110 Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger (ὥστε) πιστεῦσαι B P74 ) rell | θαυμᾶσαι … καὶ πιστεῦσαι E mae || πιστεύειν D, crederent d. B03 reads the aorist infinitive, viewing the result of the speaking glo- bally, as one of collective belief. With the present, D05 views the result rather as the onset of a process that spread through a large number of people. 14.2 (οἱ δὲ) ἀπειθήσαντεϛ Ἰουδαῖοι B P74 ) A C Ψ 33. 81. 323. 440. 1175. 2344 | -θοῦντεϛ Ἰουδ. E H5 L P 049. 056. 614 M || ἀρχισυνάγωγοι τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντεϛ τῆϛ συναγωγῆϛ D, archysinagogae Ioudaeorum et principes synagogae d (syhmg). B03 leaves the identity of those who created trouble vague – they were Jews who did not believe, as distinct from the many who did. The verb ἀπειθέω is used twice elsewhere in similar circumstances, cf. 17.5 D05; 19.9; it is equivalent to ἀπιστέω, cf. 17.12 D05; 28.24, where the anto- nyms πείθομαι and πιστεύω are used. D05 is specific, as on other occasions (cf. 4.5 D05 B03; 5.35), mentio- ning the various types of synagogue leaders. Since a distinction is made, the former, οἱ ἀρχισυνάγωγοι, should be understood as referring to men whose function was to conduct worship and whose role was religious in so far as it was internal to the synagogue services; and the latter, οἱ ἄρχοντεϛ, to the men whose role was to supervise affairs in a more gene- ral and civil sense. Although it seems that the same person could, and did at times, carry out both functions, they are nonetheless distinct roles (A. Büchler, ‘Archon [Archontes or Archonteia]’, Jew. Enc., II, pp. 86–87; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People People, II, pp. 434–46; III, pp. 100–101); cf. Delebecque, Les deux Actes, p. 330). ἐπήγειραν B P45.74 ) rell | ἐπ. διωγμόν E 614. 1611. 2147. 2412 pc gig syh || ἐπήγαγον αὐτοῖϛ διωγμὸν κατὰ τῶν δικαίων D, incitaverunt persecu- tionem adversus iustos d (syhmg). D05 is once again more specific, explaining not only that the Jewish leaders incited persecution against the believers but also that it was ‘persecution against the Righteous’, where Luke uses a term that chal- lenges the traditional Jewish understanding of who were ‘the Righteous’ or ‘the Just’, since they would normally be understood as the faithful of Israel. The second clause, the turning of the Gentiles against the brethren, stands in parallel to the first. The two statements do not, however, simply repeat each other: the first clause refers to an opposition against the Jewish Jesus-believers that the leaders were able to incite among the Jews of the synagogue by virtue of their authority among their own people; and the second, to a more indirect pressure they had to apply in order to stir up