Textual problems in translating Bede’s initial Commentary on Acts, and his later Reflection on the Book of Acts.
The goal of translating a small portion of both books into English is to discover Bede’s position on the doctrine of tongues.
The Commentary on Acts was written in 709 or 710, the second one is not known, but a number of years later.
It is found from comparing a section of Acts chapter 2 in both works that they seldom overlap in thought. Both can stand on their own without the necessity of the other. The initial commentary is directed to a lay audience and dealing with broad themes. The second one is very detailed, and gets into points of Latin grammar — because of this, translating into English became very difficult. The English language does not have the same grammatical components, and it forced me to switch into a mode of dynamic translation.
The Reflection on the Book of Acts does not the contain the same literary style that Bede used in the initial commentary on Acts, or other Latin works I am familiar with such as, De Temporibus Liber which is known in English as the The Book of Times and De Temporum Ratione, On the Reckoning of Time — but then these two books are considered heavily redacted and should not be used as a guide to Bede’s original works.
Although the thought in Reflection appears to be of Bede origin, the text may represent some editorial upkeep.
On the other hand, this may be incorrect. The progression between his two books; The Book of Times, and On the Reckoning of Time may indeed reveal that this is an unaltered Bede writing. The Reckoning of Time is a progression from his earlier work, The Book of Times. Bede was more technical, and concise in the structure of The Reckoning. His Reflection work may just be the same thing.
I would prefer that others would have already completed the textual criticism, and that it would be easily available for the public to find, requiring me to only build on such a thesis in order to complete my task. However, it demonstrates how Patristic writings have been understudied, that it forces me to do both.
In the case here on the doctrine of tongues, it can be supposed that Bede is indeed the author, but some of the literary features are later. Moreover, the alterations do not appear to change the intent of the text.