What strikes me here is the levelling of συναγαγοντες to a sigmatic aorist and the mangled ανηγγειλον form combining aorist stem with imperfect ending. The rest looks as if it means “all that God had done for them with their souls,” a padding-out of the shorter text. Whether Aramaic comes into it, or the Psalms passage (I’d have thought not), I couldn’t say.
Thanks Michael.
I have a more difficult question.
Acts 15:4 Byz Textform R-P 2005
παραγενομενοι δε εις ιερουσαλημ
απεδεχθησαν υπο της εκκλησιας
και των αποστολων και των πρεσβυτερων
ανηγγειλαν τε οσα ο θεος εποιησεν μετ αυτων
Acts 15:4 NA27 παραγενόμενοι δὲ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ
παρεδέχθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας
καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων,
ἀνήγγειλάν τε ὅσα ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν.
Acts 15:4 Bezae
παραγενομενοι δε εις ϊερουσαλημ
παρεδοθησαν μεγως ϋπο της εκκλησιας
και των αποστολων και των πρεσβυτερων
απηγγειλαντες οσα εποιησεν ο θς μετ αυτω(ν)
In this context παρεδοθησαν μεγως ϋπο της εκκλησιας is a crux. Almost everyone simply corrects it to παρεδέχθησαν. Not Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger, they read παρεδοθησαν in the negative sense of “delivered/handed over” but what are we are we to do with ϋπο της εκκλησιας? R-C & R-H suggest the impossible, that ϋπο της εκκλησιας means under the authority of the church and the whole clause means they were given over to the church’s authority. I can’t accept ϋπο as a marker of the persons or agency delivered to with παραδίδωμι. That is ungreek, no?
So I see two problems. What does παρεδοθησαν mean in this context? Assuming that ϋπο is a marker of agency with passive παραδίδωμι, how do we make sense out of the church handing over (or whatever) Paul and Barnabas and to whom? Perhaps the the general membership of the church handed them over to the leadership but that sounds to me like a desperate solution.
here is the context in NA27
Acts 15:1 Καί τινες κατελθόντες ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐδίδασκον τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι, ἐὰν μὴ περιτμηθῆτε τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωϋσέως, οὐ δύνασθε σωθῆναι. 2 γενομένης δὲ στάσεως καὶ ζητήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Βαρναβᾷ πρὸς αὐτούς, ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Παῦλον καὶ Βαρναβᾶν καί τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ περὶ τοῦ ζητήματος τούτου. 3 Οἱ μὲν οὖν προπεμφθέντες ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διήρχοντο τήν τε Φοινίκην καὶ Σαμάρειαν ἐκδιηγούμενοι τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ ἐποίουν χαρὰν μεγάλην πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. 4 παραγενόμενοι δὲ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ παρεδέχθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀνήγγειλάν τε ὅσα ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν. 5 Ἐξανέστησαν δέ τινες τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων πεπιστευκότες λέγοντες ὅτι δεῖ περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς παραγγέλλειν τε τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον Μωϋσέως. 6 Συνήχθησάν τε οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἰδεῖν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τούτου.
Acts 15 Byz Textform R-P 2005
1 και τινες κατελθοντες απο της ιουδαιας εδιδασκον τους αδελφους οτι εαν μη περιτεμνησθε τω εθει μωυσεως ου δυνασθε σωθηναι 2 γενομενης ουν στασεως και ζητησεως ουκ ολιγης τω παυλω και τω βαρναβα προς αυτους εταξαν αναβαινειν παυλον και βαρναβαν και τινας αλλους εξ αυτων προς τους αποστολους και πρεσβυτερους εις ιερουσαλημ περι του ζητηματος τουτου 3 οι μεν ουν προπεμφθεντες υπο της εκκλησιας διηρχοντο την φοινικην και σαμαρειαν εκδιηγουμενοι την επιστροφην των εθνων και εποιουν χαραν μεγαλην πασιν τοις αδελφοις 4 παραγενομενοι δε εις ιερουσαλημ απεδεχθησαν υπο της εκκλησιας και των αποστολων και των πρεσβυτερων ανηγγειλαν τε οσα ο θεος εποιησεν μετ αυτων 5 εξανεστησαν δε τινες των απο της αιρεσεως των φαρισαιων πεπιστευκοτες λεγοντες οτι δει περιτεμνειν αυτους παραγγελλειν τε τηρειν τον νομον μωυσεως 6 συνηχθησαν δε οι αποστολοι και οι πρεσβυτεροι ιδειν περι του λογου τουτου
παρεδοθησαν just a mindless slip for παρεδεχθησαν, I’d say. At it stands, cannot mean anything other than “they were handed over by the church,” which can hardly be what’s intended.
I remarked earlier:
“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.”
This reinforces that impression. So I wouldn’t pay any heed to them.
The only problem I see here is μεγως. Is it for μεγαλως?
απηγγειλαντες obviously corrupt for –αν τε. And presumably απ- corrupt for αν-, though απ- gives sense and in a less horrendously copied manuscript could be taken as a real variant.
I can’t imagine how you mean to translate such a hopelessly garbled text.
How much (if anything) is there in this MS that securely represents a different underlying text? This is a genuine question, asked out of ignorance.
That is exactly what I came up with after spending some time with Danker and LSJ to see if παραδίδωμι could be wrenched away from that reading.
I remarked earlier:
“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.”This reinforces that impression. So I wouldn’t pay any heed to them.
The only problem I see here is μεγως. Is it for μεγαλως?
απηγγειλαντες obviously corrupt for –αν τε. And presumably απ- corrupt for αν-, though απ- gives sense and in a less horrendously copied manuscript could be taken as a real variant.
I can’t imagine how you mean to translate such a hopelessly garbled text.
Well Fitzmyer[1] (Acts, Anchor Bible) didn’t agree. He provides a running translation of just the Western variants, not the entire text. And he decides what form of the Western text to translate, not always Bezae. Fitzmyer is not an advocate of the Western text or codex Bezae. But he takes it seriously enough to read it.
How much (if anything) is there in this MS that securely represents a different underlying text? This is a genuine question, asked out of ignorance.
About all I could say without rereading a large pile of books on Bezae in Acts which i read in the late 1990s and don’t have on hand ($300 monographs), the Western text is found in a two Uncial Codexs D, E, and some old Latin versions, some Patristic citations, Syriac versions, it isn’t isolated to one manuscript. The Western text doesn’t just smooth out difficulties like the Byzantine text. It actually alters the story line. The Alexandrian text apologists have always trivialized this aspect but if you read through it one variant at a time you see that it isn’t just padding that is being added.
The argument I find appealing is that Acts circulated in different forms from the beginning. The original is a moot question. I don’t find the consensus for the Alexandrian version at all impressive. There are places where Alexandrian version is just as unreadable as what we have been talking about in Bezae. In those places the translations quietly adopt Western or Byzantine readings for their versions.
[1] Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b.1920) was one the leading NT scholars in the western world, certainly in the English speaking world.
The Text of Codex Bezae is remarkably lucid 99% of the time. If you want a nightmare try translating Agamemnon. We “read” Agamemnon in this forum a while back. Only two of us survived to the end. Bezae by comparison is no problem at all.
Thanks Stirling (if I have that right). You are my authority on the Beza codex. I’m glad to know not all of it is as whacky as the bits you’re presenting here. Does it have unique readings that have a claim to be considered as other than amplifications, rewrites, retellings, whathaveyou? And what is its status as a representative of the “Western” text? — Well, I know there are about as many answers to these two questions as there are NT scholars, so feel free just to ignore.
I wonder how you think it compares with the Oxyrhynchus Acts papyrus. Might be interesting to set them side by side?
Interesting you think the Byzantine text smoothes out difficulties. I would expect that to be right. Have you discussed this with Byzantine adherents like uberdwayne and markos? I really have no place on this forum myself. They’re in agreement with you about the Alexandrian text. Myself I wonder how much justification there really is for lumping the textual instantiations from Egypt together under that label. Besides which, older doesn’t mean better, of course, but at the same time it would be foolish to disdain such early evidence. What we’re after is the most plausible account of the transmission, arrived at without presuppositions, and as yet I haven’t seen any that fully satisfies. Not that I’ve read very much, but most of what I have read is already invested in the answer and mostly interested in combating opposing views.
The idea that “Acts circulated in different forms from the beginning” sounds likely enough, based on my knowledge of other text traditions. (The same’s true of the gospel story itself, in a way, only there the various versions are more distinct, as we can see from the ones we have.) The way it starts suggests that there may in fact have been an “original,” but it’s more interesting and certainly more productive to track the various forms that the narrative subsequently took than to try to recover the putative original. It’s how it circulated that matters, after all. It was what it was, at any given time and place. And how it was used etc.
Not clear what part of my quoted post Fitzmyer didn’t agree with. Just the last sentence (which you address in your subsequent)?
What is that μεγως, by the way?
Thanks for all the info.
Michael
BTW, I am not an expert on anything what so ever. Least of all textual criticism of the NT.
RE: discourse issues, I done a little reading in text-linguistics over 25 years. Very little by comparison to professional academic linguists.
Fitzmyer (AB), C.K. Barrett (ICC) and many others consider the study of Codex Bezae not optional if someone is undertaking an exegetical project in the Acts of the Apostles. This is the #1 most complicated book in the NT canon for textual criticism and Codex Bezae is the star of the show. In other words this is the “mother of all” text critical problems in the NT, the Western Text of Acts.
Clarification: I am not advocating the western text in the way Robinson-Pierpont advocate the Byzantine text. I just study the textual witnesses which have semantically significant variants. I read NA27, SBLGNT, Robinson-Pierpont, what ever I can get my hands on. This Bezae project has nothing to do with advocacy. I am also preparing for a project (for someone else) which entails translating variants. Bezae is something I started on 15 years ago and gave up. This time I will finish it.
RE: μεγως
don’t know, kind of looks like an an adverb related to μέγας.
RE: παραδίδωμι in Acts 15:4 I have relegated it to footnote which calls it a “nonsense” reading about which there is some minor disagreement in the world of Bezae scholarship. I don’t have access to Blass or any of the older advocates of Bezae and the Western Text. I couldn’t read Blass if I had him since I don’t read German.
You’ll certainly save yourself a lot of time if you don’t read German.
Blass was a first-rate scholar, however, and I’d take anything he wrote very seriously. (Haven’t read him on this though.)
No of course cod.Bezae can’t be ignored.
For μεγως I suggested μεγαλως.
I am looking at the various permutations of ὁ χριστός, ὁ Ἰησοῦς in Acts 17:3, the reading presented in NA26/27 UBS3/4 and SBLGNT is found only in B-03-Codex-Vaticanus + cop[sa]?.
SBLGNT: Acts 17:1 Διοδεύσαντες δὲ τὴν Ἀμφίπολιν καὶ τὴν Ἀπολλωνίαν ἦλθον εἰς Θεσσαλονίκην, ὅπου ἦν συναγωγὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 2 κατὰ δὲ τὸ εἰωθὸς τῷ Παύλῳ εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία διελέξατο αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν, 3 διανοίγων καὶ παρατιθέμενος ὅτι τὸν χριστὸν ἔδει παθεῖν καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὃν ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν.
17:3 Bezae
διανοιγων και παρατιθεμενος
οτι ⸆ χρν εδει παθειν
και αναστηναι εκ νεκρων
και οτι ουτος εστιν χρς ιης
ον εγω καταγγελλω ϋμειν
I looked in everything I had on hand for an explanation of what difference it makes if χριστός is anarthrous. The syntax metalanguage doesn’t help here. There appear to be several ways to translate B-03. So contrasting B-03 with D-05 in a translation becomes messy.
B-03 Reading
ESV “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
Fitzmyer (AB, p591) “This Jesus, whom I am proclaiming to you, is the Messiah!!”
Barrett (ICC, notes vl.2 p811) “This man is the Messiah, namely Jesus, whom I am now proclaiming to you.”
F.F. Bruce (Acts 1988, p322) “This is the Messiah—this Jesus, whom I proclaim to you.”
Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger (Message Bezae: vl.3, p307): “The Christ is this man, Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you.”
D-05
J. M. WILSON, D.D (1923) “this is Christ, Jesus whom, said he, I proclaim unto you”
Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger (Message Bezae: vl.3, p307): “This is the Christ, Jesus, the one whom I proclaim to you.”
Johannes Greber (1937[1]) “This Jesus of who I am preaching to you,” he concluded, “is the Messiah.”
Western Text:
Fitzmyer “This is Jesus, whom I am proclaiming to you” Note: Fitzmeyer (AB 592, WT notes) claims the western text omits ὁ χριστός which I could find no evidence to support.
MY QUESTION:
What should we do in the translation of the Bezae reading to demonstrate the impact on the syntax of removing both articles: from ὁ χριστός, ὁ Ἰησοῦς? Keep in mind the contrast would be established against the rendering of the ESV “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
[1] In the introduction, quoted below’ to the English translation of Johannes Greber’s German NT) (1937) he claims to have used Codex Bezae as his primary source. However the English translation in Acts 17:3b conforms to the other English versions that render ὁ χριστός, ὁ Ἰησοῦς from B-03-Vaticanus. I haven’t read the entire introduction. Quoting him is in no way to be construed as lending any authority to his translation. He just happens to have been one of the few who claim to have translated Codex Bezae.
This led me to a close study of the manuscripts of the New Testament. I found
that the text of Codex D (Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis), which unfortunately
has several gaps, most nearly approaches the truth. It was consequently the one
that I used as the hasis for my translation.
I find this statement mildly absurd. Codex Bezae is a major representative of the Western Text which demonstrates the most undisciplined sort of textual revision. A text in which both errors and intentional rewriting abound. I have about 6 chapters left and will be glad to part company with Codex Bezae once I complete a first draft.
SBLGNT: Acts 17:2 κατὰ δὲ τὸ εἰωθὸς τῷ Παύλῳ εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία διελέξατο αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν, 3 διανοίγων καὶ παρατιθέμενος ὅτι τὸν χριστὸν ἔδει παθεῖν καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὃν ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν.
In verse two it seems that Bezae makes the syntax perhaps a little easier making Paul the subject of εἰσῆλθεν rather than a dative with κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς:
BEZAE
και κατα το ει†σ†ωθος
ο παυλος εισηλθεν προς αυτους
επι σαββατα τρια διελεχθη αυτοις εκ των γραφω(ν)
In Acts 17:4 the syntax of Bezae is challenging.
SBLGNT Acts 17:4 καί τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπείσθησαν καὶ προσεκληρώθησαν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Σιλᾷ, τῶν τε σεβομένων Ἑλλήνων πλῆθος πολὺ γυναικῶν τε τῶν πρώτων οὐκ ὀλίγαι.
Bezae Acts 17:4
και τινες εξ αυτων επισθησαν
και προσεκληρωθησαν
τω παυλω και τω σιλαια τη διδαχη
πολλοι των σεβομενων
και ελληνων πληθος πολυ
και γυναικες των πρωτων ουκ ολιγαι
Resisting the suggestion that we change the word order (conjectural emendation) my provisional translation reads the dative τη διδαχη as a qualifier telling us the means or instrument operating in the winning over god-fearers , greeks and wives of shakers and movers.
Bezae Acts 17:4 And some of them were persuaded [and through their teaching many of the god-fearers joined Paul and Silas with a large number of Greeks and not a few of the wives of leading men.]
I am assuming that τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν refers to Jews, the smaller group of converts. Some English translators make this inference explicit in their translation.
NA27 Acts 17:10 Οἱ δὲ ἀδελφοὶ εὐθέως διὰ νυκτὸς ἐξέπεμψαν τόν τε Παῦλον καὶ τὸν Σιλᾶν εἰς Βέροιαν, οἵτινες παραγενόμενοι εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀπῄεσαν.
BEZAE omits τε and Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger ignore it in their translation. This is noteworthy since they make every possible effort to find differences between Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus.
I note that virtually no English version from Tyndale on makes τε visible in Acts 17:10. Three exceptions are Jay P. Green, Young’s Literal which render τόν τε Παῦλον καὶ τὸν Σιλᾶν “both Paul and Silas.” and most recently the Lexham English Bible which reads:
10 Now the brothers sent away > both Paul and Silas > at once, during the night, to Berea.
I am tempted to put {…} around “Paul and Silas” which indicates that this more accurately represents Bezae than the Alexandrian text. And I being pedantic? Perhaps Jay P. Green, Young and Lexham are just plain wrong. There has to be a reason why the vast majority of English versions ignore this.
17.2 Yes o Paulos eases the syntax. Omission of the connective most definitely doesn’t.
17.4 th didaxh would be more natural with epeisqhsan but where it stands can only be taken as you take it.
But polloi twn sebomenwn kai seriously garbles the meaning.
17.10 Bez. insignificantly simplifies in omitting the te (which in English is more naturally rendered “Paul and Silas” but yes strictly speaking is “both P&S”).
Thanks Michael.
New question.
Acts 17:24b-25
Bezae
ουτος ουρανου και γης κς ϋπαρχων
ουκ > εν χειροποιητοις ναοις κατοικοι
ο δε > ϋπο χειρων ανθρωπινων θεραπευεται
προσδεομενος
οτι ουτος ο δους πασι ζωην και πνοην
και τα παντα εποιησεν εξ ενος αιματος
παν εθνος ανθρωπου
κατοικειν επι παντος προσωπου της γηςSBLGNT
ουτος ουρανου και γης υπαρχων κυριος
ουκ εν χειροποιητοις ναοις κατοικει
ουδε > υπο χειρων ανθρωπινων θεραπευεται
προσδεομενος τινος,
αυτος διδους πασι ζωην και πνοην και τα παντα·
εποιησεν τε εξ ενος
παν εθνος ανθρωπων
κατοικειν επι παντος προσωπου της γης,
I have decided to go with the most difficult reading[1] ο δε, taking the article as belonging to the participle προσδεομενος. My question is about a negative particle ουκ used with a compound sentence joined by δε. Any reason why ουκ cannot negate both halves of a compound sentence? I know this could be a simple error of hearing or reading but I am choosing to treat it as the the most difficult reading. I don’t think the syntax is impossible but i am open to correction on this and would like to hear about it.
Translation (rough draft):
24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples made by man 25 > [and need to be served by human hands]> , {since} > [this God] > gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 […]1 He made from one > [blood] > every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
[1] Keep in mind I am not establishing the “original text” here, I am simply reading and translating Bezae. When I accept a reading, I just make a judgment that it was intentional. I am not prone to accept corrections found in a later hand since they almost always move the in the direction of the Alexandrian Text.
You’d need more than a “tolerant” approach to syntax for this. With ο δε it can only mean is “… he doesn’t live in manmade temples. But he is served by human hands, in need, ….” Quite impossible to take ο with προσδεομενος with the main verb θεραπευεται intervening. It’s an obvious error for ουδε. Can’t be anything else.
More interesting is what follows, that οτι ουτος ο δους. I expect that’s just a garbling too (oti for tinos, unless simply for ti [unattested?], outos for autos, o dous for didous), but it does fact give sense of a kind: “because he, the one who gave everyone life and breath and everything, made …” (NB no te after epoihsen.) At least it’s grammatical – even if by accident.
Things like this give the impression of a mindless copyist confronted with a difficult-to-read or damaged exemplar. But I know from other passages you’ve quoted that there are other things that suggest actual rewriting, a phenomenon found in other non-classical narrative texts. Was that at an earlier stage, perhaps? I haven’t made a comparison with other so-called Western MSS, nor with others, and I don’t know what scholars say. This is not my field, as I’ve said before.
You speak of cases of “nearly impossible syntax in the GNT.” In Acts, you mean? I’d be interested in examples.
Incidentally, I’m assuming your chunking of the text (a very instructive thing to do with any Greek) is yours, not the manuscript’s. Extremely interesting if not.
Michael,
That was what I suspected, looking at Smyth yesterday i didn’t see any discussion of OU/OUK with a compound sentence and I couldn’t recall every seeing this. Greek always repeats the negative in some form. On the article with a participle with a finite verb in middle I will look for an example, I am almost certain that happens. But it doesn’t matter for this case since every ACTS resource I have on hand agrees that this is an error in copying OUDE.
Thanks for the Help with this.
I rephrased the question and took it to the other place where I knew there was some people who had studied discontinuous syntax:
What if we make the question more general. Is it possible for a noun phrase to interrupted by the finite verb, where the noun phrase is an argument for that verb? In other words, the noun phrase is either a subject or object of the finite verb and the constituents that make up the noun phrase are located both before and after the finite verb.
several responses already:
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2248&sid=1a8e110a4313d819e6d85d297f3f65b4
The answer to your “more general” reformulation is yes, there are millions of examples.
But art.+pple split either side of the main verb, I say again, no. You can have any amount of stuff between art.+pple if it’s governed by the pple, but the main verb can’t be sandwiched within it, and that goes double for NT Greek. Read as much as you like on discontinuous syntax and hyperbaton.
Seek and ye shall not find.
Acts 19:28-29
trying to figure out what to do with αισχυνης:
και συνεχυθη ολη η πολις αισχυνης
Bezae
ταυτα δε ακουσαντες
και γενομενοι πληρεις θυμου
δραμοντες εις το αμφοδον εκραζον λεγοντες
μεγαλη ⸆ αρτεμις εφεσιων
και συνεχυθη ολη η πολις αισχυνης
ωρμησαν δε ομοθυμαδον εις το θεατρον
και συναρπασαντες γαϊον και αρισταρχον
μακεδονες συνεκδημους παυλου
SBLGNT
Ακουσαντες δε
και γενομενοι πληρεις θυμου εκραζον λεγοντες·
Μεγαλη η Αρτεμις Εφεσιων.
και επλησθη η πολις της συγχυσεως,
ωρμησαν τε ομοθυμαδον εις το θεατρον
συναρπασαντες Γαιον και Αρισταρχον
Μακεδονας, συνεκδημους Παυλου.
Looking at the scenario in the social historical cultural context I would assume that αισχυνης refers to indignation in response to the insult delivered to the local goddess Αρτεμις Εφεσιων by Paul’s preaching. How to say this in the style of the ESV is not immediately forthcoming. indignation is not a gloss for αισχυνης in the english versions I have looked at.
Johannes Greber (1937): rendered from Greber’s German Translation of Bezae so the English is not necessarily the product of the man who’s name it carries.
29 Very soon it was rumored
all over the city that a great indignity had been done to Artemis,
and the people with one accord rushed into the theatre, dragging
with them the Macedonians Gaius and Aristarchus, who were Paul’s
travelling-companions.
Some difficulties arise in the syntax of Acts 19:40
NA27: Acts 19:40-41 καὶ γὰρ κινδυνεύομεν ἐγκαλεῖσθαι
στάσεως περὶ τῆς σήμερον, μηδενὸς αἰτίου ὑπάρχοντος
περὶ οὗ [οὐ] δυνησόμεθα ἀποδοῦναι λόγον
περὶ τῆς συστροφῆς ταύτης.
καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἀπέλυσεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.
Bezae Cambridge:
και γαρ κινδυνευομεν σημερον ενκαλεισθαι
στασεως μηδενος αιτιου οντος
περι ου δυνησομεθα αποδουναι λογον
της συντροφης ταυτης
και ταυτα ειπων απελυσε την εκκλησιαν
The easy part is the moment of adverb σημερον forward and removal of περὶ τῆς before the adverb. Canon Wilson’s translation reflects this movement whereas J. Greber’s does not. In fact at this point Greber’s English version is a rendering of anything but Bezae.
The difficult part, the part which all the technical commentaries address but do not solve is the syntax of the Alexandrian Text with special attention to [οὐ]. At this point our English versions of Bezae don’t appear much different than the English versions of the Alexandrian Text. I suspect the reason for this is the the Alexandrian Text versions do not follow the the Alexandrian Text. The pretend the second οὐ isn’t there. I spent hours today pouring over Richard Pervo (Acts Hermmenia), C. K. Barrett (Acts ICC), Parsons-Culy (Acts Baylor), D. Bock (Acts Baker), F.F. Bruce (Acts 1988), H. Alford, H. A. W. Meyer, what ever else was on hand. Several recently published works cited Barrett’s “solution” to the problem but they didn’t seem to agree on what Barrett was suggesting we should do here. Barrett’s paraphrase on page 839-840 is not all that helpful since it is not particularly obvious what he intends to represent with the paraphrase. It doesn’t look like he is addressing the textual variants. Don’t have the time now to transcribe it.
Canon J. M. WILSON 1923
For indeed we are in danger this day to be accused of riot, there being no cause for which we shall be able to give an account of this concourse. And when he had thus spoken he dismissed the assembly.
Bezae J. Greber 1937 English Version of a German TranslationWe are in danger of being charged with rioting
because of to-day’s happenings, for there are no grounds on which
we can justify this disorderly gathering." With these words he dismissed
the assembly.