2) - 36): 7 και κατα τον ημετερον νομον ηθελησαμεν κριναι παρελθων δε λυσιας ο χιλιαρχος μετα πολλης βιας εκ των χειρων ημων απηγαγεν κελευσας τους κατηγορους αυτου ερχεσθαι επι σε. The five principle variations hinge on the three underlined words; they are:
2) κριναι … επι σε (9.7%) [6 variants]
8) κριναι … επι σου (10.5%) [14 variants]
22) κριναι … προς σε (5.3%) [8 variants]
30) κρινειν … επι σου (4.4%) [4 variants]
34) κρινειν … επι σε (1.7%) OC,TR [3 variants] (OC is in small print)
37) replaces απηγαγεν with five words, plus two other changes:
κριναι … επι σου (3.2%) [2 variants]
39) completely rewrites the material:
κριναι … προς σε (3.4%) CP [6 variants]
(eight further variants) (2.9%) [8 variants].
Variant 2) presumably has the best claim to be the standard form of the addition: κριναι clearly bests κρινειν, επι clearly bests προς, σε barely bests σου. [Although variant 8) appears to be slightly stronger than 2) numerically, the 14 internal variants, compared to 6, effectively diminish its credibility. The main variant in 2) is far stronger than that of 8).] It is also attested by syr and latpt. However, although some form of the addition commands 41.1% of the MSS, there are no less than 51 variants!
What about the context? The addition makes good sense, and it fits nicely. But, it is not really necessary; that information Felix already knew. The text reads quite well without the addition also. I conclude that the short form was judged to be abrupt or incomplete, giving rise to the addition; presumably the Autograph did not contain it. Since Tertullus was an orator he may well have actually said what is in the addition, plus a good deal more besides, but did Luke write it? (The incidents recorded in Acts were well known by many contemporaries, and there were many written accounts in circulation [Luke 1:1], so it was entirely predictable that a variety of historically correct material would be added, here and there, to Luke’s account.)
The external evidence, though divided, is adequate to resolve this case: 58.9% against a severely fragmented 41.1%. The ancient versions, being divided, do not help us much this time. Although 59% is not a strong majority, by any means, still, the severe fragmentation of the 41% sort of leaves variant 1) without a worthy opponent. Variant 1) wins in “Antiquity”, “Number”, “Variety” and “Continuity”, so I have no doubt that it is original. [The reading of the TR, variant 34), really has little to commend it.] 8 παρ᾿ οὗ δυνήσῃ, αὐτὸς ἀνακρίνας, περὶ πάντων τούτων ἐπιγνῶναι ὧν ἡμεῖς κατηγοροῦμεν αὐτοῦ.» 9 Συνεπέθεντο‡ συνεπεθεντο rell ¦ συνεθεντο [5%] TR δὲ καὶ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, φάσκοντες ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν.
*24:1 των πρεσβυτερων f35 (83.4%) HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ~ 2 τινων ℵA,B (14.9%) NU ¦ 2 (1.7%)
†24:1 ενεφανισαν rell ¦ ενεφανησαν [20%] ¦ επεφανησαν [5%]
‡24:1 ηγεμονι rell ¦ ηγεμωνι [10%] ¦ ηγεμονη [3%]
§24:2 κατορθωματων f35 [90%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ διορθωματων ℵA,B [10%] NU
*24:3 παντη rell ¦ παντι [35%] ¦ one other variant
†24:3 φηλιξ f35 ℵA,B [40%] HF,RP,OC,TR,NU ¦ φιληξ [35%] CP ¦ φιλιξ [25%]
‡24:3 ευχαριστιας rell ¦ ευχαριστειας A [14%]
§24:4 πλεον f35 [20%] ¦ πλειον ℵA,B [79%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ πλιον A [1%]
*24:5 στασιν f35 [96%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ στασεις (ℵ)A,B [4%] NU
†24:6 1) (without the long addition) f35 ℵA,B (58.9%) HF,RP,NU 2) - 36): 7 και κατα τον ημετερον νομον ηθελησαμεν κριναι παρελθων δε λυσιας ο χιλιαρχος μετα πολλης βιας εκ των χειρων ημων απηγαγεν κελευσας τους κατηγορους αυτου ερχεσθαι επι σε. The five principle variations hinge on the three underlined words; they are: 2) κριναι … επι σε (9.7%) [6 variants] 8) κριναι … επι σου (10.5%) [14 variants] 22) κριναι … προς σε (5.3%) [8 variants] 30) κρινειν … επι σου (4.4%) [4 variants] 34) κρινειν … επι σε (1.7%) OC,TR [3 variants] (OC is in small print) 37) replaces απηγαγεν with five words, plus two other changes: κριναι … επι σου (3.2%) [2 variants] 39) completely rewrites the material: κριναι … προς σε (3.4%) CP [6 variants](eight further variants) (2.9%) [8 variants].Variant 2) presumably has the best claim to be the standard form of the addition: κριναι clearly bests κρινειν, επι clearly bests προς, σε barely bests σου. [Although variant 8) appears to be slightly stronger than 2) numerically, the 14 internal variants, compared to 6, effectively diminish its credibility. The main variant in 2) is far stronger than that of 8).] It is also attested by syr and latpt. However, although some form of the addition commands 41.1% of the MSS, there are no less than 51 variants! What about the context? The addition makes good sense, and it fits nicely. But, it is not really necessary; that information Felix already knew. The text reads quite well without the addition also. I conclude that the short form was judged to be abrupt or incomplete, giving rise to the addition; presumably the Autograph did not contain it. Since Tertullus was an orator he may well have actually said what is in the addition, plus a good deal more besides, but did Luke write it? (The incidents recorded in Acts were well known by many contemporaries, and there were many written accounts in circulation [Luke 1:1], so it was entirely predictable that a variety of historically correct material would be added, here and there, to Luke’s account.) The external evidence, though divided, is adequate to resolve this case: 58.9% against a severely fragmented 41.1%. The ancient versions, being divided, do not help us much this time. Although 59% is not a strong majority, by any means, still, the severe fragmentation of the 41% sort of leaves variant 1) without a worthy opponent. Variant 1) wins in “Antiquity”, “Number”, “Variety” and “Continuity”, so I have no doubt that it is original. [The reading of the TR, variant 34), really has little to commend it.]
‡24:9 συνεπεθεντο rell ¦ συνεθεντο [5%] TR
§24:10 δε f35 [95%] HF,RP,OC,TR ¦ τε ℵA,B [5%] CP,NU
*24:10 δικαιον f35 [25%] ¦ — ℵA,B [75%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP,NU
†24:10 ευθυμοτερον f35 [93%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ευθυμως ℵA,B [7%] NU
‡24:11 γνωναι f35 [93%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ επιγνωναι ℵA,B [7%] NU
§24:11 ημεραι f35 ℵA,B [95%] HF,RP,OC,CP,NU ¦ 1 η [5%] TR ¦ one other variant
*24:11 δεκαδυο f35 [93%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ δωδεκα ℵA,B [7%] NU
†24:11 εν f35 [75%] HF,RP,TR,CP ¦ εις ℵA,B [25%] OC,NU
‡24:12 επισυστασιν f35 [89%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ επιστασιν ℵA,B [10%] NU ¦ two other variants [1%]
§24:13 ουτε f35 A [98%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ουδε ℵB [2%] NU
*24:13 παραστησαι f35 ℵA,B [40%] OC,NU ¦ 1 με HF,RP,TR,CP ¦ 1 με νυν [60%]
†24:13 δυνανται f35 [88%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 σοι (σου A) ℵ(A)B [7%] NU ¦ 1 μοι [5%]
‡24:13 νυν f35 [88%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ νυνι ℵA(B) [7%] NU ¦ — [5%]
§24:14 τοις f35 A (79.1%) HF,RP,TR,CP ¦ 1 εν 1 ℵB (20.4%) OC,NU ¦ τους [5%] (OC is in small print)
*24:15 νεκρων f35 (93.4%) HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B,C (6.6%) NU
†24:16 δε f35 [76%] HF,RP,TR,CP ¦ και ℵA,B,C [10%] NU ¦ 1 και [12%] OC ¦ τε και [2%]
‡24:16 εχων f35 [95%] HF,RP,CP ¦ εχειν ℵA,B,C [5%] OC,TR,NU
§24:16 τε f35 [60%] ¦ — ℵA,B,C [40%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP,NU
*24:16 δια παντος rell ¦ — CP
†24:17 παρεγενομην ελεημοσυνας ποιησων εις το εθνος μου f35 [93%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ 234567 A ¦ ~ 2345671 ℵB,C [7%] NU
‡24:18 οις f35 [90%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ αις ℵA,B,C [10%] NU ¦ one other variant
§24:18 τινες f35 [92%] HF,RP,OC ¦ 1 δε ℵA,B [2%] TR,CP,NU ¦ 1 των [2%] ¦ 1 δε των C [4%] ¦ one other variant
*24:19 εδει f35 ℵA,B,C [30%] OC,NU ¦ δει [70%] HF,RP,TR,CP
†24:19 με f35 [97%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ εμε ℵA,B,C [3%] NU
‡24:20 ειπατωσαν f35 ℵA,B,C [95%] HF,RP,OC,CP,NU ¦ 1 ει [5%] TR
§24:20 εν εμοι f35 C [97%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B [3%] NU
*24:21 εκραξα f35 [80%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ εκεκραξα ℵA,B,C [20%] NU
†24:21 εστως εν αυτοις f35 [92%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ~ 231 ℵA,B,C [8%] NU
‡24:21 υφ f35 ℵ [97%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ εφ A,B,C [3%] NU
§24:22 ακουσας δε ταυτα ο φηλιξ ανεβαλετο (ανεβαλλετο 7.4% CP) αυτους f35 (92.4%) HF,RP,OC,TR(CP) ¦ ~ 62745 ℵA,B,C (4.9%) NU ¦ ~ 62457 (2.7%) (For the statement of evidence on φηλιξ see the note five down.)
*24:22 ειπων f35 [95%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ειπας ℵA,B,C [3%] NU ¦ — [2%]
†24:23 τε f35 [75%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ δε [3%] ¦ — ℵA,B,C [22%] NU
‡24:23 τον παυλον f35 [93%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ αυτον ℵA,B,C [7%] NU
§24:23 η προσερχεσθαι f35 [95%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B,C [5%] NU
*24:24 φηλιξ f35 ℵA [46%] HF,RP,OC,TR,NU ¦ φιληξ [37%] CP ¦ φιλιξ B [17%] (The percentages remain the same in verses 25, 27a and 27b. In the note five up, the three variants have [46%], [32%] and [22%] respectively.)
†24:24 γυναικι f35 C [88%] HF,RP ¦ 1 αυτου ℵ [8%] OC,TR ¦ ιδια 1 B [3%] CP,NU ¦ ιδια 1 αυτου A [1%]
‡24:24 ιησουν f35 ℵ(B) [55%] CP,NU ¦ — A [45%] HF,RP,OC,TR
§24:25 εσεσθαι f35 [92%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B,C [8%] NU
*24:25 εχον rell ¦ εχων [14%] ¦ one other variant
†24:25 μεταλαβων rell ¦ λαβων [10%] CP ¦ παραλαβων A ¦ two other variants
‡24:26 αμα f35 ℵA,B,C [95%] HF,RP,CP,NU ¦ 1 δε [5%] OC,TR
§24:26 οπως λυση αυτον f35 [93%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ — ℵA,B,C [5%] NU ¦ two other variants [2%]
*24:26 πυκνοτερον f35 [20%] ¦ 1 αυτον ℵA,B [75%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP,NU ¦ 1 αυτων [5%]
†24:26 ωμιλει (B) rell ¦ ομιλει [14%] ¦ διελεγετο C ¦ one other variant
‡24:27 δε f35 [55%] OC,CP ¦ τε ℵA,B,C [45%] HF,RP,TR,NU
§24:27 χαριτας f35 [81%] HF,RP,TR,CP ¦ χαριτα ℵA,B,C [3%] NU ¦ χαριν [16%] OC
*24:27 κατελιπεν rell ¦ κατελειπεν A [16%]