Intrusive parenthetical remarks in Acts 1.15-22.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Intrusive parenthetical remarks in Acts 1.15-22.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Acts 1.15-22 reads (according to codex Vaticanus, which modern eclectic NT texts quite closely resemble):

15 Καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ἀναστὰς Πέτρος ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν εἶπεν· ἦν τε ὄχλος ὀνομάτων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὡς ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι
16 Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, ἔδει πληρωθῆναι τὴν γραφὴν ἣν προεῖπε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον διὰ στόματος Δαυεὶδ περὶ Ἰούδα τοῦ γενομένου ὁδηγοῦ τοῖς συλλαβοῦσιν Ἰησοῦν,
17 ὅτι κατηριθμημένος ἦν ἐν ἡμεῖν καὶ ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης.
18 οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας, καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησεν μέσος, καὶ ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ·
19 καὶ γνωστὸν ἐγένετο πᾶσι τοῖς κατοικοῦσι Ἱερουσαλήμ, ὥστε κληθῆναι τὸ χωρίον ἐκεῖνο τῇ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν Ἀκελδαμάχ, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν Χωρίον Αἵματος.
20 γέγραπται γὰρ ἐν βίβλῳ Ψαλμῶν Γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτοῦ ἔρημος καὶ μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν αὐτῇ, καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος.
21 δεῖ οὖν τῶν συνελθόντων ἡμῖν ἀνδρῶν ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ ᾧ εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς,
22 ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος Ἰωάνου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς ἀνελήμφθη ἀφ’ ἡμῶν, μάρτυρα τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ σὺν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι ἕνα τούτων.

15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together),
16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17 For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.”
18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office.’
21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—
22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

The boldfaced lines above are parenthetical remarks.

Most translations smooth out the location of the first parenthesis, placing it before the verb εἶπεν ("he said"), so that it comes out something like: "Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said...." This seems to be a better spot for the parenthesis than where the Greek text locates it, after the verb εἶπεν, making the comment about the 120, at first blush, the first thing actually spoken by Peter in his speech!

Translations do not have much of a choice with the second parenthesis, which the above translation identifies as verses 18-19: it interrupts Peter's speech in a way that makes moving it around impossible without destroying the traditional versification that translations strive to maintain. In fact, it is not entirely clear that these two verses are indeed a parenthetical remark from the narrator; they might be intended to be understood as a parenthetical remark spoken by Peter himself. Just reading this section as it stands, one would probably, again (at least) at first blush, think that Peter is explaining what happened to Judas. And the bit from the Psalms in verse 20 about "his habitation be[ing] made desolate" appears to presuppose Judas' field becoming the site of his bloody demise and a notorious place to the Jerusalemites. If anything, then (if we think that the narrator is interrupting Peter here), perhaps the parenthesis ought to include verse 20:

15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together),
16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17 For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.”
18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office.’)
21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—
22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

Now the narrator himself is introducing the passages from the Psalms; the first one explains the death of Judas narrated within the parenthesis, while the second explains the need for a replacement apostle introduced outside the parenthesis, which is fine. And verse 21 follows neatly upon verses 16-17: Judas was counted in this ministry, but he betrayed Jesus; therefore (οὖν) another person ought to be counted in this ministry.

But what is the status of these parenthetical remarks? Were they there all along, from the moment the plume first touched the parchment? Or are they redactional additions to a text that originally lacked them? The awkward placement of that first parenthesis (after "he said") certainly makes me think of clumsy redactor rather than of original author writing freely, but... authors can be clumsy sometimes, too. And the very fact that the status and extent of the second parenthesis is unclear may signal a bit of the same kind of clumsiness there, too.

It at least does not seem to lie outside the realm of possibility that the original state of this pericope lacked both parentheses, and a later editor/redactor with an interest in numbers and scriptural references came along and added them both. But I am not committed to this scenario. Are there any other factors that ought to be considered here?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Intrusive parenthetical remarks in Acts 1.15-22.

Post by neilgodfrey »

What other parenthetical phrases are there in the remainder of Acts?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Intrusive parenthetical remarks in Acts 1.15-22.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

neilgodfrey wrote:What other parenthetical phrases are there in the remainder of Acts?
Well, I am currently working on something that has me going through the text of Acts according to Vaticanus and according to Bezae, so I may come across others. I posted those because they are from chapter 1, and that is as far as I have gotten so far. :oops:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Intrusive parenthetical remarks in Acts 1.15-22.

Post by Stuart »

I am not going to take on the subject here of whether the parenthetical elements are a later interpolation or part of the Lukan author's addition to his source (Acts of the Apostles being something of a collection of sources ... consistent with the description Luke's gospel gives in its opening paragraph). From my perspective it doesn't matter greatly, at least initially, in understanding the intent of the passage.

Now within the parenthetical passage cited above, the phrase I found most interesting is καί Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω ἕτερος from Psalms 109:8. The choice is curious, especially ἐπισκοπὴν, or Episcopate for office. This seems to clearly associate the office of Bishop (see 1 Timothy 3:2) with the Apostles. And if you think about it that is not far fetched. Apostles are shown in both the Canonical and non-Canonical Acts as itinerant teachers travelling to initiate various assemblies (ἐκκλησία). These Bishops are not sedentary offices yet, with fixed Synagogues - that is the actual buildings, which we tend to associate incorrectly when reading the NT with ἐκκλησία - rather they seem more akin to sect (αἵρεσις) leader/teacher.

To me this shows the author projecting retrospectively the office of Bishop upon the legendary figures, the Apostles. Succession to the office is addressed and a process of collegial selection is endorsed. The drawing of lots is meant to show Bishops having divine sanction in selection. It's a political claim.

Other language supporting the idea, is Peter addressing "the brothers." Here we see ἀδελφός interpreted consistently to mean someone with ecclesiastical rank (Bishop, Elder/Presbyter, teacher, etc) throughout Acts, Paul, and the Catholic letters (the Gospels have some uses which are familial, but when speaking of Christians they also are the same). This is pretty much the same as it is used today within the Church, when pastors or monks, or even Catholic Cardinals speak to each other. Its a peer to peer usage. The point being Peter is shown addressing apostles and "lesser" disciples (elders?) as an official college to select an office holder.

This is showing sanction for Apostolitic succession of Bishops, a claim to counter rival sects appointments. There is much written from the late 2nd and 3rd century Patristic works about how the heretics rejected the elders, and this is reflected in the NT as well (eg, exhortation to follow elders 1 Peter 5:5).

The point of interest for me is that Luke, or a later editor if an interpolation (which I am less than convinced is required) is addressing the controversy of Bishop appointment, something which was a hot topic in the mid-2nd and 3rd centuries, and likely into the 4th century.

Good topic.
Last edited by Stuart on Mon Feb 01, 2016 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Intrusive parenthetical remarks in Acts 1.15-22.

Post by Secret Alias »

Intelligent discussion at the forum that isn't agenda driven. This has got to stop! Doesn't this some how connect back to Jesus being a myth?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Intrusive parenthetical remarks in Acts 1.15-22.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote:To me this shows the author projecting retrospectively the office of Bishop upon the legendary figures, the Apostles. Succession to the office is addressed and a process of collegial selection is endorsed. The drawing of lots is meant to show Bishops having divine sanction in selection. It's a political claim.

....

This is showing sanction for Apostolitic succession of Bishops, a claim to counter rival sects appointments. There is much written from the late 2nd and 3rd century Patristic works about how the heretics rejected the elders, and this is reflected in the NT as well (eg, exhortation to follow elders 1 Peter 5:5).

The point of interest for me is that Luke, or a later editor if an interpolation (which I am less than convinced is required) is addressing the controversy of Bishop appointment, something which was a hot topic in the mid-2nd and 3rd centuries, and likely into the 4th century.
Good points. Thanks.
Secret Alias wrote:Intelligent discussion at the forum that isn't agenda driven. This has got to stop! Doesn't this some how connect back to Jesus being a myth?
I know! I may have to quit posting here if the conversations are going to tip toward rational thought born of intellectual curiosity.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Intrusive parenthetical remarks in Acts 1.15-22.

Post by toejam »

Ben C. Smith wrote:It at least does not seem to lie outside the realm of possibility that the original state of this pericope lacked both parentheses, and a later editor/redactor with an interest in numbers and scriptural references came along and added them both. But I am not committed to this scenario. Are there any other factors that ought to be considered here?
Yeah, later textual-expansion seems very plausible. I'd probably go with that too. Still, there's always the possibility of simply sloppy grammar by the original author.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Post Reply