Acts 13:33 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]446
ὅτι ταύτην ὁ Θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκε τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν ἡμῖν, ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν· Ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ τῷ δευτέρῳ γέγραπται· Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.
* ὅτι … Ἰησοῦν· = Acts 13:32 in Elzevir 1624
Acts 13:33 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]
Acts 13:33 [Codex Alexandrinus (Royal MS 1 D VIII) (A02) (5th century)]
Acts 13:33 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]86ac3-86bc1
οτι ταυτην ο ΘC εκπεπληρωκεν τοις τεκνοις ημων αναστησας ΙΝ ως και εν τω ψαλμω γεγραπται τω δευτερω ϋιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε
Acts 13:33 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]
Acts 13:33 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]
Acts 13:33 [Codex Laudianus (MS. Laud Gr. 35) (E08) (6th century)]
Critical Apparatus :
(1) εκπεπληρωκε :
(2) εκπεπληρωκεν : B
(3) αυτων ημιν :
(4) ημων : B
(5) τω δευτερω γεγραπται :
(6) γεγραπται τω δευτερω : B
A Textual Commentary On Acts 13:33
(a) For, whatever may be said of the text which he produced, Erasmus valued ancient testimony to readings. Thus his note on Acts xiii. 33 is the following : – “Quidam codices habebant in psalmo secundo, quidam, in psalmo, omisso numero. At Hieronymus palam testatur in Actis hunc psalmum qui apud nos secundus est, primi titulo citari ; et hinc sumit* argumentum, aut primum illum, Beatus vir, præfationis additur vice, aut illum et proxi mum, Quare fremuerunt, eundem esse psalmum.¹ Proinde nos his autoribus germanam restituimus scripturam.” Thus he gives the reading of the passage ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ τῷ πρώτῳ, considering that the absolute evidence which he possessed was sufficient authority to warrant his changing one word. This may be taken as an illustration how Erasmus would have formed his conclusions if ancient evidence had been before him. This is one of the places in which the commonly received text did not follow Erasmus : had it been otherwise, this reading would have been certainly upheld, maintained, and defended by those who now condemn it as an innovation.²
* The above citation is from Erasmus’s first edition, in which, however, this word is erroneously printed “sumunt” ; it is corrected in the edition of 1522, in which this note also is expanded.
¹ The edition of 1522 here adds , “Idem prodit ferme Hilarius , illud ingenue tes tatus, hunc primum citari a Paulo. Quin et divus Augustinus in commentariis indicat hunc potius esse unum quam primum.”
² It is proper to add, for the reader’s information, that πρώτῳ is expressly stated to be the reading by Origen, and that it is found in the Codex Bezæ (D). Tertullian also ( Adv. Marc. lib. iv. 22) cites the passage as from the first psalm.
(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 28-29)
(b) In Acts xiii. 33, Lachmann reads ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ γέγραπται τῷ πρώτῳ, on which Tischendorf remarks that he has given this reading sine teste. The argument on the reading , however, divides itself into two parts ; i. the order of the words ; and ij. the numeral to be adopted, whether δευτέρῳ or πρώτῳ. i. then, as to order , Lachmann follows A B C and other authorities ; as to the numeral he gives that which Origen expressly mentions as being the reading of the passage, * and which is found in D , although in a different order . Thus it is hardly correct to say that Lach mann has edited the passage sine teste , as there is separate evidence in favour of each part : this is not the place for fully discussing the best form of the reading of this passage ; it should , however , be noticed that the reading mpóro was edited by Erasmus (relying on the express authority of Jerome) , by Griesbach , and by Tischendorf himself . In fact , it can hardly be doubted but that devtépo has been a correction , to avoid a supposed difficulty , by accommodating the passage to the present order and division of the Psalms.
This passage affords a good specimen of the cases in which an absolute and express early testimony to a particular reading pos sesses a paramount importance there are other passages in which Lachmann might suitably have given more weight to this kind of testimony . It may also be noticed that , in balancing conflicting witnesses to readings , in those passages which were liable to alteration from parallel texts , a less amount of evidence may pre ponderate in favour of those readings which represent those passages as not precisely the same in their phraseology.
The contrast which Lachmann drew between his own mode of editing and that of Griesbach was , that Griesbach’s inquiry had been , “ Is there any necessity for departing from the common reading ? ” while his own was , “ Is there any necessity for depart ing from the best attested reading ? ” To this it might suitably be added , Ought we not to use all means for obtaining evidence as accurately as possible ? And , Ought we not , if relying on ancient evidence , to take it in its widest extent ?
* The words of Origen on Ps . ii . are the following : — Avoin évtuxóvres éßpalkois avtıypá φοις , έν μέν τω ετέρω εύρομεν αρχήν δευτέρου ψαλμού ταύτα εν δε τώ ετέρω συνήπτετο το πρώτω . και εν ταις πράξεσι δε των αποστόλων τό , Υιός μου ει συ , εγώ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε , ελέγετο είναι του πρωτου ψαλμού . ως γαρ γέγραπται , φησίν , εν πρώτω ψαλμω κτλ . Ed . de la Rue , ij . , 537-8 .
(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 109-110)