Fathers. Two sources are, however, defective. We have nothing corresponding to the Curetonian and Sinaitic Sj' riac, nor do we even know whether such a text existed ; and the Old Lathi is very inadequately represented. On the other hand, we possess one other Uncial of considerable im- portance, namely, the Codex Laudianus (E) of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, a bilingual MS. of the Acts only. In later Minuscules it is generally found forming one volume with the Catholic Epistles.
The inadequate representation of the Old Latin and the absence of an old Syriac text are to be regretted, owing to the fact that the particular textual phenomena which they exhibit meet us in some authorities of the .Vets in a very conspicuous form, namely, what is called the Western text (by Sanday and Ileadlam, Romans, p. l.xxi, the 5 text ; by Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 24, the (3 text). This is represented more or less definitely by the two bilingual MSS. D E, by the marginal readings of the Harclean Syriac, by the Old Latin so far as we can recover it (Codex Gigas, Floriacensis, and similar fragments, with the Paris MS. Latin 321, edited by M. Berger), and by Western Fathers, esp. Iren.eus, TertuUian, Cyprian, Lucifer, Augustine, Vigilius, Bede (some having a mixed text). The characteristics of this text are well known ; it adds passages of considerable length, it paraphrases, it sometimes seems to correct the shorter text ; and all these characteristics appear, but in a very much more marked form, in the Acts ; it sometimes gives a different aspect to a passage by the variations from the shorter text, sometimes its variations give additional and apparently authentic information. The problem of the origin of this text has caused in recent years a consider- able amount of discission. Some few critics, such as Bornemann (1848), have been bold enough to consider it the original text ; but that opinion has found few followers. Hendel Harris, in 1891, started a series of modern discussions by suggesting that the variations of Codex Bezie were due to Latinisation, and implied the existence of a bilingual MS. at least as early as 150 .v.d. He also found signs of Montanist influence. His main theory was adequately refuted by Sanday in the GnartUan (18th and 25th May 1892), who ascribed the recension suggested by the Western text to Antioch. Kamsay, in 1892 (Church in Rom. Emp. p. 151, ed. 2), found evidence of a Catholic reviser
who lived in Asia before the year 150, a locality which had already been suggested by Lightfoot (Smith's DIS- i. p. 42), while WH suggest N.W. Syria or Asia Minor (Or. Test. ii. p. 108). Dr. Chase, in 1893, attacked the problem from another side, accepting Antioch as the locality, and finding the principal cause of the variations in retranslation from the Syriac, a position he failed to make good. Lastly, Dr. Bla.ss has suggested that the author issued two editions, and that both forms of the text are due to himself personally, the one representing a rough draft, the other a revision : again, a theory which is hardly satisfactory (see C^hase, Crit. Rev. 1894, p. 300 ff.; Blass' reply begins in Hennathena, No. xxi. p. 122).
A definite solution of the problem has not been attained, nor has it yet been attacked in a really scientific manner. A careful study of the MSS. D and E, and their relations, is necessary in order to eliminate their individual peculiarities. But in all probability the solution lies in the direction suggested by WH (p. 122 f.). If we compare the phenomena presented by the text of apocr. writings we find just the same tendency to varia- tion, but in an even more exaggerated form. Popular literature was treated with great freedom by copyists and editors. Immediate edification or convenience was the one thing considered. During the first seventy years of their existence, i.e. up to the year A.D. 150, the books of NT were hardly treated as canonical. The text was not fixed, and the ordinary licence of paraphrases, of interpre- tation, of additions, of glosses, was allowed. The.se could be exhibited most easily in early and popular translations into other languages. It was a process which would have a tendency to continue until the book was treated as canonical, and its text looked on as something sacred. Although some whole eUisses of readings may be due to one definite place or time, yet for the most part they represent rather a continuous process, and it is not probable that any theory which attempts to tie all variations down to a special locality or a definite revision will now be made good.
In one point, ho%vever, WH's conclusions will require modification. It must not be forgotten that Western authorities represent ultimately an independent tradition from the Archetype. It is quite conceivable, therefore, that in any single reading, which is clearly not Western in its character, they may preserve a better tradition than the MSS whose text we should usually follow. We must, in other words, distinguish Western readings from readings in Western authorities. For example, "EW/ivas read by A D in 11-' may be correct.