The Variant Readings of the Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles 119 14.12 (ἐκάλουν) τε B P74 ) rell || δέ D 181. 242. 467. 945. 1739. 1854. 1891. 2492 pc e gig; Chr. B03 introduces with τε additional information about the identity of Paul and Barnabas as gods, whereas D05 uses δέ to signal a parenthesis, anticipating the following development (Levinsohn, Textual Connections, pp. 123–27; cf. p. 91). This is the second of three successive statements introduced with τε in B03 (cf. 14.11, 13). τὸν Βαρναβᾶν B P74 ) A C* 81. 88. 614. 1175. 2412 | τ. μὲν Βαρ. C2 E H L P Ψ 049. 056. 1739 M || Βαρναβᾶν D. The importance of Barnabas is highlighted in D05 by the absence of the article before his name, especially in contrast to the presence of the article before the name of Paul; the arthrous reference to Paul indicates that he is the implicit topic of the narrative throughout this incident. ∆ία B ) A C P Ψ 049. 33vid. 945 M || ∆ίαν D P74 E H L 056. 81. 88. 440. 547. 1175. 1739. 2344 al. Although ∆ία is the usual accusative form of the name of Zeus, in D05 it is declined in line with the accusative form of Ἑρμῆν, the name given to Paul. The variety of support suggests that it was not merely accidental but a valid alternative. ἐπειδὴ (αὐτὸϛ ἦν) B D P74 )2 rell || ἐπεί ) 927. )01 also reads ἐπεὶ δέ against ἐπειδή in B03 at Lk. 7.1 (D05 words the sentence differently, without either form of the conjunction). From Luke’s use elsewhere (cf. ἐπεί Lk. 1.34; ἐπειδή Acts 13.8 D05, 46; 14.12; 15.24), it may be suggested that ἐπειδή implies a stronger sense of cause and effect than does ἐπεί. (This would explain why some manuscripts at 13.46 attest a correction of ἐπειδή to ἐπειδὴ δέ [)01c D05B] rather than to ἐπεὶ δέ which is, indeed, the reading of other manuscripts – to have made the correction ἐπεὶ δέ would have weakened the force of ἐπειδή.). ὁ (ἠγούμενοϛ) B P74 ) rell || om. D C* 056. 467. 1518. The presence of the article in B03 before ἠγούμενοϛ causes this noun to be the subject and Paul (αὐτόϛ) to be the complement, so that the statement answers the question ‘who was the interpreter of the message?’ and not ‘what was Paul?’. D05, in contrast, does answer this second question: ἠγούμενοϛ functions as a present participle in a periphrastic construction, ἦν ἠγούμενοϛ, and so focusses on Paul’s activity notrather than the identity of the interpreter.