ACTS 3:1 Pe,troj de, Haenchen observes (_in loc._) that the scribe of codex Bezae regarded the absence of a connection as a deficiency and therefore introduced evn de. tai/j h`me,raij tau,taij at the beginning of chap. 3 (the same phrase also appears in itp and copG67). But there is also another (o... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:2 tij Ropes argues (_in loc._) that the addition of ivdou, (before tij) in D itp vgms syrp “may be original, since it is more Semitic.” On the other hand, however, in this instance as well as in the two others in Acts where codex Bezae introduces ivdou, ( Acts 2:2; Acts 13:47) the explanati... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:3 labei/n The presence of labei/n (î74 a A B C E G 33 81 614 1739 _al_) seems to overload the expression _(_…hvrw,ta evlehmosu,nhn labei/n) and so was omitted by Western and Byzantine witnesses (D P most minuscules). For other examples of the infinitive after evrwta/n, see Blass-Debrunner-F... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:3-5 The usual text reads, “Seeing (o]j ivdw,n) Peter and John about to go into the temple, he [the lame man] asked…And Peter directed his gaze (avteni,saj) at him, with John, and said, ‘Look at us’ (ble,yon). And he fixed his attention (o` de. evpei/cen) upon them …” Codex Bezae rewrites th... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:6 @e;geire kai.# peripa,tei {C} It is difficult to decide whether the words e;geire kai, are a gloss, introduced by copyists who were influenced by such well-known passages as Matthew 9:5; Mark 2:9; Luke 5:23; John 5:8, or were omitted in several witnesses as superfluous, since it is Peter h... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:8 periepa,tei In periphrastic fashion the Bezan text adds after periepa,tei the participle cairo,menoj (which Ropes, on the basis of the testimony of ith, thinks may be for cai,rwÉn kai. avgalliw,Ëmenoj) and omits peripatw/n kai. a`llo,menoj kai,. Lake and Cadbury, however, are inclined to... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:11 The two forms of text of this verse involve a particularly difficult set of problems, some textual, some archaeological. Instead of the usual text, codex Bezae reads evkporeuome,nou de. tou/ Pe,trou kai. VIwa,nou sunexeporeu,eto kratw/n auvtou,j( oi` de. qambhqe,ntej e;sthsan evn th|/ st... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:12 euvsebei,a| The word euvsebei,a|, which is, as Lake and Cadbury declare, “certainly the right reading,” 99 was taken as evxousi,a| in some early versions (ith, p, some manuscripts of the Vulgate, the Peshitta, and the Armenian). Irenaeus omits h' euvsebei,a|. The word evxousi,a| seemed t... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:14 hvrnh,sasqe {A} In order to avoid the repetition of hvrnh,sasqe in two successive clauses (cf. ver. Acts 3:13), codex Bezae substitutes evbaru,nate. This word, which appears in a* at Acts 28:27 and in D H _al_ at Luke 21:34, but nowhere else in Luke-Acts, is so manifestly inappropriate in... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:16 The text of the first part of ver. Acts 3:16 is exceedingly awkward; literally it runs, “And by faith in his name has his name made this man strong, whom you behold and know.” The proposal of Burkitt 106 to place a colon before tou/ton, thus taking the preceding words with ver. Acts 3:15,... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:17 The Western text (D E ith, p copG67) introduces several changes: it (_a_) expands avdelfoi, into the more usual expression a;ndrej avdelfoi,, (_b_) accommodates the verb to the plural (evpista,meqa for oi=da) in harmony with the preceding h`mei/j (ver. Acts 3:15), and (_c_) adds ponhro,n... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:19 eivj Despite Ropes’s declaration that “the only ground of decision [between proj (a B) and eij (all other witnesses)] is the relative value ascribed to the opposing groups [of witnesses],” 111 a majority of the Committee was impressed by the fact that, except for Luke 18:1, the construct... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:20 to.n … Cristo.n VIhsou/n On the basis of the combination of Alexandrian and Western witnesses (a B D E syrh copsa), the Committee preferred the sequence Cristo.n VIhsou/n. The alternative sequence, VIhsou/n Cristo,n (î74 A C Y most minuscules vg syrp copbo eth, followed by the Textus Rece... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:21 avpV aivw/noj auvtou/ profhtw/n {B} Variation in wording seems to have been occasioned by the possibility of taking tw/n a`gi,wn as a noun followed by an appositive. The omission of avpV aivw/noj in the Western text may be either accidental or the result of asking whether prophets actual... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:22 ei=pen {B} The Committee regarded the several additions before or after ei=pen as natural expansions to the text, made by scribes who may have recollected the phrase o` qeo.j tw/n pate,rwn in ver. Acts 3:13.... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:25 u`mw/n {C} A majority of the Committee considered it probable that the second person pronoun u`mw/n has been conformed to the general usage of Acts in referring to “our fathers.”... [ Continue Reading ]
ACTS 3:26 u`mw/n The more difficult reading is the plural pronoun, which B omits, probably for stylistic reasons. The singular auvtou/ (5 88 241 257 322 323 915) is a scribal conformation to the preceding e[kaston. Both external evidence and internal considerations strongly favor u`mw/n.... [ Continue Reading ]