1) (without the long addition) f35 (A,B (58.9%) HF,RP,NU
2) - 36): 7 και κατα τον ημετερον νομον ηθελησαμεν κριναι παρελθσν δε λυσιας ο χιλιαρχος μετα πολλης βιας εκ την χειρων ημων αρηγαγεν κελευσας τους κατηγορους αυτου ερχεσθαι επι σε. The five principle variations hinge on the three underlined words; they are:
2) κριναι … επι σε (9.7%) [6 variants]
8) κριναι … επι σου (10.5%) [14 variants]
22) κριναι … προς σε (5.3%) [8 variants]
30) κρινειν … επι σου (4.4%) [4 variants]
34) κρινειν … επι σε (1.7%) OC,TR [3 variants] [OC is in small print]
37) replaces απηγαγεν with five words, plus two other changes:
κριναι … επι σου (3.2%) [2 variants]
39) completely rewrites the material:
κριναι … προς σε (3.4%) CP [6 variants]
(eight further variants) (2.9%) [8 variants].
Variant 2) presumably has the best claim to be the standard form of the addition: κριναι clearly bests κρινειν, επι clearly bests προς, σε barely bests σου. [Although variant 8) appears to be slightly stronger than 2) numerically, the 14 internal variants, compared to 6, effectively diminish its credibility. The main variant in 2) is far stronger than that of 8).] It is also attested by syr and latpt. However, although some form of the addition commands 41.1% of the MSS, there are no less than 51 variants!
What about the context? The addition makes good sense, and it fits nicely. But, it is not really necessary; that information Felix already knew. The text reads quite well without the addition also. I conclude that the short form was judged to be abrupt or incomplete, giving rise to the addition; presumably the Autograph did not contain it. Since Tertullus was an orator he may well have actually said what is in the addition, plus a good deal more besides, but did Luke write it? (The incidents recorded in Acts were well known by many contemporaries, and there were many written accounts in circulation [Luke 1:1], so it was entirely predictable that a variety of historically correct material would be added, here and there, to Luke's account.)
The external evidence, though divided, is adequate to resolve this case: 58.9% against a severely fragmented 41.1%. The ancient versions, being divided, do not help us much this time. Although 59% is not a strong majority, by any means, still, the severe fragmentation of the 41% sort of leaves variant 1) without a worthy opponent. Variant 1) wins in “Antiquity”, “Number”, “Variety” and “Continuity”, so I have no doubt that it is original. [The reading of the TR, variant 34), really has little to commend it.] 8 By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” 9 And the Jews also joined in the attack, affirming that these things were so.
*24:1 This effort represented a considerable inconvenience. They were really determined.
†24:5 Wow! They are giving Paul a reputation!
‡24:6 We have here a bothersome set of variants, and the only way to do justice to the situation is to give the evidence in Greek. Even those who do not read Greek can get some notion as to the high level of confusion. The translation of the addition (more or less) may be had from AV or NKJV.1) (without the long addition) f35 (A,B (58.9%) HF,RP,NU 2) - 36): 7 και κατα τον ημετερον νομον ηθελησαμεν κριναι παρελθσν δε λυσιας ο χιλιαρχος μετα πολλης βιας εκ την χειρων ημων αρηγαγεν κελευσας τους κατηγορους αυτου ερχεσθαι επι σε. The five principle variations hinge on the three underlined words; they are: 2) κριναι … επι σε (9.7%) [6 variants] 8) κριναι … επι σου (10.5%) [14 variants] 22) κριναι … προς σε (5.3%) [8 variants] 30) κρινειν … επι σου (4.4%) [4 variants] 34) κρινειν … επι σε (1.7%) OC,TR [3 variants] [OC is in small print] 37) replaces απηγαγεν with five words, plus two other changes: κριναι … επι σου (3.2%) [2 variants] 39) completely rewrites the material:κριναι … προς σε (3.4%) CP [6 variants](eight further variants) (2.9%) [8 variants].Variant 2) presumably has the best claim to be the standard form of the addition: κριναι clearly bests κρινειν, επι clearly bests προς, σε barely bests σου. [Although variant 8) appears to be slightly stronger than 2) numerically, the 14 internal variants, compared to 6, effectively diminish its credibility. The main variant in 2) is far stronger than that of 8).] It is also attested by syr and latpt. However, although some form of the addition commands 41.1% of the MSS, there are no less than 51 variants! What about the context? The addition makes good sense, and it fits nicely. But, it is not really necessary; that information Felix already knew. The text reads quite well without the addition also. I conclude that the short form was judged to be abrupt or incomplete, giving rise to the addition; presumably the Autograph did not contain it. Since Tertullus was an orator he may well have actually said what is in the addition, plus a good deal more besides, but did Luke write it? (The incidents recorded in Acts were well known by many contemporaries, and there were many written accounts in circulation [Luke 1:1], so it was entirely predictable that a variety of historically correct material would be added, here and there, to Luke's account.)The external evidence, though divided, is adequate to resolve this case: 58.9% against a severely fragmented 41.1%. The ancient versions, being divided, do not help us much this time. Although 59% is not a strong majority, by any means, still, the severe fragmentation of the 41% sort of leaves variant 1) without a worthy opponent. Variant 1) wins in “Antiquity”, “Number”, “Variety” and “Continuity”, so I have no doubt that it is original. [The reading of the TR, variant 34), really has little to commend it.]
§24:10 I follow the best line of transmission in reading “equitable”, albeit with only 25% of the Greek manuscripts here. Almost all versions follow the 75% in omitting the word.
*24:15 Some 6.6% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘of the dead’ (as in NIV, NASB, LB, etc.).
†24:15 Everyone will be resurrected, but the two resurrections are very different—which is why Paul applied himself.
‡24:19 According to Roman law, the accusers had to be there.
§24:23 Both Lysias and Felix knew that Paul was not really guilty; and the Jews had figured out that they were not going to get what they wanted from either of them. Felix should have released Paul, but it was not part of the Plan.
*24:24 Some 45% of the Greek manuscripts omit ‘Jesus’, as in AV and NKJV.
†24:25 To believe into Jesus would require changes that Felix was not prepared to make.
‡24:27 During those two years Paul had been eating at the empire's expense, but apparently this did not represent a problem to Felix. But why did Felix want to do the Jews a favor? Perhaps the Jews could influence the choice of governor.