This is a discussion of the state of play in relation to the text of Acts, widely cited since its publication (mostly positively; e.g. in the recent commentaries by Witherington and Bock). It is a bit long to summarise briefly, but the conclusion (since who wants to have to wade through evidence and argument anyway?) is that the so-called Western text (I have to say that it is 'so-called' or some pedantic critic will think that I have never heard of the idea that it might not be geographically any more West than Beirut) is basically and essentially a secondary and expansionist text when compared with the Alexandrian type of text (I can probably get away with this one, despite the lack of solid evidence linking this text to Alexandria).
"Acts and the Problem of its Texts"
This is a discussion of the state of play in relation to the text of Acts, widely cited since its publication (mostly positively; e.g. in the recent commentaries by Witherington and Bock). It is a bit long to summarise briefly, but the conclusion (since who wants to have to wade through evidence and argument anyway?) is that the so-called Western text (I have to say that it is 'so-called' or some pedantic critic will think that I have never heard of the idea that it might not be geographically any more West than Beirut) is basically and essentially a secondary and expansionist text when compared with the Alexandrian type of text (I can probably get away with this one, despite the lack of solid evidence linking this text to Alexandria).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
No comments:
Post a Comment