Day: May 26, 2020

May 26: Acts 6:10; 8:38; 11:17, etc

No survey or study of the references to the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts is complete without some mention of the unique passages in the so-called ‘Western’ text of Acts. For those unfamiliar with the terminology, in New Testament textual criticism, ‘Western’ refers to manuscripts and versions which share a specific set of textual readings (or tendencies), distinct from other text-groupings (Alexandrian) and/or the ‘Majority’ text (the reading of the majority of manuscripts). In particular, it refers primarily to the readings common to the Codex Bezae [D] and a good number of Old Latin manuscripts. However the term “Western” is something of a misnomer, since ‘Western’ readings are also shared by various Greek MSS presumably covering a relatively wide/disparate geographical range, as well as by Syriac, Coptic (Egyptian), Georgian, etc, versions. While ‘Western’ readings are attested in the Gospels and other New Testament books, the distinctive readings in the book of Acts are extensive (and different) enough to constitute an entirely separate recension, or version, of the book. The relation of this recension to the Alexandrian/Majority text has been the topic of discussion and debate among commentators and textual scholars for decades. The ‘Western’ version is longer and more extensive, containing more (and more verbose) literary/historical detail, especially in the introductory and summary portions of the narrative episodes. Of the many theories scholars have put forward, the most noteworthy (and interesting) are:

    • The Alexandrian/Majority text is the original (or more closely so), while the ‘Western’ text represents a secondary expansion by scribes or an author/editor
    • The ‘Western’ text is closer to the original, while the Alexandrian/Majority text is a truncated or redacted version (by a later scribe or author/editor)
    • The original author (trad. Luke) produced two versions or drafts of the book, each of which (somehow) was published or came into circulation
    • The original work was incomplete, surviving in a draft form which included notes/annotations by the author; subsequent scribes/editors created the two versions working from this draft text

The last theory is especially intriguing and offers an attractive explanation for several especially difficult passages; however, it remains highly speculative. Most scholars today would opt for the first theory, that the ‘Western’ text is a secondary expansion. Generally, this would seem to be correct, since the scribal tendency was to expand/add to the text rather than reduce/omit from it—hence the text-critical rule of thumb lectio brevior potior (“the shorter reading is preferred”). Also, many of the longer narrative sections seem to have the purpose of clarifying the context in detail, to the point of becoming excessively redundant and pedantic.

Some scholars have also thought that the ‘Western’ version shows distinctive doctrinal/theological tendencies (including an anti-Jewish bias); this has been discussed in a number of studies, most notably in Eldon J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge: 1966). One feature of the ‘Western’ version of Acts is an increased emphasis on the Holy Spirit—including at least 10 distinct references, in addition to the 50+ in the Alexandrian/Majority text. It has been argued that this difference is theological as well—e.g., (a) the ‘Western’ author/editor wished to give greater prominence to the role of the Spirit (perhaps under Montanist influence), or (b) the Alexandrian/Majority text may have wished to reduce the role of the Spirit due to an anti-charismatic (or anti-Montanist) tendency. Matthew Black expounds this latter point in his article “The Holy Spirit in the Western Text of Acts” (in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Eldon J. Epp & Gordon D. Fee [Oxford: 1981], pp. 159-70). I find such theories to be rather unlikely. Most of what I see in the ‘Western’ version can be explained simply as the result of a tendency to clarify and (over)explain the narrative context. If anything, there may have been a pious interest to enhance the role and prestige of the apostles by including reference to the Holy Spirit whenever possible.

Below I summarize the unique/distinctive passages in the ‘Western’ text which mention the Holy Spirit. I have made use of Black’s study as it provides a convenient compilation of the passages (the Western ‘additions’ are in italics):

  • Acts 6:10 (of Stephen)—”and they did not have strength to stand against the wisdom th(at) was in him and the holy Spirit in which he spoke” (D et al). The shorter text could be taken to mean “the wisdom and spirit“, but the Western version makes clear that this is a reference to the (Holy) Spirit; also the phrase “that was in him” likely is meant to emphasize the divine inspiration which resides within the early believers through the presence of the Spirit. There is a similar variant involving the specific adjective “holy” in Acts 8:18.
  • Acts 8:38—”and when they stepped up out of the water, the holy Spirit fell upon the chamber-official, and the Messenger of the Lord snatched up Philip” (Ac 1739 [and other minuscules] p w, the Harclean Syriac, and other versions/witnesses). It is perhaps incorrect to categorize this as a ‘Western’ reading, since it covers a rather wide and diverse range of textual witnesses. As noted previously, baptism in the book of Acts is always connected with believers receiving the Spirit, so the lack of any such reference in the Majority text of 8:38 is somewhat unusual. This could easily be the reason why a scribe or editor might have added it here; but it also could be an argument in favor of the longer text.
  • Acts 11:17 (Peter speaking)—”who was I powerful (enough) to [i.e. how could I possibly] cut off [i.e. block/prevent] God (so as) not to give (the) holy Spirit to them, the (one)s trusting in Him?” (D p vgms syrh etc). The longer text is curious in that it seems to misunderstand the context and central issue of the narrative in Acts 10-11—the inclusion of Gentile believers as part of the Christian Community. I.e., since the Holy Spirit came upon them miraculously (as a work of God), they certainly should be allowed admission to baptism and entry into the Community. Possibly the sense of Peter’s words underlying the longer reading is, “If I could not prevent God from giving them His Spirit, how could we (other Jewish Christians) dare to prevent them from being baptized?”
  • Acts 15:7—”Peter, standing up in the [holy] Spirit, said…” (D et al)
    Acts 15:29 (The decree)—”…from which [i.e. the things prohibited in the decree] watching (over) yourselves carefully, you (will) perform well carrying (yourselves) in the holy Spirit” (D etc)
    Acts 15:32 (of Judas/Silas)—”…and they, being Foretellers [i.e. Prophets] full of (the) holy Spirit, called the brothers along [i.e. encouraged them] with many words” (D)
    These additions (if such they be) presumably were intended to enhance the status and Spirit-inspired character of the Jerusalem Council, so central to the book of Acts and the account of the early mission to the Gentiles.
  • Acts 19:1—”Paul was wishing to travel unto Jerusalem according to his own plan/counsel (but) the Spirit said to him to turn back into Asia, and coming through…” (Ë38 D syrh mg etc). This is an example of the more expansive narrative introductions typical of the Western text; here it emphasizes the Spirit’s direction (and intervention) in Paul’s travels.
  • Acts 20:3 (of Paul)—”he wished to take up sail into Syria but the Spirit said to him to turn back through Macedonia…” (D syrh mg etc). A similar expanded introduction emphasizing the guiding direction of the Spirit.
  • Acts 26:1—”then Paul stretched out the hand, giving an account of himself, {confident and receiving help/encouragement in/by the holy Spirit}…” (syrh mg [the underlying Greek text is uncertain])

For more on the ‘Western’ version of Acts, consult any reputable critical Commentary. One of the earliest (and best) is The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols), eds. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (1920-33), also available from Biblesoft in electronic form. A popular, compact and very readable modern Commentary is that of J. A. Fitzmyer in the Anchor Bible [AB] series (Vol. 31, 1998). Cf. also the commentaries by E. Haenchen (Westminster/Oxford: 1971) and F. F. Bruce (Tyndale: 1951, and in the NICNT series, 1954/1988), among others. There is a convenient summary of the topic in the Metzger/UBS Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edition), pp. 222-36.

Notes on Prayer: John 17:13-15

John 17:13-15

As we continue through the Prayer-Discourse of Jesus (Jn 17) in these Notes on Prayer, we come to what we might call the exposition portion of the first section of the Prayer proper. Keep in mind the basic format of the Johannine Discourses of Jesus, of which this Prayer shares many features in common (thus the designation “Prayer-Discourse”):

    • Saying/statement by Jesus
    • Reaction to those listening to him—his disciples, etc
    • Exposition by Jesus, in which he explains the true/deeper meaning of his saying

This being a prayer (monologue) by Jesus, there is no reaction by the disciples (indicating their lack of understanding, etc, as throughout the Last Discourse); instead, we find the important theme of the needs of the disciples in the face of Jesus’ impending departure (back to the Father). And, in place of the traditional/core saying by Jesus that serves as the base for the Johannine Discourse, we have here the central petition by Jesus (to the Father), which I define as comprised of verses 9-11. There are many ways of outlining the Prayer-Discourse; here I suggest the following:

    • Invocation—introductory address to the Father (vv. 1-5)
    • Narration—summary of the Father’s work which he (the Son) completed on earth (vv. 6-8)
    • Petition—the central request made to the Father (vv. 9-11)
    • Exposition, Part 1: Application to Jesus’ immediate Disciples (vv. 12-19)
    • Exposition, Part 2: Application to All Believers (vv. 20-26)

I discussed the elements of the petition in the previous two notes (on vv. 9-10 and 11-12, respectively). Verse 12 is transitional, in that it picks up the primary theme of the petition and carries it forward into the exposition. Again, because of the prayer setting, the exposition by Jesus takes on a different tone compared with the Discourses. It also has a triadic structure which follows the pattern of the Prayer as a whole:

    • Narration—summary of the work done by the Son on earth (vv. 12-14)
    • Petition—restatement of the central request (v. 15)
    • Theological/Christological Exposition (vv. 16-19)

We can see how verse 12 serves as the hinge, joining the main petition to the expository narration, by the syntax in verse 13:

“12When I was with them, I kept watch (over) them in your name that you have given to me, and I guarded (them), and not one out of them went to ruin…
13 But now [kai\ nu=n] I come toward you, and I speak these things in the world, (so) that they would have my delight filled (up) in themselves.”

The particles kai\ nu=n (“and now”), also used at the start of verse 5, establish the current/present situation that Jesus is addressing. In last week’s study, I discussed the double meaning of the expression “in the world” (e)n tw=| ko/smw=|). In verse 11, Jesus specifically states that he is not (ou)ke/ti, “not yet, no longer”) in the world; and yet now he indicates that he is in the world. The ambiguity has to do with the position of his disciples (believers). On the one hand, they/we do not belong to the world and are not in it (“out of the world”); but, at the same time, they/we remain present in the world and are thus in it, facing the evil and hostility of the current world-order. The latter aspect is what Jesus is referring to in verse 13—even though he is not “in the world” (and is about to leave it, returning to the Father), he still speaks to his disciples (and all believers) “in the world”. The words he speaks—the Last Discourse sequence, including the Prayer-Discourse itself—are primarily intended to give help and comfort to his disciples, along the lines indicated in 14:27ff; 15:11; 16:20ff, 33. This comfort includes the promise of the coming of the Spirit (the para/klhto$, or ‘Helper’), and is central to the idea of Jesus own delight (xa/ra) being “filled” (peplhrwme/nhn) in (e)n) the disciples.

In verse 14, the theme of the contrast between Jesus/Believers and the world (ko/smo$, world-order), found throughout the Last Discourse (and in vv. 6ff), is likewise developed further:

“I have given [de/dwka] to them your word [lo/go$], and the world hated them, (in) that [i.e. because] they are not out of [e)k] the world, even as I am not am not out of [ou)k] the world.”

There are four parts, or phrases, to this statement, each of which delineates an important related theme in the Johannine Discourses. Let us consider each of them briefly:

1. “I have given to them your word” (e)gw\ de/dwka au)toi=$ to\n lo/gon sou). This continues the repeated use of the verb di/dwmi (“give”) throughout the Prayer (cf. the discussion in the previous studies) and emphasizes the relationship between Father and Son: God the Father gives to the Son (Jesus), who, in turn, gives to his disciples (believers). The “word” (lo/go$, used many times, with deep significance, in the Gospel) relates to the idea that the Son faithfully repeats what he sees and hears the Father doing and saying. But there is an even greater theological (and Christological) idea involved—that Jesus (the Son) reveals the person, presence, and power of God the Father Himself. In the context of the Prayer, the “word” Jesus gives to his disciples is parallel to the “name” which he makes known—and which was given to him by the Father. It is the Father’s own name, representing and embodying the Father (YHWH) Himself. So it is with the lo/go$; it is no ordinary “word” (cf. 1:1ff).

2. “and the world hated them” (kai\ o( ko/smo$ e)mi/shsen au)tou/$). The dualistic contrast between the “world” (ko/smo$) and God/Jesus/Believers is one of the central themes of the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters), and is especially prominent in the Last Discourse. The wickedness and outright hostility of the world is the very reason (causa) for Jesus’ petition to the Father. Since he is departing the world, he will no longer be present himself to protect his disciples from this hostility and opposition. The hatred (vb. mise/w), of course, is exactly the opposite of the love (a)ga/ph) which is so vital to Jesus’ teaching in the Disourses, and to Johannine theology as a whole. The theme of love will come into more prominence at the close of the Prayer.

3. “(in) that [i.e. because] they are not out of the world” (o%ti ou)k ei)si\n e)k tou= ko/smou). Just as there is a double meaning for the expression “in the world” (e)n tw=| ko/smw|), so there is for the parallel expression “out of the world” (e)k tou= ko/smou). In verse 6, Jesus’ disciples are said to be “out of the world” in the sense that they do not belong to the world, and have been chosen (and taken) out of it as believers in Christ. Yet here they are said to be not “out of the world” in that they are not from it. This plays on the semantic range of the preposition e)k (“out of, of, from”), but the essential meaning is the same: Jesus’ disciples (believers) do not belong to the world.

4. “even as I am not out of the world” (kaqw\$ e)gw\ ou)k ei)mi\ e)k tou= ko/smou). Here we find a theme which will be developed richly in the remainder of the Prayer: the unity of believers with Jesus himself. This unity is made clear by the compound particle kaqw/$ (“even as, just as”), along with the emphatic pronoun “I” (e)gw/). Believers come from God the Father, having their birth/origins with Him, even as Jesus himself (the Son) does; they do not belong to the world any more than Jesus himself does. Classic Christian theology would explain this as being the result of faith in Jesus; the Johannine emphasis, however, is somewhat different—believers respond in faith to Jesus because they/we have (already) been chosen, belonging to the Father even before coming to faith, and given to Jesus (the Son) by the Father Himself. In classic terms, the emphasis is squarely on Divine Election/Predestination.

This expository narrative sets the stage for a restatement in verse 15 of Jesus’ petition to the Father, in which the danger believers face from the world (ko/smo$) is stated vividly (and bluntly):

“I do not ask that you should take them out of the world, but (rather) that you would keep watch (over) them out of [i.e. protect them from] the evil.”

Here we find a third sense of the expression “out of the world” (e)k tou= ko/smou)—the concrete sense of a person being taken (removed) from out of the world itself. This is significant on two levels: (a) the ordinary human condition (i.e. living on earth), and, more importantly, (b) in relation to the wickedness and evil present in the world, dominating the current world-order. This is the thrust of the second half of verse 15: “…but that you would keep watch (over) [i.e. protect] them out of [i.e. from] the evil”. Commentators debate the precise meaning of the substantive adjective (“the evil”, o( ponhro/$), much as in the similar petition of the Lord’s Prayer (cf. below). It may be understood three ways:

    • Evil generally, with the definite article perhaps in the sense of “that which is evil”
    • “the Evil (One)”, i.e. the Satan or ‘Devil’
    • “the evil (of the world)”, i.e. the evil that is in the world and which dominates it

Many commentators prefer the second interpretation, often taking it for granted; however, I do not agree with that position. In my view the context overwhelming favors the third sense above. Two factors, I believe, confirm this rather decisively:

    1. The clear parallel, both thematic and syntactical, between “the world” and “the evil”. The contrast in the verse only makes sense if “the evil” means the evil in the world, or the evil nature/character of the world, etc.:
      “I do not ask that you take them out of the world (itself), but (only) that you keep them out of the evil (that is in it)”
    2. The exact parallel of expression which reinforces this meaning:
      “out of the world” (e)k tou= ko/smou)
      | “out of the evil” (e)k tou= ponhrou=)

This is not to deny the prominent role that the Satan/Devil has in the current world-order (ko/smo$). It is entirely valid, and certainly so from the New Testament and early Christian standpoint, to see evil personified (and/or as a person) this way. The most relevant passage in the Gospel of John is found in the Last Discourse—Jesus’ declaration in 14:30 (note certainly similarities of thought and wording with 17:12-15ff):

“No longer [ou)ke/ti] will I speak with you (about) many (thing)s, for the chief/ruler of the world comes, and he holds nothing in/on me…”

Consult also the lengthy Sukkoth Discourse sequence in 8:12-59, in which Jesus more or less equates the world and the Devil, and sets them in marked contrast with God the Father. In this regard, there is an obvious parallel between the petition in 17:15 and that which concludes the Lord’s Prayer, in the Matthean (and longer Lukan) version:

“and may you not bring us into testing, but (rather) rescue us from the evil” (Matt 6:13)

As I argue in the earlier study on this verse, in the Lord’s Prayer, the substantive expression “the evil” is best understood in an eschatological sense—i.e. the evil that is coming—which had at least a partial fulfillment in the suffering and death of Jesus (cp. Mark 14:33-38, 41 par; Lk 22:53), and which, in turn, ushered in a period of suffering and persecution for believers (Mk 13:5-13; 14:27, 41 par; Lk 22:36-37; Rev 3:10, etc). In the Gospel of John, traditional eschatological motifs and ideas are presented in a ‘realized’ form—i.e. as a present reality for believers, and for the world (in terms of Judgment, etc). In this regard, the emphasis in 17:15 is not on the evil that is coming (beginning with Jesus’ Passion, cp. 13:30; 14:30), but on the evil that is ever-present in the world, and which believers must face daily. This prayer for protection from the evil that governs the world finds a most striking parallel in the First Letter of John, at the conclusion (5:18-19), a passage which further explains 17:9-15 from the standpoint of Johannine theology:

“We see [i.e. know] that every (one) having come to be (born) out of [e)k] God does not sin, but (rather) the (one) coming to be (born) out of God keeps watch [threi=] (over) him, and the evil [o( ponhro/$] does not attach (itself to) him. We see that we are out of [e)k] God, and (that) the whole world [ko/smo$] is stretched (out) in the evil [e)n tw=| ponhrw=|].”

This declaration virtually contains a fulfillment of what Jesus requests of the Father in chapter 17. We can also determine, based on the evidence from both the Gospel and Letter, how it is that the believer is protected from the evil that dominates the world. It is the living presence of Christ (the one born out of God) in the believer (like Jesus, born out of God), and it is through the Spirit that He is present. For more on this, please consult the series “…Spirit and Life” [Jn 6:63] soon to be posted here on this site.

In next week’s study, we will move on to explore verses 16-19, and, in particular, the newly formulated petition in v. 17, which gives greater clarity to the protection God the Father will provide for Jesus’ disciples. It will confirm the relation of this protection to the promise of the Spirit/Paraclete found at key points in the Last Discourse and elsewhere in the Gospel.