The Siberian Grinder

While researching Luke’s historical detail in Acts 18:2, I rabbit-trailed a bit. I jumped from Suetonius, who actually wrote about Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome, to researching the faith of several other ancient historians – none of whom were relevant to my original quest. Anyway, Here is a statement, referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum, by the famous Jewish Historian, Josephus.

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ;^[1]

There is some question as to whether Ol’ Josephus actually penned this, or whether someone else, presumably an early and well-intentioned Christian scholar, “adjusted” his text. Mostly because Origen explicitly wrote of Josephus that the historian did not believe in Jesus,[2] most scholars conclude that Josephus could not have written (let alone, believed) this statement.

Admittedly, it would have been remarkable if he had written exactly that, given Josephus’ strange messianic statements concerning emperor Vespasian. All things considered, it is really unlikely that Josephus was, in fact, a Christian.

Update: For a more in-depth discussion on the Testimonium Flavianum, see this Wikipedia article. Man, Wikipedia has something on almost everything these days!

Notes

^[1]Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus : Complete and Unabridged (Includes index by Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1987), Ant 18.63.

[2] Alexander Roberts et al., The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second. Oak Harbor, Logos Research Systems, 1997), 416.

I am happily back in the saddle, teaching (with my colleague, S.) through the book of Acts. Last night, we studied chapter 15. And there were a couple of interesting hurdles.

“And not to do to others what they would not want to be done to themselves.” That is what the Russian Bible (RST) has at the end of Acts 15:20. In Russian, и чтобы не делали другим того, чего не хотят себе. The phrase is repeated in the Apostle’s Decree a few verses later in Acts 15:29. It is, however, missing when James recounts the letter later on (Acts 21:25).

The clause is not supported by the Textus Receptus, the Greek texts upon which the RST translators heavily relied (as did the KJV translators). And since it is not in the Alexandrian family of manuscripts at all, it has not found its way into any modern English versions that I know of.

The RST-translator’s decision is not completely without support, though. Several witnesses from the Western tradition of texts indeed have: καὶ ὅσα ἂν μὴ θέλωσιν αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖν. But why the aberrant reading?

I found a good explanation for the insertion in a 2004 Bibliotheca Sacra article by Charles H. Savelle:

The textual traditions of the Book of Acts present significant challenges for any exegetical examination, including the prohibitions in Acts 15:20, 29; and 21:25. Although the Alexandrian tradition of the Greek text is favored by most translators and commentators, a brief examination of the variants in the textual tradition offers insight into understanding the decree and its prohibitions.

First, the phrase καὶ τῆς πορνείας (“and fornication”) is omitted from ℘⁴⁵ in 15:20 (15:29 and 21:25 have not survived in ℘⁴⁵). Barrett notes that this omission also occurs in some Ethiopic manuscripts and is inferred from Origen’s Contra Celsum 8:29.Second, D gig Ir^lat lack καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ (“what is strangled”) in 15:20, 29; and 21:25. Third, in 15:20, 29; and 21:25 a number of Western manuscripts (D 323 945 1739 1891 pc sa Ir^lat ) add καὶ ὅσα ἂν μὴ θέλωσιν αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖν (“and not to do to others what they would not want to be done to themselves”), a negative form of the Golden Rule.

The first variant, the omission of the phrase καὶ τῆς πορνείας, is probably best understood as secondary. If the scribes responsible for this reading were working from an Alexandrian text, then the omission may have been intentional, since this phrase is the only explicit moral stipulation in the decree. On the other hand this may be a case of unintentional omission, with the scribe accidentally passing over one of the phrases.

The remaining two variants seem to represent an intentional shift or harmonization toward an ethical nuance for the prohibitions. By omitting καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ and adding καὶ ὅσα ἂν μὴ θέλωσιν αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖν, all that is required for a purely ethical injunction is to interpret καὶ τοῦ αἵματος (“and blood”) as a reference to murder. The common explanation for this shift is that, as the church became more Gentile and less Jewish, the sensitivities behind the prohibitions were no longer relevant. Hence at least in the Western churches the prohibitions were reinvented along ethical lines. This argument seems to be reasonable, even though parts of the church continued to practice the mixed prohibitions (as represented by the Alexandrian text tradition) for several centuries.Furthermore from a text-critical perspective it seems difficult to envision a situation where ethical prohibitions would have been altered to include ritual food prohibitions.^[1]

Savelle’s conclusion is that “it seems best to accept the version of the prohibition found in the Alexandrian tradition.” So the negative version of the golden rule was likely not what Luke originally penned at Acts 15:20, but was, rather, inserted by someone later on in order to give the prohibitions moral overtones (as opposed to the less-relevant ritualistic meaning boasted by the original). At times like these, I stop and say a word of thanks for the hard work of textual critics, who do their best to weigh the evidence and determine the original.

From time to time, we have run across these sorts of translation issues, even though the RST is generally reliable. They are tricky to handle; we have to be careful not to undermine anyone’s understanding of biblical inerrancy – and, as in this case, simple explanations about textual matters are difficult. Nevertheless, we cannot pretend that they are holding the original, either.

As I said before, we really do need an ESV-type translation in Russian.

^[1]Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 161 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004; 2005), vnp.161.644.451.