Jump To ECM Entry     Online Commentary Introduction

Split a/b

GC: There is weak and scattered support for the singular (a,c).

TP: It appears more likely that the singular was turned into plural following the plurals in the preceding verse.[1] The TFD for c, however, shows that in this case the plural in variant d changed to singular, perhaps because the focus was felt to be on Peter. Hence, TP for a is not strong enough to outweigh the weakness of the attestation.

TP seems to be ambiguous rather than in favor of the singular. As you explain some scribes apparently changed from plural to singular (from reading d to c; and I assume also from reading b to reading a as reflected in some texts as 254 and 1642) and perhaps this has to do with the focus on Peter in the context and in particular in verse 23, Τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον ἀναστὰς ἐξῆλθεν (Peter's departure from Joppe) with the counterpart in v. 24, τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον  ⸀εἰσῆλθεν  (Peter's arrival in Caesarea). Looking just at A-related witnesses, there seem to be more for b (and bo) than a. I wonder if this is not a case where TP is split and coherence is in favor of reading b.