Acts 16:13

Acts 16:13 evnomi,zomen proseuch,n {C}

In view of the wide range of variables in lexicography, syntax, palaeography, and textual attestation, the difficulties presented by this verse are well-nigh baffling.

Was evnomi,zeto, supported by the later Byzantine text, original and subsequently altered, as Ropes argued, in order to avoid the less usual sense of the verb (evnomi,zeto = “according to custom”; evnomi,zomen = “we thought”; evdo,kei = “it seemed”)? How shall the following proseuch,@n# be spelled and construed? The nominative as subject of an impersonal verb, though not impossible, is certainly not as common as the accusative, especially with ei=nai following. Furthermore, in the uncial book-hand it is perfectly possible to take proseuch, as dative case, “to be at prayer.” Finally, the textual critic is confronted with the bewildering diversity of variant readings of the early uncial manuscripts, as well as by the perplexing circumstance that what is good external support for proseuch, is relatively poor as regards the previous word.

Changing m to n Blass (ad loc.) conjectured that the original read ou- evno,mizon evn proseuch|/ ei=nai, “where they were accustomed to be at prayer” (cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, § 397, 2).

Faced with these difficulties the Committee decided that the least unsatisfactory solution was to print evnomi,zomen proseuch.n ei=nai, even though A² and Y appear to be the only uncials that give precisely this reading. It was felt, however, that the manifestly erroneous reading evno,mizen of î⁷⁴ a probably testifies to an earlier evnomi,zomen, and that proseuch, in î⁷⁴ A B may have resulted from accidental omission of the horizontal stroke over the h, signifying a final n.