The Book of Acts, as the second volume of Luke’s historical narrative, is foundational for understanding the development of early Christianity from the ascension of Jesus Christ in 33 C.E. to Paul’s imprisonment in Rome around 61 C.E. Its content provides historical, theological, and geographical insights into the apostolic ministry, particularly that of Peter and Paul. Due to its unique nature as both narrative and theological history, Acts plays a vital role in New Testament studies. Consequently, the textual criticism of Acts is particularly complex and significant. The textual history of Acts presents unique challenges, notably the existence of what many scholars describe as a “Western text” with substantial variation from the Alexandrian tradition. These differences are more pronounced in Acts than in any other New Testament book. This article examines the manuscript evidence of Acts, assesses the nature and origin of its textual variants, and demonstrates how textual criticism—when grounded in the documentary method and the early Alexandrian text-type—leads to a reliable restoration of the original wording.

The Manuscript Landscape of Acts

The manuscript tradition of the Book of Acts is both rich and complex. We possess over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, with a significant portion containing the Book of Acts. Among these, the most important witnesses to Acts fall into two broad categories: papyri and majuscules.

The Alexandrian text-type, the most reliable textual tradition for Acts, is best represented in early papyri and codices such as:

• 𝔓⁷⁵ (P75): Dated to around 175–225 C.E., although it only contains the Gospels, it is essential for understanding the textual reliability of Luke-Acts due to its textual affinity with Codex Vaticanus.

• 𝔓⁴⁵ (P45): Dated to approximately 200–250 C.E., includes portions of Acts (chapters 4–17). While fragmentary, P45 is invaluable because of its early date and mixed textual character, though generally leaning toward the Alexandrian tradition.

• Codex Vaticanus (B): Dated to the early fourth century, Codex B is the most important complete manuscript for Acts, representing a remarkably pure Alexandrian text.

• Codex Sinaiticus (א): Also dated to the fourth century, Sinaiticus preserves a similar Alexandrian text, though with occasional variation from Vaticanus.

• Codex Alexandrinus (A): Fifth-century manuscript showing a mixed text in Acts, sometimes leaning toward the Byzantine tradition.

• Codex Bezae (D): A bilingual Greek-Latin manuscript dated to the fifth century, which is the primary witness to the so-called “Western text” of Acts.

While the Alexandrian tradition is both earlier and more consistent, the Western text of Acts—particularly as preserved in Codex Bezae—has attracted significant attention due to its substantial differences. The Western text of Acts is approximately 8–10% longer than the Alexandrian text, with around 400–500 variations of significance. These variants range from small additions or substitutions to entire clauses and sentences.

The Western Text of Acts: Origins and Character

Codex Bezae (D05) is the principal witness to the Western text of Acts, and its deviations from the Alexandrian tradition are substantial. The Western text adds phrases that appear explanatory, doctrinally motivated, or stylistically embellished. Examples of such variants include:

• Acts 11:27–28: The Western text includes a narrative addition explaining the presence of prophets in Antioch with greater historical detail, absent from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

• Acts 12:10: Additional dialogue between Peter and the angel occurs only in the Western text.

• Acts 15:20: The Western text elaborates the apostolic decree with expanded legal and moral instructions.

Despite its historical intrigue, the Western text in Acts has consistently been shown to be secondary. Its expansions, paraphrastic renderings, and harmonizations indicate a tendency toward editorial freedom, not fidelity to the original wording. The consistent characteristic of the Western tradition is its lack of discipline in transmission.

Codex Bezae’s Greek column often diverges from its Latin column, suggesting that the Greek Vorlage (the source text) had already suffered embellishment or that Bezae itself is the product of extensive editorial activity in the third or fourth century. Thus, it should not be relied upon to reconstruct the autographic text.

The fact that the Western text of Acts is not attested in the early papyri (e.g., P45) nor in the consistent Alexandrian codices such as B and א strongly points to its later development. Furthermore, its geographic distribution—primarily found in Latin and Old Syriac traditions—also supports the conclusion that it is a secondary tradition shaped by theological and ecclesiastical interests.

The Alexandrian Text: The Primary Witness to the Autograph

The Alexandrian text, particularly as witnessed in Codex Vaticanus, demonstrates a scribal conservatism that makes it the most trustworthy textual tradition. Unlike the Western text’s expansions, the Alexandrian readings are generally shorter, more difficult (lectio difficilior), and show no evidence of doctrinal manipulation. In Acts, Vaticanus and P45 agree closely, despite the latter’s fragmentary nature and earlier date, revealing a stable transmission of the Alexandrian text from the early third century onward.

This stability is crucial for textual criticism. It undermines the assumption that the Alexandrian text was created in the fourth century as an “official” recension, an idea still entertained by some advocates of reasoned eclecticism. The agreement of P45 with Vaticanus, and especially the even earlier alignment seen between P75 and Vaticanus in the Gospels, refutes the claim that Vaticanus represents a later, editorially purified text.

Thus, the Alexandrian tradition should be taken as the base text in Acts, with other textual traditions evaluated in light of its readings. This approach aligns with the documentary method, which prioritizes the earliest and most geographically widespread textual evidence over speculative internal readings.

Internal Evidence in Acts: Caution in Application

While external evidence must be primary in textual criticism, internal evidence is not irrelevant. However, when dealing with the Book of Acts—where stylistic variation is already significant due to Luke’s literary skill and historical narration—the use of internal criteria must be approached with caution.

For instance, the criterion of lectio brevior (the shorter reading is preferred) generally favors the Alexandrian readings. However, one must discern whether brevity results from scribal omission (due to homoeoteleuton or eye-skip) or whether it reflects the original. In Acts, the Western expansions often betray theological motivation, suggesting they are editorial additions rather than original material.

The lectio difficilior (the more difficult reading is preferred) also supports Alexandrian readings in many instances. A scribe is more likely to simplify or harmonize a difficult passage than to create a more obscure one. For example, in Acts 8:37, the Western text includes a confession of faith by the Ethiopian eunuch. While doctrinally orthodox, the verse is absent from the Alexandrian tradition and early papyri, suggesting that it is a later liturgical insertion.

Restoring the Original Text of Acts

By weighing the external evidence first, with careful and limited application of internal evidence, we can confidently restore the original text of Acts. The steps are as follows:

1. Prioritize Alexandrian Manuscripts: The consistent witness of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and P45 provides the strongest foundation for the original wording. When these witnesses agree, their reading is overwhelmingly likely to be original.

2. Reject Secondary Western Readings: Additions found only in Codex Bezae and Latin or Syriac versions must be treated as editorial expansions unless strongly supported by early and diverse witnesses.

3. Use Internal Evidence Judiciously: Only when external evidence is divided should internal evidence be employed, and even then, the principles of lectio brevior and lectio difficilior must be rigorously applied.

4. Consider the Early Versions and Patristic Citations: Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions—particularly when datable to the third and fourth centuries—can provide corroborative evidence. Early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen also provide valuable quotations of Acts that support the Alexandrian readings.

Conclusion

The textual criticism of the Book of Acts presents unique challenges due to its divergent textual traditions. However, when grounded in the documentary method and supported by the strong witness of early Alexandrian manuscripts, we are able to restore the original wording with a high degree of confidence. The so-called Western text, despite its historical interest, represents a secondary, editorialized tradition and must be excluded as a reliable witness to the autograph. Through careful attention to the manuscript evidence and principled application of textual criticism, we can affirm that the text of Acts has been faithfully transmitted and can be confidently reconstructed today.

You May Also Enjoy

Guardians of the New Testament: Literacy, Power, and the Copyists of The New Testament

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS