Acts 13:32 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]446
Καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθα τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,
MSS: א, B, Majority, Elzevir, Scholz
Acts 13:32 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q87f7rc4
και ημεις ϋμας ευαγγελιζομεθα την προς τους πατερας επαγγελιαν γενομενην
Acts 13:32 [Codex Alexandrinus (Royal MS 1 D VIII) (A02) (5th century)]
Acts 13:32 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]86ac3
και ημεις ϋμας ευαγγελιζομεθα την προς τους πατερας επαγγελιαν γενομενην
Acts 13:32 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]
Acts 13:32 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]
Acts 13:32 [Codex Laudianus (MS. Laud Gr. 35) (E08) (6th century)]
Critical Apparatus :
A Textual Commentary On Acts 13:32
(a) Although Lachmann never wrote the full remarks on passages which he had once intended to have done, he prefixed to his second volume a few notes on readings which had called forth the observations of De Wette and others. In these notes he gives occasionally his own conjectures as to the true readings of passages , using the traditive reading of the oldest documents as his basis of argument. These in general call for no further notice here ; for they belong, not to Lachmann’s principles as an editor, but to his own personal opinions ; and though it may be freely admitted that all ancient books may contain errors of copyists, so old as to precede all documentary means of their restoration, yet when we have such united witnesses as we possess to the text of the New Testament, it would be useless and rash in the extreme to depart from what has been transmitted, in search of something which we may suppose or imagine. But in the midst of Lachmann’s conjectures, there are good and valuable remarks introduced : thus, on Acts xiii. 32, he speaks of those who prefer to see the text “skinned over and plaistered,” rather than with the wounds visible : that is, that some would prefer the text as it has passed through the hands of copyists and non-critical editors, with the wounds (if such there be) of the earliest copies and versions concealed by a sort of artificial vail, to that which gives the text as transmitted, a text which may be the basis of true exposition, and from which what is genuine may be gathered on grounds of evidence, which never can be the case if the concealment of modified and modernised phraseology be adopted and canonised. The reading which led to these remarks is καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθα τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην, ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις ἡμῶν, where the common text has τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν ἡμῖν, a reading which seems to have only sprung up as an amendment, a “skinning over and bandaging” of τοῖς τέκνοις ἡμῶν as found in the ancient authorities : — “filiis nostris,” as it stands in the Vulgate, both in the ancient and modern copies : now here the first question is, not whether we can give an exposition of the ancient text, but whether this is to be received, as supported by authority, in preference to that which seems to show its more recent origin. We may well pause before we pronounce a reading void of meaning, when we find that ancient copyists in various lands have transmitted it, and ancient translators have equally allowed it a place in their versions.
(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 111-112)