A Textual Commentary On The Greek NT

Acts 19:40

Neither variant reading is without difficulty, and Hort, followed by Ropes, suspected the presence of a primitive error that has infected all texts. Hort conjectured that “probably ai;tioi u`pa,rcontej should be read for aivti,ou u`pa,rcontoj, with the construction mhdeno.j ai;tioi u`pa,rcontej peri. ou- ouv k)t)l) (‘although we are guilty of nothing concerning which’ &c.).” ³⁵⁴

C. F. D. Moule supposes that the author made a rough draft that involved several alternative forms of the sentence, and that he neglected finally to delete the ones with which he was dissatisfied. ³⁵⁵

The Committee, reluctant to resort to conjectural emendation, regarded ouv as the least unsatisfactory reading; at the same time, however, in order to reflect the evidence for the absence of ouv it was thought best to enclose the word within square brackets.

³⁵⁴ “Notes on Select Readings,” p. 97. For other conjectures see W. C. van Manen, Conjecturaal-Kritiek…(Haarlem, 1880), p. 246, and W. H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, Over de toepassing van de Conjecturaal-Kritiek…(Haarlem, 1880), pp. 225 f.

³⁵⁵ Expository Times, LV (1954), p. 221.

Continues after advertising

BibliaPlus

A Textual Commentary On The Greek NT

Acts 19:40

Old Testament

New Testament