Acts Bezae English Translation

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

This is a project I started and gave up on in the late 1990s. I have a library copy of the commentary and monograph on Bezae Acts by JOSEP RIUS-CAMPS and JENNY READ-HEIMERDINGER. I am not following their conclusions about Bezae, just using it as a reference along with Ropes edition Bezae D 05 (Greek text).

1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, and > ordered to proclaim the gospel. > 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. 4 And > being found > {with them} he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, {he said}, “ heard > from my mouth> ; 5 for John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, > whom you are about to receive at Pentecost> , not many days from now.”

Textual notations
<…> reflects the text of Codex Bezae as amended by modern editor.
Bold Type: translation reflects a reading found in Codex Bezae.
{…} translation has been left unchanged but it more closely represents Codex Bezae than the Alexandrian Text.

The Alexandrian Text is something like SBLGNT, W&H, NA27. The Bezae transcription for this passage reads:

source: http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml#B02K16

1:1τον μεν πρωτον λογον εποιησαμην
περι παντων ω θεοφιλε
3 ων ηρξατο ιης ποιειν τε
και διδασκειν 2αχρι ης ημερας
ανελημφθη εντειλαμενος τοις αποστολοις
6 δια πνς αγιου ους εξελεξατο και εκελευσε
κηρυσσειν το ευαγγελιον
οις και παρεστησεν εαυτον ζωντα
9 μετα το παθειν αυτον εν πολλοις τεκμηριοις
τεσσερακοντα ημερων
οπτανομενοις αυτοις και λεγων
12τας περι της βασιλειας του θυ
και συναλισκομενος μετ αυτων
παρηνγειλεν αυτοις απο ϊεροσολυμων
15μη χωριζεσθαι αλλα περιμενειν
την επαγγελειαν του πατρος
ην ηκουσα φησιν δια του στοματος μου
18οτι ϊωανης μεν εβαπτισεν ϋδατι
ϋμεις δε εν πνι αγιω βαπτισθησεσθαι
και ο μελλεται λαμβανειν
21ου μετα πολλας ταυτας ημερας
εως της πεντηκοστης

2

your project is to make an english translation of Bezae? the whole thing? or just acts?

3

Just Acts, which is a daunting project. Almost every decision involves exegesis. Take for example what Ropes marks as a nonsense reading in Acts 1:6:

SBLGNT Οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες ⸀ἠρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες· Κύριε, εἰ ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ;

Bezae

μεν ουν συνελθοντες
επηρωτων αυτον λεγοντες
κε ει εν τω χρονω τουτω
αποκαταστανεις εις την βασιλειαν του ϊσραηλ

6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord will you at this time restore [to the kingdom of Israel]?”

JOSEP RIUS-CAMPS and JENNY READ-HEIMERDINGER interpret this as a question about filling the empty place among the twelve apostles left by Judas Iscariot. If they were going to judge the twelve tribes of a restored Israel then there needed to be twelve of them. Ropes on the other hand marks †εις† as a nonsense reading, scribal error. RIUS-CAMPS & READ-HEIMERDINGER give examples of this syntax from the LXX.

This is the only example which shows ἀποκατάστηθι without a direct object:

Jer. 29:6 ἡ μάχαιρα τοῦ κυρίου; ἕως τίνος οὐχ ἡσυχάσεις; ἀποκατάστηθι εἰς τὸν κολεόν σου, ἀνάπαυσαι καὶ ἐπάρθητι.

Here are some others that show similar ideas to what is found in Acts Bezae if we accept RIUS-CAMPS & READ-HEIMERDINGER understanding of the text.

1Esdr. 1:29 καὶ ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὸ ἅρμα τὸ δευτέριον αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἀποκατασταθεὶς εἰς Ιερουσαλημ μετήλλαξεν τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν τῷ πατρικῷ τάφῳ.

Jer. 16:15 ἀλλά Ζῇ κύριος ὃς ἀνήγαγεν τὸν οἶκον Ισραηλ ἀπὸ γῆς βορρᾶ καὶ ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν χωρῶν, οὗ ἐξώσθησαν ἐκεῖ· καὶ ἀποκαταστήσω αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν, ἣν ἔδωκα τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν.

Jer. 23:8 ἀλλά Ζῇ κύριος ὃς συνήγαγεν ἅπαν τὸ σπέρμα Ισραηλ ἀπὸ γῆς βορρᾶ καὶ ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν χωρῶν, οὗ ἐξῶσεν αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ, καὶ ἀπεκατέστησεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν.

Jer. 24:6 καὶ στηριῶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς εἰς ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἀποκαταστήσω αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην εἰς ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτοὺς καὶ οὐ μὴ καθελῶ καὶ καταφυτεύσω αὐτοὺς καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐκτίλω·

4

Acts 1:7

Bezae
και ειπεν προς αυτους
ουχ ϋμων εστιν γνωναι
χρονους η καιρους
ους ο πατηρ εθετο εν τη ϊδια εξουσια

SBLGNT

Acts 1:6 Οἱ μὲν οὖν συνελθόντες ⸀ἠρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες· Κύριε, εἰ ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Ἰσραήλ;
Acts 1:7 εἶπεν ⸀δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· Οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστιν γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ καιροὺς οὓς ὁ πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ,

Codex Vaticanus (B 03) omits δὲ

There is a potential discourse level significance indicated by the substitution και for δὲ after μὲν οὖν in verse 6. But I don’t know what it means, much less how to represent it in English, especially when the base translation in english appears to ignore δὲ:

He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.

The speech introduction: και ειπεν προς αυτους in Bezae shows that Jesus’ response wasn’t an answer to the question asked. Codex Vaticanus, with no conjunction could also be understood in that manner so it is best to just ignore it.

I read Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger treatment of this verse and then looked at Levinsohn’s treatment of και and δὲ in narrative. I came away with the distinct impression that the word development as a description of the difference between και and δὲ isn’t really going to fly in the face of evidence to the contrary. Levinsohn (2000, chapter 6) claims there are too many counter examples where και is used in narrative contexts where development is indicated. The result is a lack of confidence that any unambiguous discourse distinction can be specified for the alternation between και and δὲ.

5

Bezae tells a slightly different story in Acts 1:9

Bezae:
καυτα ειποντος αυτου
νεφελη ϋπεβαλεν αυτον
και απηρθη απο οφθαλμων αυτων


And > [while he was saying these things a cloud enveloped him and he was lifted up] > out of their sight.

compare it to SBLGNT:
καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν βλεπόντων αὐτῶν ἐπήρθη
καὶ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

And when he had said these things, as they were looking on he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

The rendering of ϋπεβαλεν as enveloped was suggested by reading both Barrett (Acts ICC) and B. M. Metzger (Textual Commentary 1975). The phrase απο οφθαλμων αυτων isn’t found in the other “Western” witnesses. It is not reasonable to conclude from this that the “Western” text does not support the apostolic eyewitness of ascension. The very next verse has them staring into the sky and two men in shining garments telling them what they saw and what they will see at the second coming.

6

Wrapped up Chapter 3 today which gives me enough samples to figure out how I will handle the apparatus and footnotes. Chapter three was a challenge. Still not sure about how to handle Acts 3:24

Acts 3:24 SBLGNT
καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ προφῆται ἀπὸ Σαμουὴλ καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ὅσοι ἐλάλησαν καὶ κατήγγειλαν τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας.

Acts 3:24 Robinson Pierpont
και παντες δε οι προφηται απο σαμουηλ και των καθεξης οσοι ελαλησαν και κατηγγειλαν vaτας ημερας ταυτας

Acts 3:24 NA27
καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ προφῆται ἀπὸ Σαμουὴλ καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ὅσοι ἐλάλησαν καὶ κατήγγειλαν τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας.

Acts 3:24 Codex Bezae
και παντες οι προφηται απο σαμουηλ
και των κατεξης ο ελαλησεν
και κατηνγειλαν ταυ ημερας ταυτας

Ropes corrects ελαλησεν to ἐλάλησαν which I have tentatively rejected based partially on my understanding of how Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger read this verse. Here is my current take on the translation.

Acts 3:24 ESV
And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.

Acts 3:24 Bezae
24 And all the prophets, from Samuel and those who came after him, they also proclaimed > [what he said > concerning> ] > these days.

Note: > [what he said] > refers to Moses prediction of a future prophet.

7

Acts 7:4 difficult question

Acts 7:4 Bezae

τοτε αβρααμ ’ εξελθων εκ γης χαλδαιων
και κατωκησεν εν χαρραν
κακει ην μετα το αποθανειν τον πατερα αυτου
και > μετωκησεν > αυτον εις την γην ταυτην
εις ην ϋμεις νυν κατοικειται
και οι πατερες ημων οι προ ημων

Acts 7:4 Bezae Then > [Abraham] > went out from the land of the Chaldeans {and} lived in Haran. > [And he was there] > after his father died > [and he migrated to]> ** this land in which you are now living > [and our fathers before us]> .



Acts 7:4 NA27
τότε ἐξελθὼν ἐκ γῆς Χαλδαίων
κατῴκησεν ἐν Χαρράν.
κἀκεῖθεν μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ
μετῴκισεν > αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην
εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς νῦν κατοικεῖτε,

Acts 7:4 ESV
Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living.

**Notes on the English text for Bezae

Codex Bezae recasts the story and makes Abraham the probable agent in the relocation. Abraham is most recent agent and the verb used in Bezae is one where the agent himself relocates. However, the pronoun “him” in “God removed him” ESV creates a problem. It cannot refer to Abraham’s father given the verb used doesn’t take an object.

Perseus analysis of μετῴκησεν:

μετοικέω (change one’s abode): aor ind act 3rd sg
LSJ entry
μετοικέω
μετοικ-έω, Locr. μεταϝοικέω IG9 (1).333.6:—
change one’s abode, remove to a place, c. acc. loci, E.Hipp. 837 (lyr.): c. dat. loci, settle in, Pi.P.9.83.
abs., to be a settler, reside in a foreign city, IG l.c., etc.; τοὺς μετοικοῦντας ξένους E.Supp. 892; opp. πολιτεύεσθαι, Lys.12.20; μ. γῆς A.Supp.609; μ. ἐν τῇ πόλει Lys.5.2; ἐν Μιλήτῳ ἔτη πέντε SIG633.60 (Milet., ii B.C.); ταύτῃ Ar.Av.1319 (lyr.); Ἀθήνῃσι D.49.26; παρ’ ἑτέροις Isoc.Ep.8.4.

Perseus analysis of μετῴκισεν:

μετοικίζω (lead settlers to another abode): aor ind act 3rd sg
LSJ entry
μετοικίζω
μετοικ-ίζω,
lead settlers to another abode, Arist.Oec. 1352a33, OGI264.7 (Pergam.), Act.Ap.7.4; σφᾶς αὐτοὺς εἰς Ῥώμην Plu.Rom.17: metaph., τὰς φρένας μ. Melanth. Trag.1:—Pass., Aristeas 4:—Med., Μυτιλήνη σῶμα μετῳκίσατο IG12(2).443 (Mytil.); also, go to another country, emigrate, Ar.Ec.754, App.Pun.84: metaph., τὸν κλόνον εἰς ὃν ἡ ψυχὴ μετῳκίσατο Ph.1.232.
later intr. in Act., SIG880.45 (iii A.D.).

The difference between μετωκησεν Bezae and μετῴκισεν NA27 is the vowel pair η-ι which are often common variants in Bezae. So it could just be an error. But combining it with the recent assertion of Abraham as the subject/agent Acts 7:4a τοτε αβρααμ εξελθων and the recasting of participles as finite verbs with inserted conjunctions the over all discourse is changed in manner that supports Abraham as the agent in μετωκησεν. The accusative pronoun αυτον after μετωκησεν is the fly in the ointment.

I am still working on this. Haven’t made up my mind about it.

8

Looking ahead to Acts 7:5 we see a sentence where God must be the assumed subject:

Acts 7:5 Bezae

και ουκ εδωκεν αυτω κληρονομιαν εν αυτη
ουδε βημα ποδος
αλλ επηγγειλατο δουναι αυτω
εις κατασχεσιν αυτην και τω σπερματι αυτου
μετ αυτον ουκ οντος αυτω τεκνου

So the commentators reason backwards from this to 7:4b μετωκησεν αυτον εις την γην ταυτην and supply God as the subject-agent of μετωκησεν. I can see how this would make sense. Bezae makes the switch to Abraham as subject-agent explicit in 7:4a but switches back to God as the subject-agent without making it explicit.

9

Hope you won’t mind if I venture some comments on the passges you mention. I should make clear at the outset that I’m only going by your posts.

Acts 1.6 εις must just be a mistake. The LXX passages you quote give no support to it. (Very dodgy in any case to compare Luke’s Greek with LXX Greek.) ανακαταστηθι at Jer.29.6 is effectively passive (2nd aor.), lit. “be restored to your sheath”, so this is irrelevant. Similarly αποκατασταθεις in Ezra. The rest, with transitive forms of the verb, all have a direct object. Without a direct object in Acts 1.6 the version with εις is simply unintelligible. The attempt to supply an understood object (a replacement 12th) is strained beyond breaking point, especially when its sense runs radically counter to the main tradition.

1.7 A common interchange, and not a significant difference. οι μεν ουν validates δε, as you indicate.

1.9 υπεβαλεν must just be a copying error for υπελαβεν. I’ve seen other instances of this inversion with -λαβ- / -βαλ-.

3.24 ο ελαλησεν lacks a construction, and must be wrong. The position of και precludes it from being object of κατηγγειλαν and in any case τας ημερας ταυτας has to be the object. It’s untranslatable, except as the ungrammatical nonsense that it is: “… came after him what he said also proclaimed these days.”

From what I’ve seen so far Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger are intent on making sense of nonsense. A better policy would be to recognize it as nonsense.

7.4 Confusion of -ωκησεν and -ωκισεν is common (the difference in pronunciation had collapsed, and etacism is everywhere), and I don’t think there can be any doubt that that’s the case here. (Esp. easy following κατωκησεν.) That would be so even without auton (impossible with metwkhsen), which clinches it.
What makes it a fairly interesting corruption is kakei hn and the kai before metwkhsen. It looks as if kakeihn was corrupted from kakeiqen and then the kai added to connect the two verbs. The unsignalled switch of subject to “God” may have assisted, the copyist assuming that Abraham was still the subject, just as he (rightly in this case) took Abraham to be the unsignalled subject in the previous sentence.
The kai before κατωκησεν, on the other hand, I’d guess to be a mere copying error, by dittography, kaikat-. (Any chance it was cancelled?)

Hope this helps.

10

Thanks for looking at this and taking the time to post. I think from a discourse perspective the switich from QEOS to Abraham and back to QEOS can be understood if we assume that QEOS is the global VIP and Bezae made Abraham explicit to remove possible confusion, clarifications like this are found throughout the Western text. Now why Bezae didn’t make switch back to QEOS explicit is another question.

I agree that many of these variants follow predicable patterns of vowel exchanges. There is a temptation to translate a variant which makes sense in the context even when it could be explained by one of these predictable patterns. If it looks like a change that could be explained on semantic or discourse level then I will probably go ahead and translate it.

Thanks for posting.

11

Acts 10:15 Bezae
φωνησας δε παλιν εκ δευτερου προς αυτον
α ο θς εκαθαρισεν σοι μη κοινου

The correctors of Codex Bezae let the dative σοι stand. Which I find interesting. That would make it an indirect object of εκαθαρισεν. NO?

“What God has made clean [some semantic relation] you, do not treat as common.”

The question is what semantic relation. Is the voice from heaven saying the changed status of the ritually impure food types is somehow related to Peter? It is being made pure for Peter or on Peter’s behalf? This sounds a little too late 20th century to be a part of Acts.

Comments are certainly welcome.

12

Sure, the dative of advantage or the so-called ethical dative, which Smyth says are related.

Smyth, Greek Grammar, 1486. > Dative of Feeling (Ethical Dative).—The personal pro nouns of the first and second person are often used to denote the interest of the speaker, or to secure the interest of the person spoken to, in an action or statement.
““μέμνησθέ μοι μὴ θορυβεῖν” pray remember not to make a disturbance” P. A. 27b, ““ἀμουσότεροι γενήσονται ὑ_μῖν οἱ νέοι” your young men will grow less cultivated” P. R. 546d, ““τοιοῦτο ὑ_μῖν ἐστι ἡ τυραννίς” such a thing, you know, is despotism” Hdt. 5.92 η, Ἀρταφέρνης ὑ_μῖν Ὑστάσπεός ἐστι παῖς Artaphernes, you know, is Hystaspes’ son 5. 30. The dative of feeling may denote surprise: ““ὦ μῆτερ, ὡς καλός μοι ὁ πάππος” oh mother, how handsome grandpa is” X. C. 1.3.2. With the dative of feeling cp. “knock me here” Shakesp. T. of Sh. 1. 2. 8, “study me how to please the eye” L. L. L. i. 1. 80. τοὶ surely, often used to introduce general statements or maxims, is a petrified dative of feeling (= σοί).

a. This dative in the third person is very rare (αὐτῇ in P. R. 343a).

b. This construction reproduces the familiar style of conversation and may often be translated by I beg you, please, you see, let me tell you, etc. Sometimes the idea cannot be given in translation. This dative is a form of 1481.

I notice that my N.A. 27 does not even refer to the reading. The more difficult reading is to be preferred, except when it is not.

13

Acts 10:17 Bezae

ως δε εν εαυτω > εγενετο > διηπορει ο πετρος
τι αν > ει > το οραμα ο ειδεν
και ειδου > οι ανδρες οι απεσταλμενοι > απο > κορνηλιου
επερωτησαντες > την οικιαν του σιμωνος
επεστησαν επι τον πυλωνα

The syntax changes in Bezae. εν εαυτω εγενετο is found in X.Anab.

Xenophon Anabasis

Κλέαρχος ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐγένετο· καὶ παυσάμενοι ἀμφότεροι κατὰ
χώραν ἔθεντο τὰ ὅπλα.

1.5.17
On hearing these words Clearchus > came to his senses> , and both parties ceased from their quarrel and returned to their quarters.

Peter comes out of his dream perplexed about what it means.

14

Mark,

I have some sort of permanent disability (mental) when it comes to case semantics in the traditional framework. The metalanguage seems perfectly calculated to be completely incomprehensible to people who came to greek from a linguistics background. In other words, I just don’t get it. My mind instantly fogs over when I hear the words “ethical dative”. Most of Smyth’s grammar is very helpful but case semantics always involves the a major shift in ones point of view. A shift I am incapable or perhaps just unwilling to make.

Ancient Greek Inside Out: The Semantics of Grammatical Constructions. Guide …
By Gert J. C. Jordaan 2013

Just ran into this, sampled some treatment of the dative case which looks to me kinda like GGBB redux. But not to be unfair, I have only read a few pages.

Thanks.

Another Edit:

Perhaps we could just say that given the vision Peter just experienced the “unclean” animals (foods) were being made “clean” FOR Peter — a mid 20th cent. Swiss or German theologian would have a clever way of wording this — as preparation for his encounter with Cornelius and the expansion of the gospel to the gentile world. So it isn’t just for Peter alone but in this context it is in some special way focused on Peter because Peter is going to be a difficult person to bring around on this matter.

15

I expect the manuscript’s σοι is just a phonetic error for συ (quite common – no pun intended), but since it makes sense (“what God made clean for you”–just as you say in your edit) I guess it could be classified as an ancient variant, and you’ll want to translate it.

10.17 could also be a mistake, committed when διηπορει was taken to be main verb (and hence the και added before ιδου to make a new sentence), but here the Bez. codex’s text has to be taken seriously and could even be argued to be authentic (though I very much doubt it).

I sympathize with your coming from a linguistics background and encountering all these traditional grammatical labels for case usage. “Ethical” dative in particular is a category to which datives tend to be assigned by default when they can’t be neatly slotted into any of the more definite categories. But I’m sure you could map everything on to a more linguistically based framework if you tried.
Historical linguistics can help. The various functions of the ablative, for example, are divvied up in Greek between the dative and the genitive, so you have ablatival datives and genitives along with non-ablatival ones. So there are real semantic differentiations with firm boundaries, as well as fuzzier ones such as “ethical” dative and “dative of advantage or disadvantage.” Other distinctions, e.g. between objective and subjective and possessive genitives, are no less semantically real and discourse analysis (which I gather is where you’re coming from) shouldn’t have much trouble dealing with them even if it reconfigures the metalinguistic labels.

16

This isn’t exactly the same semantic nuance of the dative but genral idea is similar.
Acts 10:28c SBLGNT κἀμοὶ ὁ θεὸς ἔδειξεν μηδένα κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον λέγειν ἄνθρωπον

In this case the dative is an expected argument with the verb ἔδειξεν.

Another kind of spelling variant which looks like phonetic spelling is the switch from double gama to nu gama. I have seen this more than once. Also an alternation between pi and phi.


Thanks again.

17

Acts 10:46 Codex Bezae
ηκουον γαρ αυτων λαλουντων
[…] ιν τον θν
ειπεν δε ο πετρος

SBLGNT
ηκουον γαρ αυτων λαλουντων γλωσσαις
και μεγαλυνοντων τον θεον.
τοτε απεκριθη Πετρος·

The leaf of Bezae is here:
http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/749

Not sure what is going on with the line 22 […] ιν τον θν
http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml#B02K16

It looks like the text was partially erased but is still readable. I am wondering if it was written by the first hand or added later. The letter forms look at least superficially similar to those of the first hand. But I am no expert on such matters. It isn’t listed as a corrector in the apparatus or in Swanson. So what is this writing which is readable but faint like it was scraped away? Is it a late addition to the manuscript?

EDIT
H. Alford in his apparatus notes that the text of the first hand was obliterated and subsequently one of the correctors entered the text that is readable.

18

Acts 11:1-2 Bezae is almost a complete rewrite:

The greek text

NA27
Acts 11:1 Ἤκουσαν δὲ
οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ
οἱ ὄντες κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν
ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ.
Ὅτε δὲ ἀνέβη Πέτρος εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ,
διεκρίνοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς

Codex Bezae
11:1ακουστον δε εγενετο
τοις αποστολοις και τοις αδελφοις
οι εν τη ϊουδαια
οτι και τα εθνη εδεξατο τον λογον του θυ
ο μεν ουν πετρος δια ικανου χρονου
ηθελησαι πορευθηναι εις ϊεροσολυμα
και προσφωνησας τους αδελφους
και επιστηριξας αυτους πολυν λογον
ποιουμενος δια των χωρων
διδασκων αυτους ος και κατηντησεν αυτοις
και απηγγιλεν αυτοις την χαριν του θυ
οι δε εκ περιτομης αδελφοι διεκρινοντο

first draft translation:

1 Now [it became known to the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea] that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 [Then after sufficient time, Peter was ready to travel to Jerusalem. So he called the brothers and strengthened them with many words teaching them throughout the region. Then he came to them (in Jerusalem) and reported to them the grace of God. But the brothers from the circumcision] party criticized him, saying,

19

Illustrating the risks involved of relying in the apparatus in NA26-28 C. K. Barrett made a mistake in his note on Acts 11:6 (Acts 1-15. ICC vl. 1, p. 539), Barrett states that ερπετα is omitted in D* and goes on to explain why this happened. But only the article τα was omitted. The note in NA26-27 is correct but you have to count words right in the sequence. τα before ερπετα is word #9 in the NA26-27 sequence < τα τετραποδα της γης και τα θηρια και τα ερπετα και τα>. Words #1, #9 and #12 are missing in D*.

Cambridge Bezae Transcription
http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae-Greek.xml#B02K16

Bezae Acts 11:6
εις ην αθενισας κατενοουν
και ειδον ⸆ τετραποδα της γης
και τα θηρια και ⸆ ερπετα
και πετεινα του ουρανου



Acts 11:6 SBLGNT
εις ην ατενισας κατενοουν
και ειδον τα τετραποδα της γης
και τα θηρια και > τα > ερπετα
και τα πετεινα του ουρανου

You can verify this looking at the image. It’s about two thirds down the page with τα written above the line by the corrector. The image is here:
http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/751

I verified this reading in H. Alford, NA26, NA27, Ruben Swanson, the Cambridge Bezae Transcription and the Cambridge image of the manuscript.

20

Acts 14:27 Bezae

παραγενομενοι δε
και συναξαντες την εκκλησειαν
ανηγγειλον οσα ο θς εποιησεν αυτοις
μετα των ψυχων αυτων
και οτι ηνυξε τοις εθνεσιν θυραν πιστεως

Acts 14:27 SBLGNT
παραγενομενοι δε και συναγαγοντες την εκκλησιαν
ανηγγελλον οσα εποιησεν ο θεος
μετʼ αυτων
και οτι ηνοιξεν τοις εθνεσιν θυραν πιστεως.

The wording in Bezae is not particularly lucid:
ο θ[εο]ς εποιησεν αυτοις
μετα των ψυχων αυτων

Lots of speculation about the pronoun αυτοις and μετα των ψυχων. Once again Semitism is called on to explain the difficulty with μετα των ψυχων αυτων. F.F. Bruce (Acts 1988:281 n59) cites:

Psa. 65:16 δεῦτε ἀκούσατε καὶ διηγήσομαι,
πάντες οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν,
ὅσα ἐποίησεν τῇ ψυχῇ μου.

This doesn’t solve the enigma in regard to αυτοις in

ο θς εποιησεν αυτοις
μετα των ψυχων αυτων

which is explained by some as “a proleptic pronoun in Aramaic.”