sage from α to β or from β to α; and the independent derivation of β and δ from α, or of α and δ from β, would be still more incredible. There is nothing in the sense of δ that would tempt to alteration: all runs easily and smoothly, and there is neither contradiction nor manifest tautology. Accidental omission of one or other clause would doubtless be easy on account of the general similarity of appearance (και...ηλθον...αυτο...), and precedents are not wanting for the accidental omission of even both clauses in different documents or groups of documents. On the other hand the change from πρὸς αὐτόν of δ to αὐτοῦ of β is improbable in itself, and doubly improbable when ἐκεῖ has preceded. Supposing however α and β to have preceded δ, the combination of the two phrases, at once consistent and quite distinct in meaning, would be natural, more especially under the influence of an impulse to omit no recorded matter; and the change from αὐτοῦ to πρὸς αὐτόν (involving no change of historical statement, for the place denoted by αὐτοῦ was the place to which the Lord had gone) might commend itself by the awkwardness of αὐτοῦ (itself a rare adverb in the New Testament) after συνέδραμον ἐκεῖ, and by the seeming fitness of closing this portion of narrative with a reference to the Lord Himself, who is moreover mentioned in the opening words of the next verse.
137. As between α and β the transcriptional probabilities are obscure, Συνῆλθον αὐτοῦ is certainly otiose after συνέδραμον ἐκεῖ, and a sense of the tautology might lead to change; but the changes made by scribes hardly ever introduce such vivid touches as this of the arrival of the multitude before the apostles. On the other hand προῆλθον αὐτούς might be altered on account of the unfamiliarity of the construction or the unexpectedness of
