198 Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger 323. 1739. 1891 al, Iohannen d l p vgmss sa.— (τὸν) καλούμενον B P74 )* A E H L P 049. 056 M || ἐπικ- D, qui cognominatur d )2 C Ψ 33. 81. 614. 1175. 1241. 1505. 1739 al. B03 uses the verb βούλομαι in the imperfect, ‘he wanted’; D05 has the verb βουλεύομαι also in the imperfect, which takes on the sense of ‘decided, resolved’ (see Bailly, βουλεύομαι, ‘avec l’inf. décider de’). B03 plays down the significance of Barnabas’ wish further, by saying that he ‘wanted to take along, in addition, John called Mark’, where the name of John is arthrous since he has already been mentioned as the companion of Barnabas and Paul. D05 is more categorical and the conflict is more evident: he ‘was resolved to take along with them John who was recognized as Mark’; the absence of the article before John is an indication that the choice was not expected (Read-Heimerdinger, The Bezan Text, p. 129). The force of the distinction between the verb καλέω and the compound ἐπικαλέω lies in the fact that Luke consistently uses the latter to refer to the function of a character that is either active (present, cf. Barnabas, 1:23; John-Mark, 12:12; 15:37) or dormant (aorist, cf. Barnabas, 4:36; John-Mark, 12:25). 15:38 ἠξίου B P74 ) rell || οὐκ ἐβούλετο λέγων D P127, nolebat dicens d l (syp aeth). Once again, B03 plays down the tension, saying that Paul ‘held that’, (ἀξιόω, ‘consider fitting’, B-A-G, 2a; with the imperfect conferring the sense of insistence). D05 is more categorical in expressing Paul’s opposition to Barnabas, using the verb βούλομαι. (τὸν) ἀποστάντα B P74 ) rell || ἀποστήσαντα D (ἀποστατήσαντα A P127 | hiis qui discesserunt d!). B03 reads the intransitive second aorist participle of ἀφίστημι. If the first aorist of D05, ἀποστήσαντα, is transitive, it is obviously erroneous since there is no complement (cf. Delebecque, Les deux Actes, p. 98, ‘impossible parce que transitif’). However, the D05 reading may be compared with the first aorist participle διαστήσαντες at 27:28 where it is clearly intransitive. On that basis, there is a case for accepting the D05 reading here as displaying an accepted, though rare, use. In any case, it is the lectio difficilior, which is more likely to have been corrected by other manuscripts than to be a corruption of the intransitive form of an exemplar. (συνελθόντα) αὐτοῖς B P74 ) rell || om. D P127 (simul venerunt d!).— (ἔρ- γον) εἰς ὃ ἐπέμφθησαν D (ἐφ) P127, in quo missi erant d c w vgCMRT || om. B P74 ) rell.