# Review of J. Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition (4 vols.)

Laurent Pinchard

► To cite this version:

Laurent Pinchard. Review of J. Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition (4 vols.). Filologia Neotestamentaria, 2012, 25, pp.164-184. hal-04744291

HAL Id: hal-04744291

https://hal.science/hal-04744291v1

Submitted on 18 Oct 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Josep Rius Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger (eds.), *The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition* (LNTS 236, 257, 302, 365; 4 vols; London – New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004–9).

This impressive four volume series of books, dedicated to a detailed exegetical approach to the book of Acts in the c. 400 AD manuscript Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis and its comparison with the c. 350 AD Alexandrian Vaticanus, is a joint commentary performed by two scholars, Josep Rius-Camps (Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain) and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger (University of Wales - Trinity Saint David, UK). Here, the authors aim at addressing and explaining the textual discrepancies found in the Bezan text of Acts compared to the Alexandrian tradition represented mainly by Codex Vaticanus (B.03) and to some extent Codex Sinaiticus. The sometimes huge differences between Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus have often been explained by the result of a careless scribe randomly changing words here and there, freely adding or omitting entire portions of text to an already existing one.

The reader will appreciate the clear structure and extreme consistency throughout the books.

Vol. 1 opens with a dense introduction to the analytical techniques used in the work (esp. the use of linguistic tools based on discourse analysis – a subsection of linguistics studying the text at extrasentential level, pp. 19-24, 1st/2nd c. Jewish exegetic tools, pp. 24-26, recourse to Jewish Scriptures, pp. 37-40), followed by a core part itself subdivided into (a) a carefully arranged presentation of the text (the English texts of Acts in Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus are printed synoptically in two columns helping to immediately grasp the differences), (b) a detailed critical apparatus based in part on Swanson's *Horizontal Line Synopsis* for the Greek tradition and Boismard-Lamouille's for the versional and early Patristic supports along with a systematic commentary on the variant readings (including articularity - i.e. presence and absence of the article - of proper nouns, word order, use of verbal aspects and tenses, connectives...), (c) a commentary on the studied passage capturing all the previously analysed differences into an exegetical study of each passage revealing the Bezan text's distinctive 'message', which often departs from the one found in the Alexandrian tradition (d) some excursus on specific exegetical points.

Pages 1-44 of Vol. 1 present the techniques that the authors will use in the four volumes, which are of paramount importance in understanding the methodology applied. Key is the presentation of the concept of 're-enactment': any event in the story of Israel, which applies to the early development of the Church as described in Acts, can be explained as already pre-existing in the Torah or the Old Testament. It is equally important to note that the authors do not use the designation of 'Old Testament' but 'Jewish Scriptures' to avoid an inevitably induced anachronism by the consideration of Acts as a Christian work at a period where there was still no clear split with Judaism. In the second part of vol. 1 dedicated to Acts 1.1-5.42 labelled 'From Judaea and Samaria to the Church in Antioch', the reader will be mostly interested in the description of the Jewish mentality in the first two centuries as concluded from the specific articulation of the Bezan text of Acts. Such detailed analysis of the text in its D.05 presentation relies on specific Jewish exegetical techniques as well as an articulation of the discourse claimed as deliberate. The latter point has been extensively discussed by Read-Heimerdinger in her published dissertation (*The Bezan Text of Acts: A Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Textual Criticism* [JSNTSup, 236; London, 2002]), and serves as a grounding tool for the entire series of the volumes. The reader may first need to get familiar with the theories of discourse analysis before exploiting the explanations and conclusions of the variant readings at its
exact level. Among the wealth of details in this volume, two examples of importance with exegetical implications
may be highlighted in this first volume:

(1) In the passage describing the selection of a replacement for Judas (Acts 1.15-26), Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus differ in two different places with regards to the number of apostles: one is an apparent insignificant variant in the pronoun: 'they gave lots for them (αὐτοῖς)' (Acts 1.26 B.03) vs 'they gave their (αὐτῶν) lots' (Acts 1.26 D.05). The second one, in the same verse, is even more striking: 'the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the Eleven (ἔνδεκα Β.03, δώδεκα D.05, 'Twelve') apostles'. Later, in Acts 2.14, the number changes again in both traditions: 'But Peter, standing with the Eleven (B.03, 'Ten' D.05), lifted up his voice and addressed them'. The authors conclude from these points that in the case of Judas' replacement by Matthias, the vote was a personal one and not an inspired one. Therefore, while Matthias is only 'co-opted' with the Eleven apostles in B.03, he is 'reckoned with the Twelve in Codex Bezae', that is 'not truly recognized as a true replacement of Judas' (p. 138). Therefore, the new group of apostles including Matthias is not seen in the Bezan text as a 'fully reconstituted' one as opposed to the reading from Codex Vaticanus.

(2) A second striking example is the lexical proximity between Acts 5.17-21 and the book of Exodus, which surely can be seen in Codex Vaticanus but even more clearly in Codex Bezae (pp. 326-32 and 358-63): just like Pharaoh, the Sadducees attack the apostles because of jealousy in both textual traditions. In Acts 5.18-19, Codex Bezae adds two apparently insignificant details, one being that [a] 'everybody went back to their own home' - omitted in B.03, and [b] 'in the night the angel opened the doors of the prison' (Acts 5.19 D.05, different word order in B.03) which echoes ('re-enacts' or 're-activates' in the authors' language) the episode of the flight of the Hebrews from Pharaoh. The authors note that these two details are textually mentioned in the book of Exodus (Exod. 12.22 ([a] 'and none of you shall go out of the door of his house [b] until the morning, ἔως πρωῖ') and reflects thereby a Jewish exegetical technique, which aims at alerting the reader of a precedence in the Torah. Additionally, discourse analysis supports the explanation of the word order difference between B.03 and D.05 where ἄγγελος κυρίου ('the angel of the lord') is more prominent in the former (Acts 5.19 B: ἄγγελος δὲ κυρίου διὰ νυκτὸς ἀνοίξας τὰς θύρα) but the phrase 'during the night' is highlighted in the latter due to its fronted position (Acts 5.19 D τότε διὰ νυκτὸς ἄγγελος κυρίου ἀνέωξ<ε>ν τὰς θύρα, 'then, during the night, the angel of the lord opened the doors') as if the author wanted to convey an implicit message to his Jewish readers of the post-Easter period.

Vol. 2 discusses Paul's mission to the Gentiles, *From Judaea and Samaria to the Church in Antioch* (Acts 6.1-12.25). For the purpose of illustrating interesting points with specific exegetical significance between Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus, two may be quoted. The comparison between the shepherds in Luke 2 and Peter's liberation from prison in Acts 12 reveals incredible similarities, a recognised fact, but these are further highlighted in the Bezan text: in Luke 2.9, B.03 reads δόξα κυρίου περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς, vs. Luke 2.9 D.05 δόξα περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς (absence of κυρίου) which in turn can be compared with Acts 12.7 B.03 καὶ φῶς ἔλαμψεν ἐν τῷ οἰκήματι and Acts 12.7 D.05 καὶ φῶς ἐπέλαμψεν τῷ οἰκήματι (compound verb as in Luke 2, absence of ἐν). Also, Peter's liberation in Acts 12 is much closer to Ezekiel's vision of the Temple in the Bezan text: while the Lord and Peter go down specifically seven steps (Acts 12.10 B.03 καὶ ἐξελθόντες προῆλθον ῥύμην μίαν, cf. Acts 12.10 D.05 καὶ ἐξελθόντες κατέγνσαν τοὺς ζαθμοὺς ('went down the seven steps') καί προῆλθον ῥύμην μίαν which can be understood as a deliberate borrowing from Ezk 40.22LXX καὶ ἐν ἑπτὰ κλιμακτῆρσιν (seven steps) ἀνέβαινον ἐπ' αὐτήν and Ezk 40.26LXX καὶ ἑπτὰ κλιμακτῆρες αὐτῇ, seven steps). The author again concludes that these details
absence of the article before the name 'Syria' in the expression εἰς τὴν Συρίαν (B g74) *rell* ) *contra* εἰς Συρίαν (D)
shows that 'Paul wanted to go to Syria...' but the Spirit instructs him to go to Macedonia instead. The absence of
the article before Συρίαν sets the place in contrast to Greece which he was not thinking of leaving until the plot
became known' (p. 84). Other such examples can be found throughout the book, too (esp. 21.12-14). Far from
being an insignificant feature, this latter example contributes to evidence that the Bezan reading cannot have been
added later to downgrade Paul but rather that it is the other way round.

Lastly, rich theological analyses taken from alternative ‘Western’ support to Codex Bezae in the last
chapters (esp. Codex Floriacensis *h*) as well as the use of discourse analysis agree in a different presentation of
Paul’s internal struggle with the plan of God to go to the Gentiles in Rome and in the Jewish character of the Bezan
text of Acts by means of re-enacting the biblical stories of Jonah and Moses in the minds of the Jewish readers (pp.
385-397).

In conclusion to the four volumes, it could well happen that too superficial a reading, and the deliberate or
accidental ignorance of discourse analysis tools discussed at length in an earlier volume written by one of the
scholars, lead the reader to be unconvinced by statements about how apparently insignificant words such as
connectives or articles or pronouns can result in conclusions on the (semi-declared) superiority of the Bezan text.
Indeed, the authors apply a method that, if not properly grasped, could well have readers disagree largely with the
conclusions of this study. Specifically, coherence, usually understood as a synonym for a ‘text making sense’, is
used by the authors in its technical sense referring to a linguistic feature based on a careful lexical arrangement of
the text like a syllogism: if later scribes break this coherence by using alternative or apparently synonymous words
or connectives, the resulting text loses its careful construction though certainly without altering the facts.

All the examples cited above tend to show that Codex Bezae in Acts is not only a text that is ‘coherent’ but
also Jewish in character: the authors insist on considering Acts as a Jewish text for a Jewish audience at a time
when Christianity and Judaism were still not clearly standalone religions. One main conclusion to the four books is
that Codex Bezae fossilized a very early text, whose structure testifies to the Jewish way of interpreting the new
Post-Easter events in the light of the history of Israel, while later recensions have gradually and maybe
inadvertently erased the textual architecture because of a lower understanding of such Jewish features.

It may be noted that all textual differences between D.05 and B.03 consistently give prominence to the
Bezan readings by appealing to linguistic and exegetical features. Indeed, variant readings found in Codex Bezae
that are usually relegated to the class of ‘insignificant readings’ (alternative prepositions, articles, synonymous
words) are examined in the four volumes and explained as part of a carefully penned discourse. For those
acquainted with Read-Heimerdinger’s work on the *Bezan Text of Acts*, it will not be missed how her previous work
on discourse analysis as a tool for textual criticism is applied throughout within the four books. Equally important,
Rius-Camps’s own conclusions published in Catalan in earlier commentaries (esp. *Comentari als Fets dels
Apòstols*, 1991-2000) are of great benefit to the reading of these volumes. Although the authors are well known for
their unusual conception of Codex Bezae predating the chief representatives of the Alexandrian tradition, this
impressive work should not be rejected for this reason and moreover, anyone studying the book of Acts
exegetically and/or from a textual criticism point of view should consult this work. Furthermore, a detailed analysis
of the Jewish characteristics that are more likely to have been withdrawn or blurred rather than later added, should
be first performed by any challenger of the work.
Although some of these proposals were published in earlier papers by the authors, individually or in collaboration, this book has the advantage of bringing them altogether in a unique work revisiting the entire book of Acts. There are excursus that form almost independent parts to the entire study giving interesting exegetical insights and these can be read without involving the technical features of discourse analysis. Finally, a global conclusion at the end of volume 4 would have been highly appreciated to highlight some of the key findings.

In the reader's experience, the edition of the Greek text of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae in two columns rather than English would have been preferred (esp. with the understanding that it is difficult at times to mimic the Greek, e.g. difference καί/δέ which are not systematically translated as 'and'/'but' or changes in word order). This shortcoming is, however, partly compensated for by the subsequent publication of the Greek text of Luke's two volumes in Codex Bezae (*Luke's Demonstration to Theophilus: The Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles according to Codex Bezae* [J. Rius-Camps – J. Read-Heimerdinger, eds], T&T Clark 2012), which can be compared with the text of the current editions of the New Testament for the readings of B.03. More generally, every scholar may well not agree with the systematically detailed explanations dependent on the fine linguistic differences implied between words that are usually seen as absolutely synonymous (e.g. τέ—δέ, καί—δέ) without a strong background in discourse analysis. Specifically, the conclusions proposed by the authors using these tools most of the time justify the reading of Codex Bezae. Also, it is a tough exercise to try and follow the – by nature – atomistic explanations found in the critical apparatus and link them with the commentary: in many places, the *vll* between D.05 and B.03 are shown to give prominence to a specifically highlighted element often with no immediate influence on the overall sense. Finally, the usual conclusions on the prominence of the Alexandrian tradition over the 'Western' one, esp. as attested in Codex Bezae, shared by most textual critics are so well anchored that it may prove difficult to be entirely convinced that the scholarly world has been wrong in analyzing the Bezan text as secondary. Nevertheless, the fact that the text of Codex Bezae cannot have been modified later on by inserting an *a posteriori* Jewish character modifying thereby the textual architecture through omissions and additions comes over as highly convincing and a good starting point for scholarly contradiction.