(4) The Vulgate. — It is impossible here to enumerate the hundreds of Vulgate MSS of the Acts. Their study is a special branch of investigation, which has little bearing on the Acts, and for all purposes, except that of tracing the history of the Vulgate, the edition of Wordsworth and White may be regarded as sufficient.
3. The Syriac Versions. — It is probable from the quotations in Aphraates and Ephraim that there existed originally an Old-Syriac Version of Acts, corresponding to the Evnngelion da-MepJiar- reshe represented by the Curetonian and Sinaitic MSS ; but no MS of this type has survived.
• This MS is adequately described by F. G. Kenyon {Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the NT^, 88 ff.) or in other well- known handbooks.
t Besides the details noted in the handbooks, it should be observed that this MS, after being- used by Bede in North- umbria, passed to Germany, whence it was probably obtained by Laud, who gave it to the Bodleian Library.
{ As an instance of the advance in knowledge which von Soden's labours have produced, it should be noted that this MS used to be regarded as one of the principal authorities for the ' Western ' text, and was at one time deemed worthy of a separate edition.
16
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
(l)The oldest Svriac Version of the Acts is therefore the Peshitta, probably made by Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (411- 435) (see F. C. Burkitt, 'S. Ephraim's Quotations from the Gospel,' TS vii. 2 [IDUl] p. 57 f.). {X.B.—The Peshitta is quoted by Tischendorf as Syrsch.) „ , , , ^
(2) Besides the Peshitta we have the Earklean made by Thomas of Heraclea. This was based on an earlier Syriac text, made in 506 bv Polycarp for Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis, the modern Membij on the Euphrates), which is no longer extant for Acts. Thomas of Heraclea revised the Philoxenian with the help of Greek MSS in the Library of the Enaton at Alexandria, and enriched his edition with a number of critical notes giviny: the variants of these Greek MSS which often have a most remarkable text agreeing more closely with Codex Bezs than with any other known Greek MS. {N.B.— It is quoted by Tischendorf as Syrp.)
(3) There is also a lectionary of the so-called ' Palestinian ' type, which was probably in use about the 7th cent, in the neighbourhood of Antioch. (On the nature of the ' Palestinian ' Syriac literature see F. C. Burkitt, JThSt ii. [1901] 174-185.)
i. The Egyptian Versions.— The two Versions, Bohaiiic and Sahidic, which are extant for the Gospels, exist also for Acts, and there are a few fi-agments of Versions in other dialects. The re- lative date of these Versions has not been finally settled, but the opinion of Coptic scholars seems to be increasingly in favour of regarding the Sahidic as the older form. The Bohairic agrees in the main witii the H text, but the Sahidic has many / readings (see E. A. W. Budge, Coptic Biblical Texts, London, 1912, for the best Sahidic text).
5. Secondary Versions. — Versions of Acts are also found in Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Persian, and other languages ; but none of them is of primary importance for the text.
6. Quotations in early writers. — The earliest quotations long enough to have any value for de- termining the text are in Irenseus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, who may be regarded as representing the text of the end of the 2nd cent, in Gaul, Africa, and Alexandria. For the 3rd cent, we have Origen and Didymus, representing the Alexandrian school ; Cyprian for Africa, and No- vatian for Italy. For the 4th cent. Athanasius and Cyril represent the later development of the Alexandria text ; Lucifer, Jerome, and Ambrosi- aster represent the text of Rome and Italy ; Augustine, that of Africa ; Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem the Palestinian text, which according to von Soden is I; the later Church writers mostly use the K text, though they sometimes show traces of probably local contamination with H and /.
7. Textual theories. — As soon as textual criticism began to be based on any complete view of the evidence, it became obvious that the chief feature to be accounted for in the text of Acts was the existence of a series of additions in the text in the Latin Versions and Fathers, usually supported by the two great bilingual MSS 55 and 1001 (D and E), frequently by the marginal readings in Syr"arci^ and sporadically by a few minuscules ; opposed to this interpolated text stood the Alexandrian text of 51, 52 (B S), and their allies; while between the two was the text of the mass of MSS agreeing sometimes with one, sometimes with the other, and sometimes combining both readings.
(1) The first really plausible theory to meet even part of the facts was Westcott and Hort's {The New Te/itament in Greek, vol. ii. [Cambridge, 1882]), who suggested that the later text {K) was a recension based on the two earlier types. They regarded 55 (Codex Bezse) as representing the 'Western' text, and 51 and 52 as representing as nearly as possible the original text. The weak point in their theory was that they could not explain the existence of the Western text.