Acts 1:13

1:13 When ¹  they had entered Jerusalem, ²  they went to the upstairs room where they were staying. Peter ³  and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James were there. ⁴ 

Acts 1:1

Jesus Ascends to Heaven

1:1 I wrote ⁵  the former ⁶  account, ⁷  Theophilus, ⁸  about all that Jesus began to do and teach

Colossians 1:20-22

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ⁹  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Paul’s Goal in Ministry

1:21 And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your ¹⁰  minds ¹¹  as expressed through ¹²  your evil deeds, 1:22 but now he has reconciled you ¹³  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

[1:13]  ¹ tn Grk “And when.” Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, καί (kai) has not been translated here.

[1:13]  ² tn The word “Jerusalem” is not in the Greek text but is implied (direct objects were often omitted when clear from the context).

[1:13]  ³ sn In the various lists of the twelve, Peter (also called Simon) is always mentioned first (see also Matt 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16) and the first four are always the same, though not in the same order after Peter.

[1:13]  ⁴ tn The words “were there” are not in the Greek text, but are implied.

[1:1]  ⁵ tn Or “produced,” Grk “made.”

[1:1]  ⁶ tn Or “first.” The translation “former” is preferred because “first” could imply to the modern English reader that the author means that his previous account was the first one to be written down. The Greek term πρῶτος (prwtos) does not necessarily mean “first” in an absolute sense, but can refer to the first in a set or series. That is what is intended here – the first account (known as the Gospel of Luke) as compared to the second one (known as Acts).

[1:1]  ⁷ tn The Greek word λόγος (logos) is sometimes translated “book” (NRSV, NIV) or “treatise” (KJV). A formal, systematic treatment of a subject is implied, but the word “book” may be too specific and slightly misleading to the modern reader, so “account” has been used.

[1:1]  ⁸ tn Grk “O Theophilus,” but the usage of the vocative in Acts with ὦ (w) is unemphatic, following more the classical idiom (see ExSyn 69).

[1:20]  ⁹ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally important witnesses have it (Ì⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 Ï). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as original. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In short, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original.

[1:21]  ¹⁰ tn The article τῇ (th) has been translated as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).

[1:21]  ¹¹ tn Although διανοία (dianoia) is singular in Greek, the previous plural noun ἐχθρούς (ecqrous) indicates that all those from Colossae are in view here.

[1:21]  ¹² tn The dative ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς (en toi" ergoi" toi" ponhroi") is taken as means, indicating the avenue through which hostility in the mind is revealed and made known.

[1:22]  ¹³ tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì⁴⁶) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.