05.02. Appendix 2. THE TEXT OF ACTS 12:25

APPENDIX II THE TEXT OF Acts 12:25 THE text of Acts 12:25 is so uncertain and so interesting that it cannot be passed by without comment. The text usually printed is Βαρνάβας δὲ καὶ Σαῦλος ὑπέστρεψαν ἐξ Ἱερουσαλήμ, πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν, συνπαραλαβόντες Ἰωάνην τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Μάρκον. But the phrase ἐξ Ἱερουσαλὴμ is uncertain. There are three main variants in the text. (1) ἐξ Ἱερουσαλήμ, found in A 13 69 and many minuscules: (2) ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ, found in (B) D (E) and some minuscules; (3) εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ, found in א (Β) Η L Ρ 61 Syr-hl-mg. Chrys.; together with (4), a subvariant of (2), ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, found in E syr-pesh sah, and many minuscules; and (5) a subvariant of (3), εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, found in a few minuscules. Variant (1) may be condemned as an Alexandrian emendation of (3) not essentially different in character from (5). It is condemned not only by the weakness of the evidence, but by the fact that ὑποστρέφειν followed by the place whence a return is made, is not elsewhere found with ἐξ in the Lucan writings, but always with ἀπὸ. The choice, therefore, is really between ἀπὸ and εἰς. Considering the exceedingly important evidence which B gives, the purely manuscriptal evidence is about equally divided. But there is no question but that εἰς Ἱερ. is the lectio ardua which explains the others. The natural feeling of any one who reads the whole passage from Acts 11:27-30, Acts 12:1-25, Acts 13:1, is that Acts 11:30 describes the arrival of St. Barnabas and St. Paul at Jerusalem, and that Acts 12:25 ought to describe their departure. This would account for a tendency to change εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ into some phrase giving the opposite meaning. Ἐξ Ἱερουσαλὴμ and εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν are both attempts to accomplish this purpose; is it not probable that ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ is an earlier effort of the same kind? In this case εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ must be regarded as the earliest known reading. It remains, however, open to doubt whether it is not a “primitive corruption,” which might be explained by Bartlett’s suggestion of an original text which said ὑποστρέφειν without any mention of Jerusalem at all, and was erroneously filled up by some scribe who did not pay much attention to the history, but was familiar with the expression ὑποσρέφειν εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ (cf. Luke 2:45; Luke 24:33, Luke 24:52, Acts 1:12; Acts 8:25, Acts 13:13, Acts 22:17), and was influenced by the fact (though no doubt he could not have formulated it) that ὑποστρέφειν is found in the Lucan writings fifteen times with mention of the place whither (εἰς), and only twice with mention of the place whence (ἀπὸ).

It is, nevertheless, not quite so certain as is often maintained that εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ is not the original text. Πληρώσαντες means not so much “after having fulfilled” as “in fulfilment of” (just as ἀσπασάμενοι in Acts 25:13 means not “after having greeted” but “with greetings for”), and it is possible that St. Luke really meant “St. Barnabas and St. Paul returned to Jerusalem, which was the centre from which St. Barnabas, at all events, had started, in fulfilment of the ministration (which has been already mentioned).” By this means he linked on the Jerusalem-narrative to the Antioch-narrative, and showed, what is historically certain, that the famine came after, not before, the death of Herod. The objection is that, in this case, he does not explain how St. Barnabas and St. Paul come in the next paragraph to be back in Antioch. It is, however, not impossible that he omitted to state that they went back to Antioch, regarding this as obvious: such a view is certainly harsh, but it is too much to say that it is impossible, for it has the advantage of giving a statement of the facts which is historically more probable. The death of Herod was in 44, and the famine was in 46. It is not probable that famine relief was sent from Antioch before the famine, and thus the mission of St. Barnabas and Saul probably took place after the death of Herod. In this case, Acts 12:25 must be taken merely as a chronological warning, given by St. Luke to show that the famine, which the exigencies of his narrative had forced him to put before the death of Herod, because it belonged primarily to the Antioch narrative, really took place later. It is as though he said to his readers, “You must understand that the incident of the Famine, and the visit of Saul to Jerusalem, to which I alluded when tracing the history of Antioch, must be inserted at this point.” Either this view or Dr. Bartlett’s seems to me to be preferable to adopting the usual reading (ἐξ), which is so unmistakably condemned by all the rules of textual criticism.

¹ The scribe of B wrote εἰς, but seems to have begun to write ἀπὸ. I think that this shows that ἀπὸ must have been known to the scribe, though it may have been merely a slip, for it is noteworthy that ὑποστρέφειν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ is a common phrase which would come naturally to the scribe’s pen, while ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ is relatively rare.

¹ In the Century Bible Commentary on Acts.