-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
J. K. Elliott, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition. Volume 1. Acts 1.1–5.42: Jerusalem. By Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger. Pp. xii + 377. (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 257.) London: T. & T. Clark (A Continuum Imprint), 2004. isbn 0 8264 7000 9. £75, The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 56, Issue 2, October 2005, Pages 610–613, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/fli155
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
The two authors of this study of the distinctive message of Acts in the text of Codex Bezae are admirably well prepared for the task. Josep Rius-Camps has several publications in this area to his credit, notably his ongoing series (in Castilian Spanish) of text-critical studies of the main variants in Acts in Filología Neotestamentaria and his four-volume commentary on Acts (in Catalan). Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, likewise, has devoted much of her scholarly activities to the text of Codex Bezae, which have resulted in several articles and a major monograph (The Bezan Text of Acts, also in JSNT Supplement Series, 236). A more ‘popular’ but useful introduction to both authors’ thinking on Acts may be seen in separate articles in Dossiers d'archéologie, 279: Saint Luc, évangeliste et historien (Dec. 2002–Jan. 2003) pp. 44–55, 56–63. (These are not included in the bibliography to the present book.)
Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger have now combined their efforts to produce this study, the first volume of four, which covers Acts 1:1–5:42, dealing with the experiences of the apostles in Jerusalem. The intention of the authors is to show how Acts, especially as found in the form known to us in Codex Bezae (D 05), is a book that reflects accurately the burgeoning understanding of their faith by the earliest Christians as the church spread westwards and away from the centre of Judaism. For these scholars the text behind D is an earlier form of Acts than that known to us in the Alexandrian rewriting. For them the distinctive variants in D are not the mark of a maverick scribe but originate with the author. By analysing all such v.ll.seriatim our authors show that, far from being a manuscript filled with haphazard variants, D is entirely consistent with itself, both linguistically and theologically. The manuscript is treated, as perhaps all such witnesses should be, as a unity, for that is how the original readers, treating the version of the scriptural text they possessed as authoritative and canonical, would have used and understood it.
