An Exegetical Analysis of Acts 13:46 in the Western Text (Codex Bezae)
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Acts 13:46 in the Western Text (Codex Bezae) is based on a b-greek discussion from December 6th, 2013. The initial discussion critically examines the grammatical integrity and semantic plausibility of a specific textual variant in Codex Bezae for the book of Acts. The prevailing sentiment expressed is skepticism regarding the proposed English rendering of this Western text, with a strong inclination towards interpreting the variant as a scribal omission, specifically of the word ἀναγκαῖον.
The main exegetical issue under consideration concerns the textual variation in Acts 13:46, specifically the presence or absence of the adjective ἀναγκαῖον (“necessary”) in conjunction with the verb ἦν (“was”) in the clause “it was necessary for you first to be spoken the word of God.” The Western textual tradition, notably represented by Codex Bezae (Codex D), omits ἀναγκαῖον, presenting a more grammatically challenging construction: “for you first was to be spoken the word of God.” This omission raises significant questions about the meaning and grammatical function of ἦν when followed by a dative and a passive infinitive without a clear predicate adjective. Scholars debate whether this Western reading reflects an original, albeit unusual, authorial intent, or if it represents a scribal haplography or simplification.
Acts 13:46 (Nestle 1904)
Παῦλος δὲ καὶ Βαρνάβας παρρησιασάμενοι εἶπαν· ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναγκαῖον ἦν λαληθῆναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐπειδὴ ἀπωθεῖσθε αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀξίους κρίνετε ἑαυτοὺς τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, ἰδοὺ στρεφόμεθα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The primary difference in the textual traditions is the inclusion of the adjective ἀναγκαῖον (“necessary”) in the SBLGNT (2010) and most critical editions, following the Alexandrian textual tradition. The Western text, exemplified by Codex Bezae (D), omits ἀναγκαῖον.
- While SBLGNT does not contain `ἀναγκαῖον` in its main text for Acts 13:46, it does represent the Alexandrian tradition which includes the word. The discussion here centers on the *absence* of this word in the Western text, which SBLGNT typically notes in its apparatus.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes
The textual critical apparatus of the NA28, similar to UBS4, records the Western omission of ἀναγκαῖον as a significant variant. The NA28, representing the Alexandrian tradition, retains ἀναγκαῖον in the main text, indicating its strong support from early and geographically diverse manuscripts (e.g., א A B C E Ψ). The Western text, particularly Codex Bezae, is known for its unique readings, often characterized by expansions, omissions, or grammatical adjustments. The theory that the Bezae text of Acts might be more authorial, as proposed by some scholars, presents a challenge to conventional textual criticism, which often views such divergences as secondary. However, the grammatical difficulty of the text without ἀναγκαῖον often leads critics to favor the Alexandrian reading as more original or, at least, more coherent.
Lexically, the interpretation of ἦν (imperfect of εἰμί, “to be”) is crucial for the Western reading. Without a predicate adjective, its function becomes ambiguous. BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) notes that ἔστιν (present of εἰμί) can function impersonally with an infinitive to mean “it is possible, one can.” For example, BDAG cites instances like “ἔστιν εὑρεῖν” (one can find) or “οὐκ ἔστιν λέγειν” (it is not possible to speak). Applying this to ἦν in the imperfect would suggest “it was possible” or “one could.” Louw-Nida (L&N 13.104, 13.107) also discusses εἰμί and γίνομαι in the sense of “to occur” or “to happen,” offering another potential semantic avenue for ἦν in this context. However, these interpretations often require an infinitive with an accusative subject, which is not directly present here, making the construction with a dative (ὑμῖν) still problematic. The alternative, that ὑμῖν functions as a “sentence dative” or “ethic dative,” merely vaguely referencing the concern of the persons indicated, is also proposed but does not fully resolve the grammatical tension of ἦν without a predicate.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The presence or absence of ἀναγκαῖον fundamentally alters the grammatical structure and rhetorical force of Acts 13:46. Analyzing these variants reveals the complexities inherent in rendering the New Testament into modern languages.
1. The Alexandrian Text (with ἀναγκαῖον):
The reading found in the NA28, SBLGNT, and Nestle 1904 includes ἀναγκαῖον: “ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναγκαῖον ἦν λαληθῆναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ.” Grammatically, this is a clear construction where ἀναγκαῖον functions as the predicate adjective with the impersonal verb ἦν. The infinitive clause λαληθῆναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ acts as the subject of ἦν ἀναγκαῖον. The dative ὑμῖν (“to you”) indicates the recipient or beneficiary of this necessity. Rhetorically, this conveys a sense of divine priority and obligation: Paul and Barnabas are compelled to preach to the Jews first because it is a necessary part of God’s plan, underscoring their commitment despite the inevitable rejection.
2. The Western Text (without ἀναγκαῖον):
The reading in Codex Bezae omits ἀναγκαῖον: “ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἦν λαληθῆναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ.” This presents a significant grammatical challenge. Without a predicate adjective, ἦν stands as a linking verb with no clear complement for the infinitive clause. Various interpretations have been proposed:
- Some suggest that ἦν should be understood as equivalent to ἐγένετο (“it happened” or “it came to pass”), implying that the preaching to them first was an event. However, this often requires the infinitive clause to act as the subject of ἦν, which typically prefers an accusative subject for the infinitive, not a dative like ὑμῖν.
- Another proposal is that ἦν carries the sense of ἔξεστιν (“it is possible”), as noted by BDAG for ἔστιν with an infinitive. This would render “it was possible for you first to be spoken the word of God.” Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger, for instance, interpret the construction `[ἦν + dative of person + infinitive]` as expressing possibility, with πρῶτον modifying this sense. While addressing the meaning of ἦν, this still makes for a somewhat awkward phrasing and lacks the explicit clarity of `ἔξεστιν`.
- A third view considers ὑμῖν as an “ethic dative” or “sentence dative,” loosely indicating the audience’s concern or involvement. However, this doesn’t fully resolve the grammatical role of ἦν itself.
Rhetorically, this reading, if intelligible, would emphasize the chronological priority (“first”) and perhaps a granted opportunity rather than a divine imperative. The ambiguity, however, weakens its persuasive force compared to the Alexandrian text.
Ultimately, the grammatical difficulties of the Western text without ἀναγκαῖον strongly suggest that the omission might be a scribal error, possibly a haplography (skipping from one α to another, or similar visual error), rather than an original authorial reading. The lack of a clear, widely accepted grammatical parallel for ἦν + dative + passive infinitive without a predicate adjective in this precise semantic context lends weight to the scribal omission hypothesis.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegetical analysis of Acts 13:46 reveals a significant textual divergence that impacts both grammar and theological nuance. While attempts to render the Western text intelligible without ἀναγκαῖον are valuable, the resultant constructions remain grammatically strained and semantically less direct than the Alexandrian reading. The hypothesis of a scribal omission of ἀναγκαῖον remains the most compelling explanation for the Western variant, aligning with the general character of the Bezaean text and the clarity of other manuscript traditions.
- “It was necessary for you first that the word of God be spoken.”
This translation adheres to the Alexandrian textual tradition, maintaining the clear sense of divine imperative and priority. - “For you first, it was possible for the word of God to be spoken.”
This translation attempts to make sense of the Western text by interpreting ἦν as “it was possible,” reflecting one scholarly proposal, though it acknowledges the inherent grammatical awkwardness. - “For you first, it fell to the word of God to be spoken.”
This suggestion leans into the dative ὑμῖν as indicating responsibility or natural consequence (“it fell to you”), while interpreting ἦν as a verb of occurrence or allocation, acknowledging the omission of ἀναγκαῖον implicitly by structuring the sentence around what was *due* to the Jewish audience.