Acts 4:32

Acts 4:32 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]407
Τοῦ δὲ πλήθους τῶν πιστευσάντων ἦν ἡ καρδία καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ μία· καὶ οὐδ’ εἷς τὶ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ ἔλεγεν ἴδιον εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἅπαντα κοινά.

*    Elzevir & Beza οὐδ’ | Stephanus : οὐδὲ
*    Elzevir: τὶ | Stephanus : τι

Acts 4:32 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q87f1rc3-4|ιβ
Του δε πληθους τω- πιστευσαντων ην καρδια και ψυχη μια και ουδε εις τι των ϋπαρχοντω- αυτω ελεγεν ϊδιον ειναι αλλ ην αυτοις απαντα κοινα

Acts 4:32 [Codex Alexandrinus (Royal MS 1 D VIII) (A02) (5th century)]

Acts 4:32 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]79ac3|Ε
Του δε πληθους των πιστευσαντων ην καρδια και ψυχη μια και ουδε εις τι των ϋπαρχοντω- αυτω ελεγοεν ϊδιον ειναι αλλ ην αυτοις παντα κοινα

Acts 4:32 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]

Acts 4:32 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]

Acts 4:32 [Codex Laudianus (MS. Laud Gr. 35) (E08) (6th century)]31v-32r|70-71
Του δε πληθ(ους??) των πιστευσ(αντων??) ην η καρδια και η ψυχη μια και ουκ ην χωρισμος εν αυτοις τις ουδε εις τι των ϋπαρχον(των) αυτω ελεγεν ϊδιον ειναι αλλ ην αυτοις απαντα κοινα

Critical Apparatus :

(1) η καρδια : E
(2) OMIT η : א, B

(3) η ψυχη : E
(4) OMIT η : א, B

(5) ουδ : Elzevir, Beza
(6) ουδε : א, B, Stephanus
(7) ουκ ην χωρισμος εν αυτοις τις ουδε : E

(8) ελεγεν : א, B1, E
(9) ελεγον : B*

(10) απαντα : א, E
(11) παντα : B


A Textual Commentary On Acts 4:32

(a) ουκ ην χωρισμος εν αυτοις τις in Codex Laudianus – Woide in his Prolegomena to the Codex Alexandrinus has discussed the supposed Latinizing of this MS (Codex Laudianus). with much ability ; and so convincingly, that Michaelis, who had long held the contrary opinion, was thoroughly satisfied. The passage on which Michaelis had rested as being the clearest proof of Latinizing was Acts iv. 32., where after the words καὶ ψυχὴ μία there is the addition καὶ οὐκ ἦν χωρισμὸς ἐν αὐτοῖς τις ; in the same place in the Codex Bezæ is added καὶ οὐκ ἦν  διάκρισις ἐν αὐτοῖς οὐδεμία. These Michaelis had supposed to be two different Greek translations of an addition which had originated in the Latin : but in these MSS. the Latin of this place is as different as the Greek; for the Cod. Laudianus has et non erat separatio in eis ulla, while in Cod. Bezæ it stands et non erat accusatio in eis ulla ; the latter of these renderings showing that it is a non-intelligent version from the Greek of the same MS. “Nec fuit inter illos discrimen ullum,” is the form in which this addition had been cited by Cyprian. Woide’s examination of other passages in this MS. is very valuable and very interesting to those who wish to see how accuracy with regard to critical facts may be arrived at. (S. P. Tregelles, Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 187)

(b) οὐδ’ εἷς vs οὐδὲ εἷς – On the ellsion of ε when the next word begins with a vowel (observed by Tdf. in eight instances, neglected i n fifty-eight), see Tdf. Proleg. p. 96 ; cf. WH App. p. 146 ; W. [G. B. Winer, Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Revised and Authorized Translation of the seventh (German) edition of the original, edited by Lünemann, 1883] §5, 1a ; B. [Alexander Buttmann, Grammar of the New Testament Greek, 1873 p. 10. sq. (Thayer, Lexicon p. 461, c2)




This entry was posted in 05. Πράξεις Ἀποστόλων. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.