The discontinuity at Acts 15.34.
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:53 am
Acts 15.30-41 describes what happens after the Jerusalem conference:
In summary:
D (Bezae) is highly expansionist in Acts, so it is no surprise that it would contain this verse.
However, now we have another question to answer: if verse 34 is an interpolation, and Silas has left Antioch with Judas, how can Paul have selected him at Antioch and taken him along in verse 40? This would seem to be the reason verse 34 was inserted in the first place. (One might ask the same thing about Barnabas taking along John Mark, whom we last left in Jerusalem in Acts 13.13, but at least in that case there has been a lot of intervening time and I guess we can imagine him having made his way to Antioch offstage in the meantime. In this case, we have to wonder why Silas is not described as having returned, since his departure was only a few verses ago.)
I am aware of one theory that uses this discontinuity to argue for a distinction between Acts I (before the break) and Acts II (added after the break), stages of composition in this book, on the analogy that another discontinuity between the ascension in Luke 24 (apparently on the same day as the resurrection) and that in Acts 1 (40 days later) also implies stages of composition. But is that necessary? Can it merely be sloppy writing, albeit pretty exceptionally sloppy to have lost track of the actors within a span of only a few verses? Is there another explanation? Is the comparison to the ascension discontinuity apt, or are there differences?
Ben.
30 So when they [= Paul, Barnabas, Judas Barsabbas, and Silas] were sent away, they went down [from Jerusalem] to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message. 33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 34 But it seemed good to Silas to remain there. 35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord. 36 After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. 38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. 40 But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. 41 And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
In summary:
- Four men go to Antioch: Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas.
- Judas and Silas, being prophets, deliver a lengthy message.
- "They" are sent away from Antioch in peace.
- But Silas stays.
- And both Paul and Barnabas stay.
- Paul and Barnabas disagree and break of their partnership; Barnabas leaves with John Mark.
- Paul selects Silas and leaves Antioch with him instead.
omit] p74 א A B E H L P Ψ 049 056 0142 18 35 43 61 69 81 93 103 104 218 228 254 319 321 330 365 398 424 451 617 629 876 1241 1448* 1505 1877 2127 2492 2495 Byz itdem ite itp vgww vgst syrp copbo Chrysostom Theophylacta WH CEI Rivtext TILC Nv NM
ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σιλᾷ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ] (C αὐτοὺς) 5 6 33 36 88 (181 1875 ἐπιμένειν) 94 180 307 323 (326 441 621 1448c 1611 1642 1837 omit δὲ) 383 431 (436 αὐτοῖς) 453 467 610 614 619 623 (206 429 522 630 945 1003 1251 1490 1509 1704 1751 1831 2200 αὐτόθι) (636 omit δὲ and αὐτόθι) 808 915 1162 1175 1270 1292 1297 1409 1501 1595 1609 1678 1729 (1735 τε τὸν Σιλᾶν παραμεῖναι) 1739 1827 1842 1891 2147 2298 2344 2412 2652 2718 2774 2805 2818 l1178 l1188 itc syrh* copsa copbo(mss) arm eth geo slav Theophylactb ς [NR] ND Rivmg Dio
ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σιλᾷ ἐπιμεῖναι πρὸς αὐτοὺς, μόνος δὲ Ἰούδας ἐπορεύθη] p127vid (D* Σιλεᾷ and omit πρὸς) D1 itd (itar itgig itl itph itro itw vgmss vgcl ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ) (itw vgcl ἐπορεύθη εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ) Cassiodorus
ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σιλᾷ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ] (C αὐτοὺς) 5 6 33 36 88 (181 1875 ἐπιμένειν) 94 180 307 323 (326 441 621 1448c 1611 1642 1837 omit δὲ) 383 431 (436 αὐτοῖς) 453 467 610 614 619 623 (206 429 522 630 945 1003 1251 1490 1509 1704 1751 1831 2200 αὐτόθι) (636 omit δὲ and αὐτόθι) 808 915 1162 1175 1270 1292 1297 1409 1501 1595 1609 1678 1729 (1735 τε τὸν Σιλᾶν παραμεῖναι) 1739 1827 1842 1891 2147 2298 2344 2412 2652 2718 2774 2805 2818 l1178 l1188 itc syrh* copsa copbo(mss) arm eth geo slav Theophylactb ς [NR] ND Rivmg Dio
ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σιλᾷ ἐπιμεῖναι πρὸς αὐτοὺς, μόνος δὲ Ἰούδας ἐπορεύθη] p127vid (D* Σιλεᾷ and omit πρὸς) D1 itd (itar itgig itl itph itro itw vgmss vgcl ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ) (itw vgcl ἐπορεύθη εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ) Cassiodorus
D (Bezae) is highly expansionist in Acts, so it is no surprise that it would contain this verse.
However, now we have another question to answer: if verse 34 is an interpolation, and Silas has left Antioch with Judas, how can Paul have selected him at Antioch and taken him along in verse 40? This would seem to be the reason verse 34 was inserted in the first place. (One might ask the same thing about Barnabas taking along John Mark, whom we last left in Jerusalem in Acts 13.13, but at least in that case there has been a lot of intervening time and I guess we can imagine him having made his way to Antioch offstage in the meantime. In this case, we have to wonder why Silas is not described as having returned, since his departure was only a few verses ago.)
I am aware of one theory that uses this discontinuity to argue for a distinction between Acts I (before the break) and Acts II (added after the break), stages of composition in this book, on the analogy that another discontinuity between the ascension in Luke 24 (apparently on the same day as the resurrection) and that in Acts 1 (40 days later) also implies stages of composition. But is that necessary? Can it merely be sloppy writing, albeit pretty exceptionally sloppy to have lost track of the actors within a span of only a few verses? Is there another explanation? Is the comparison to the ascension discontinuity apt, or are there differences?
Ben.