‡23:18νεανιαν f35 B [85%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ νεανισκον ℵA [15%] NU
§23:20εις το συνεδριον καταγαγης τον παυλον f35 [88%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ~ 564123 ℵA,B [7%] NU ¦ ~ 456123 [5%]
*23:201) μελλοντες f35 (33.1%) TR,CP 2) μελλοντα (27.2%) HF,RP 3) μελλοντων (17.4%) OC 4) μελλων A,B (9.2%) 5) μελλον ℵ (7.5%) NU6) μελλοντας (5.4%) (one other) (0.2%) Rather a dismaying picture—what to do? To begin, the variants are all participial forms of the same verb. The key seems to be the perceived referent or antecedent of the participle. Is it “the Jews”, “the Sanhedrin” or “the commander”? The best answer from the point of view of the grammar is evidently “the Jews”, which would require a masc., nom., plural form—the only candidate is variant 1). However, there were those who took the referent to be “the Sanhedrin”—the Alexandrian MSS have συνεδριον next to the participle, separated only by ως. The grammar requires a neuter, acc., sg. form—variant 5). But, the Sanhedrin was made up of men, so perhaps some decided it would be more appropriate to make it plural—variant 2); and maybe even masc. besides—variant 6) [might this be assimilation to verse 15?]. Variant 3), being genitive, is really strange, unless somehow someone thought that the commander intended to inquire of the Sanhedrin, viewed as plural. Variant 4) presumably takes “the commander” as the referent, but puts the form in the nom., sort of ad sensum since σε is acc. But variant 2) could also be referring to the commander, precisely masc., acc., singular. What are the requirements of the context? “The commander” as referent does not fit. Not only was it not his idea, he sent Paul away that very night to forestall the possibility. (That the Jews should attempt to tell the commander what was in his mind is scarcely credible.) “The Sanhedrin” as referent really doesn’t fit either. το συνεδριον appears in the text as the object of a preposition, not as an initiating agent. It is “the Jews” that is the Subject of the main verb, and therefore of the two infinitives, and our participle is working with the second infinitive, “as ones intending to inquire”. Conclusion: variant 1) is the only one that really fits the context; it is also the best attested. Although it only musters 33.1% of the vote (including f35), it is also attested by the three ancient versions—always weighty testimony. I conclude that the Autograph read μελλοντες.
νεανιαν f35 B [85%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ νεανισκον ℵA [15%] NU
εις το συνεδριον καταγαγης τον παυλον f35 [88%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ~ 564123 ℵA,B [7%] NU ¦ ~ 456123 [5%]
1) μελλοντες f35 (33.1%) TR,CP 2) μελλοντα (27.2%) HF,RP 3) μελλοντων (17.4%) OC 4) μελλων A,B (9.2%) 5) μελλον ℵ (7.5%) NU6) μελλοντας (5.4%) (one other) (0.2%) Rather a dismaying picture—what to do? To begin, the variants are all participial forms of the same verb. The key seems to be the perceived referent or antecedent of the participle. Is it “the Jews”, “the Sanhedrin” or “the commander”? The best answer from the point of view of the grammar is evidently “the Jews”, which would require a masc., nom., plural form—the only candidate is variant 1). However, there were those who took the referent to be “the Sanhedrin”—the Alexandrian MSS have συνεδριον next to the participle, separated only by ως. The grammar requires a neuter, acc., sg. form—variant 5). But, the Sanhedrin was made up of men, so perhaps some decided it would be more appropriate to make it plural—variant 2); and maybe even masc. besides—variant 6) [might this be assimilation to verse 15?]. Variant 3), being genitive, is really strange, unless somehow someone thought that the commander intended to inquire of the Sanhedrin, viewed as plural. Variant 4) presumably takes “the commander” as the referent, but puts the form in the nom., sort of ad sensum since σε is acc. But variant 2) could also be referring to the commander, precisely masc., acc., singular. What are the requirements of the context? “The commander” as referent does not fit. Not only was it not his idea, he sent Paul away that very night to forestall the possibility. (That the Jews should attempt to tell the commander what was in his mind is scarcely credible.) “The Sanhedrin” as referent really doesn’t fit either. το συνεδριον appears in the text as the object of a preposition, not as an initiating agent. It is “the Jews” that is the Subject of the main verb, and therefore of the two infinitives, and our participle is working with the second infinitive, “as ones intending to inquire”. Conclusion: variant 1) is the only one that really fits the context; it is also the best attested. Although it only musters 33.1% of the vote (including f35), it is also attested by the three ancient versions—always weighty testimony. I conclude that the Autograph read μελλοντες.
πλειους rell ¦ — [15%]
τεσσαρακοντα f35 [98%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ τεσσερακοντα ℵA,B [2%] NU