We talked about visions last Sunday night so I thought I would post this study that I wrote awhile back. It's longer than a blog post. Wade through it if you're interested.
The Reoccurring ὅραμα-event In Acts: A Lukan Literary Pattern
Stacy Abernathy
Evangelist
Mountain Community
This study seeks to identify a Lukan literary pattern in Acts where an epiphanic experience described as a vision involves two men. I further limit the investigation to those accounts in which Luke describes the vision as a ὅραμα. Because the ὅραμα is a primary reoccurring feature in a complex of events in each case, I will consistently refer to the typical complex of events as the “ὅραμα-event.” In addition to identifying a pattern, I will consider common purpose. I have identified three qualifying incidents: (1) Saul and Ananias (Acts 9:1-19), (2) Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10:1-33), and (3) Paul and the man from Macedonia (Acts 16:6-10, 18:9-11). Recognizing that the primary function of the first two qualifying incidents is to communicate to Theophilus (Acts 1:1) legitimacy of Paul's ministry as compared to Peter's, I desire to look into the details beyond this purpose.
Previous scholarship, for the most part, remained helpful only in a broad sense. Previous scholarship tends to focus on “redundancy”
in the first two cases (the incident of Saul’s conversion recounted three times and Cornelius’s two) and the introduction of Luke into Paul’s company in the third. In each of the three incidents, the investigator often concludes that God intervenes to commission said parties. In speaking of God’s intervention through visions, Ernst Haenchen goes as far as to say, “[I]n endeavoring to make the hand of God visible in the history of the Church, Luke virtually excludes all human decision.”
Benjamin J. Hubbard
and Terence Y. Mullins
identify important features in-common that the incidents between Saul and Ananias and between Cornelius and Peter display as commissioning events. In a similar way, but to different ends, I will identify reoccurring features among the three selected incidents.
I have identified the following features appearing consistently in my selected incidents: (1) involves two men, (2) inhibitions that would hinder the spread of the Gospel, (3) a crisis,
(4) two visions described as a
o[rama, (5) evolving
o[rama-event interpretation,
(6) a change of mind, and (7) definite resultant responses. I contend that in each of the aforementioned incidents Luke shows God interacting with commissioned men to dispel apathy or prejudice for the sake of moving them beyond self-imposed or culturally-imposed limitations, whether fearful, religious, ethnic, or geographical.
Defining ὅραμα
I believe it prudent to free the word
o[rama from any ill-conceived presuppositions at the outset.
o[rama is a favorite word for Luke. He uses it in various forms in Acts eleven times
(Acts 7:31; 9:10, 12; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 12:9; 16:9, 10; 18:9) while it is used otherwise in the NT only in Matt 17:9. Luke likely chooses this word in Acts, whereas he neglects it in his Gospel account, to indicate fulfillment of Acts 2:17 where o`ra,seij, along with ὅραμα, is in the same word group with o`ra,w, and follows LXX of Joel 2:28.
In Scripture, “
o[rama is ‘that which is seen,’ ‘appearance,’ or ‘spectacle.’”
It is a mistake to assume that the use of the word implies an ecstatic vision. In fact, it is context which leads to translating it as “vision.” As “something that is seen,” it is potentially a dream or a waking vision, an apparition, or a physical encounter. It is a mistake to assume that it is an ecstatic experience.
Here I limit my investigation to the first account of Saul’s conversion. Luke does not use
o[rama in the second and third accounts and they add little to the dynamic between Saul and Ananias. The third account describes Saul’s experience on the road to
Damascus as a vision, which is all together different from what is designated as the vision in the first account. In the third account, the word used for vision (
ovptasi,a|, 26:19) is different as well. Furthermore, Charles Hedrick, agreeing with Martin Dibelius,
contends that the Acts 9 account reflects the original tradition of Saul’s conversion and further insinuates that the latter two accounts are redacted for literary purposes to serve narrative contexts.
In this account, the two men are Ananias and Saul. Saul began with a commission from the chief priests; God converted his commission. Ananias, as a disciple of Jesus, lived with the commission to make disciples that all disciples live with; God gave his commission specific direction.
Both of these men begin in this pericope with inhibitions. Both his prejudice against Christians and his misunderstanding of God’s purpose inhibit Saul. As he said in 1 Tim 1:13, he acted ignorantly. It is reasonable to infer that knowledge of Saul’s ongoing persecution of Christians inspires fear, which inhibits Ananias. In lieu of responding positively to the Lord’s request, Ananias replies with what may be interpreted as an excuse. In 9:13 Luke presents Ananias’s initial response to the Lord with an adversative de.. This incident displays inhibitions on the part of both individuals, both of which the Lord displaces through visions.
Though both men surly experience crisis, for Ananias it is less pronounced. For Ananias to rise and go to the street called Straight to meet a known out-and-out enemy is to have a crisis thrust upon him. Saul’s crisis is evident and multifaceted. Saul sees a blinding light; his every belief and life’s purpose disintegrates; he hears the voice of the Lord in chastisement; and he continues three days in blindness, hunger, thirst, and awaiting the unknown.
This incident recounts
visions described as
ὅραμα on both the parts of Ananias and Saul. Ananias’s vision is described first. Though the recounting of his experience is absent a visual element—it is limited to hearing the Lord’s voice—Luke describes the experience as a
o[rama (9:12).
If Ananias actually saw anything, whether the Lord, a light, or an angel, we are not told. Furthermore, we receive no information as to his state of being when he receives the vision. As we will see, in most cases, Luke makes known the recipient’s state of being, whether in prayer, sleep, or a trance.
Saul’s vision compliments Ananias’s. Saul, while in prayer, receives a vision that prepares him for the coming of Ananias before Ananias himself knows he will go. It is interesting to note that we are made aware of Saul’s vision, not through a direct recounting of his own experience, but through Ananias’s vision as the Lord describes the details of Saul’s vision. John Miller describes this as an “embedded vision report.”
Suffice to say, as Luke narrates Saul’s own retelling of the embedded portion in subsequent retellings (i.e., Acts 22 and 26), more details unique to Saul’s own experience are revealed. What we do know from the account is that he saw “a man named Ananias come in and lay his hand on him so that he might regain sight” (9:12, ESV). It is significant to note that what Saul sees is a man and his actions. The
o[rama here does not satisfy expectations commonly projected onto divine visions; he does not see or hear the Lord, nor does he see an angel. The vision is of a man performing activity.
In this incident, vision
interpretation on the part of the recipients is not blatantly apparent. Ananias receives clear instructions to go to Saul and lay hands on him. In Saul’s case, he too seems to receive simple instructions that need no interpretation: wait for a man named Ananias. However, if subsequent retellings are taken into account, it becomes apparent that interpretation of the
o[rama-event as a whole evolves, apparently as it is viewed in light of ensuing life events.
Miller suggests that,
[T]he use of varying perspectives—that of the narrator and that of a character filter—allows Luke to
increase what can be told in the narrative. Luke’s use of original narration and character filtration allows him to emphasize God’s role in the event
and Paul’s attempt to perceive the will of God based on this experience.
Saul’s understanding of the ultimate implications of the o[rama-event is limited apart from ensuing experiences. Demonstrating this is his ability to interpret his experiences of preaching and persecution in Damascus, Jerusalem, and in the region of Judea in his address to Agrippa (26:20, 21) in light of the experience which included a vision. As Saul’s ministry plays forward, he is able then to look back to the o[rama-event and understand its fuller meaning, finally connecting the dots, so-to-speak. The Lord, in fact, tells Ananias that he “will show him (i.e., Saul) how much he must suffer” (u`podei,xw is future tense [9:16]). Saul’s knowledge of forthcoming sufferings is apparently initially lacking. The reader then might expect Saul to look back to this o[rama-event to interpret the meaning of his sufferings as they occur. We shall observe that Luke consistently allows for evolving interpretations of o[rama-events.
For both Ananias and Saul, a radical change of mind followed the vision. Ananias’ opinion of Saul (i.e., he is evil and is binding Christians) prevent him from approaching Saul. His opinion is strong enough to provoke him to question the Lord. The Lord gives him enough information to changes his mind about the expediency of going to Saul and to make disobedience out of the question. The experience changes Saul’s mind radically as well. He moves from a position of seething and murderous hatred toward Christians to devoting himself completely to The Way.
The change of mind in both Ananias’s and Saul’s experiences results in a definite response. Clearly enough, Ananias goes to Saul, lays hands on him, and instructs him. Saul apparently responds to Ananias’s instruction, but more importantly, he responds to the Lord’s commission, which immediately begins a life-long term. It is important to note that the response for Saul results in a life-long redirection serving The Way.
Though the incident between Cornelius and Peter is retold with additional information in chapter 11, I focus primarily on the first telling in chapter 10. Each of the sought after features in-common is apparent in chapter 10. I refer to chapter 11 details only where enhancing information regarding the o[rama-event features in-common is available.
The
two men exhibited in this account are Cornelius and Peter. Cornelius is a God-fearer who lives his life committed to alms-giving and prayer. His commission is changed (maybe
enhanced is a better word) from these activities as a God-fearer to those of Christian discipleship. Ronald Witherupp suggests that Peter needs a “conversion of the heart that will widen his vision of just how broad God’s repentance and forgiveness and mercy apply.”
The
o[rama-event converts Peter’s commission as a disciple and apostle to actively include the Gentiles.
Any possible inhibitions on Cornelius’s part are less than obvious and probably of little consequence to Luke’s purpose. Apathy inhibits him. His inhibition prevents him from hearing the Gospel absent the ὅραμα-event. Peter’s inhibitions are obvious. Ceremonial religious practices inhibit Peter, which prevent him from delivering the Gospel to the Gentiles. These are both ethnic and religious prejudices. The same influences that prevented the scribes and Pharisees from accepting Jesus inhibit Peter. Peter’s inhibitions still, at this late date, prevent him from fulfilling Israel’s original commission (cf., Gen 12:1-3; 17:5-7; Is 42:6) to draw the nations to God. The intensity of his inhibitions is brought out with the three times redundancy of the vision and his resistive statement, Mhdamw/j( ku,rie (by no means, Lord) (10:14). It is not immediately apparent as to whether the resistive statement is redundant. Luke uses the demonstrative pronoun, tou/to, both in 10:16 and in the retelling, 11:10. The antecedent is surly the whole incident of Peter’s vision. This may include Peter’s resistive statement. The o[rama-event cures Peter’s inhibitions.
Both Cornelius and Peter are thrown into
crisis. Cornelius, in his vision experience, is terrified.
Marshall suggests that terror is the “natural reaction of human beings to the supernatural and is a constant feature in stories like the present one.”
The appearing of an angel in a vision is a crisis provoking terror for an unbeliever who has not yet experienced the dynamic functioning of the Holy Spirit, but for a believer, the response is likely something other than fear. Peter’s crisis is different. A set of beliefs that are innately a part of Peter is disintegrated. The Lord tells him to do precisely what he has believed forbidden by the Lord himself. Peter must now learn how to cope with life and ministry in light of this extraction.
In this incident Luke presents complementary
visions described as
o[rama. Cornelius’s vision includes both visual and auditory elements, which occur during prayer. Luke indicates that this happens during the ninth hour (10:3), a normal hour of prayer for a Jew or God-fearer.
Further clarification is provided in 10:30; he sees a vision of an angel and hears him speak. It is curious here that Luke describes the appearance as that of an “angel of God,” but Cornelius addresses him as “Lord.” Most English translations capitalize “Lord,” thereby indicating that it is God or Jesus to whom Cornelius speaks. However, Cornelius either speaks in confusion (maybe awe),
thinking the angel is the Lord, or with F.F. Bruce, we should translate something like “sir”
or “master.” The vision is a speaking angel.
Peter’s vision works in tandem with Cornelius’s vision for a common outcome. Peter’s vision includes a voice from the Lord himself and a visual. Peter’s state of being is described both as “in prayer” and “in a trance.” Another interesting element of his state of being is his hunger. His hunger, a normal physical and temporal human experience, is made to serve the vision experience. The Lord then interacts in light of hunger. Peter’s vision includes a graphic representation and the voice of the Lord.
Both Cornelius and Peter’s visions end short of understanding. We find an evolving interpretation in both cases. Cornelius understands enough to send for Peter and that Peter will have something to say, but does not know what Peter will say, only that it is commanded from the Lord (10:33) and that the message contains information for salvation (11:14). The vision interpretation is not fulfilled until after Peter speaks to him and his household.
Though most of the visions here under investigation exhibit evolving interpretations, Peter’s vision, in contrast to others in this category, is allegorical
and in need of interpretation at the outset. The vision “perplexes” Peter and the Holy Spirit prods him further (10:19) to pursue the course of events that reveal its interpretation. Peter’s interpretation evolves in this order: he and other Jews are permitted to travel with Gentile men (10:23; 11:12), he is permitted to enter into a Gentile’s house (10:25, 28), he ate with Gentiles (11:3), no person created by God is unclean (10:28), God shows no partiality (10:34), Gentiles can receive the Holy Spirit just as the Jews (10:45), the Gentiles should also be baptized (10:47), and God grants repentance that leads to life to the Gentiles (11:18). It is important to note that the vision in and of itself could have only led to the interpretation that Peter, and maybe all Jews, could now eat what was before considered unclean. But as Chris Miller notes, “The charge of ‘eating with
Gentiles’ probably has everything to do with Gentiles and nothing to do with what they were
eating.”
The vision itself does not leave the participants with clarity of God’s purpose; it only provokes. It is through the ensuing events that the interpretation evolves and is finally understood to mean that the Gentiles are included in the Gospel promise.
When considering the change of mind that each of these men experience, Cornelius’s is less obvious, though present. Cornelius does not move from one definite position of thinking to another, he moves from a position of apathy. He had not yet realized that there was something in addition to prayer and alms-giving that he could do for salvation. It is his vision experience that changes his mind.
Peter’s mind change is drastic. In spite of learning from Jesus that it is not what a person eats that makes him unclean (Matt 15:11) and witnessing the inclusion of Gentiles in the same context (Matt 15:21-28), Peter’s mind, and therefore his behavior, is still firmly set in tradition. This drastic change of mind, along with evolving vision interpretation, arrives in increments.
The change of mind in both Cornelius and Peter’s cases lead to definite responses. Cornelius, without hesitation, sends for Peter. Peter responds in increments. He goes to Cornelius, he preaches to Cornelius’s household, and ultimately continues to include Gentiles.
It is immediately apparent that the o[rama-event recorded in Acts 16:6-10 diverges from some of the obvious patterns found in the two analyzed above. In particular, it is a much shorter account, it lacks a retelling, and it involves a vision by only one of the two men. Furthermore, upon initial observation, it is less apparent that the pericope satisfies my own requirement of involving two men. Upon further investigation, we shall see that that it is at least possible that it does satisfy the pericope investigation limitation of involving two men and that the other six features in-common are definitely present. Therefore, it is profitable to pursue the pericope, looking for pattern conformities.
In this account, the
two men present are Paul and the man from
Macedonia. By this time we fully recognize Paul’s apostleship as he engages in what we know as his second missionary journey. Parting company with Barnabas he fulfills his intention to strengthen churches previously planted (15:36-41; 16:5) and presses on to new regions. Of his own volition he proceeds to enter into specific regions (e.g., Phrygia, Galtia, Asia,
Mysia, and Bythinia). Calvin noted that Paul and his companions taught, “wherever they came to, without any distinction, they were doing that by virtue of their calling, and in accordance with the commandment of God.”
The Lord, in this
ὅραμα-event converts his mission.
Who is the man from Macedonia and does he qualify as the second of two men needed to qualify this pericope for this investigation? We have already determined that a vision described as a o[rama is not necessarily an ecstatic apparition. I make this concession at the outset of defining the man from Macedonia: investigations include speculations and remain inconclusive. However, consideration of the speculative assists in determining whether this pericope fits the ὅραμα-event Lukan pattern.
Though most hesitate, commentators often recognize the possibility that Luke himself is the man from
Macedonia. Ernst Haenchen aptly outlines the list of commentators who recognize the possibilities.
The most important detail which is consistently brought into consideration (many times to the neglect of all others) is the introduction of the use of the first person plural
evzhth,samen in 16:10. An investigation of the person and number of verbs and pronouns indicates that Luke, the author of Acts, enters into the traveling party in Troas, crosses over to Philippi in
Macedonia, and remains there as Paul and the others continue. The investigation further reveals that Luke does not rejoin the party until Paul passes through
Macedonia once again on the way back to
Asia on his third missionary trip (20:1-2). Though some commentators contest this reconstruction of Luke’s presence in Paul’s traveling party, it is highly likely. F.F. Bruce says of this reconstruction:
No other explanation of them [the we sections] is so probable as that the “we” which characterizes them includes the “I” of the prologues to Luke and Acts. A writer incorporating into his narrative the diary of some personal eyewitness other than himself would scarcely have done so in such an artless way.
The case then moves from here with less evidence. Luke, a physician (
Col 4:14), is made to be the end of necessity as Paul experiences health problems, possibly with his eyes (Gal 4:12-15), which drive him to find a physician. W. M. Ramsay purports that Paul seeks out a physician at
Troas.
Paul then interprets the incident with his health, driving him to search for a physician at the most likely place, a port city, as intervention from the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus.
If Luke includes this pericope with 9:1-19 and 10:1-33 as a parallel literary construct, the suggestion that Luke is the man from Macedonia gains additional credibility. First, we expect to find two actual men (i.e., not a man and an apparition) involved. Second, Paul once before experiences a ὅραμα-event which is merely a man (9:12). Even if some of it is circumstantial, there is evidence that points to Luke as the man from Macedonia. If the Macedonian is anonymous, he still fulfills the expectation, though less likely if he is merely an apparition.
Paul functions here with inhibitions. We might best describe his inhibitions as apathy. Though he is fulfilling his overarching commission to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, he remains in Asia while he could cross over to Macedonia. It is surly not that he is negligent, he just hasn’t yet taken Macedonia into consideration. His inhibition is apathy in regard to geography.
Paul experiences crisis. Whether circumstantial or epiphanic, Paul interprets events as an interruption from the Sprit and describes it as prohibitive. If it is circumstantial and it is his health, the crisis is very personalized. If this is the case, it bears some of same elements that he experiences in his conversion ὅραμα-event.
This account presents one obvious
vision described as a
o[rama. The obvious vision is Paul’s vision of the man from
Macedonia. It is impossible to know whether Paul actually sees a man as he speaks to him (maybe Luke), dreamed of a man, or saw a man in a prayer vision as before (Acts 9:12), whether before or after actually meeting the man. In any case, this vision, as do others analyzed herein, lacks a divine agent.
It is merely a man speaking. It is important to note that Luke presents the Trinity’s involvement in spite of this; the Holy Spirit forbids them (16:6), the Spirit of Jesus does not allow them (16:7), and they conclude that God calls them (16:10).
There is at least a remote possibility that there are two visions present here in what is a single o[rama-event with the 16:10 vision taking the place of an embedded vision. It is possible that the vision of 18:9, 10 is the second. What remains divergent from the pattern is that the same man experiences both visions. I shall discuss a possible justification for the two-vision scenario in the vision interpretation section below.
This vision requires
interpretation, and in fact, evolving interpretation. The nature of the vision forces Paul to draw conclusions as to what God requires of him as it is neither the Lord himself nor any type of divine apparition that pleads with him. He initially interprets the vision to mean that he is supposed to go to
Macedonia and preach the Gospel there. Is his interpretation correct? John Calvin observes, “Paul’s introduction to
Macedonia is described as such as could have taken away confidence in the vision.”
His success in Macedonian cities is less than impressive. In Philippi, he finds a woman named
Lydia and her household responsive to the Gospel, an imprisonment, and a responsive Jailer with his household. He merely passes through Amphipolis and Apollonia. He argues in Thessalonica and converts many, but is forced out. The results in
Berea are more encouraging. Moving beyond
Macedonia to
Athens in Achaia, he still finds no encouraging results. Here his success is merely “but some” (Acts 17:34). Though a divine vision may anticipate a Pentecost-type event, one never occurs anywhere in
Macedonia.
Paul is forced to interpret the vision in light of his experiences. It is possible that the vision itself, after the full evolution of the interpretation arrives, means to compel him to Corinth. The evolving interpretation fits the pattern. Here Paul receives a second vision, confirming that he should remain in Corinth for a significant work (18:9-11). This vision occurs in the night, as did the Acts 16:10 vision. There is no indication that Paul “sees” anything in the vision, only that he hears the voice of the Lord. We receive no indication as to whether it is a dream, prayer, or actual event vision. Could this be the second vision of one ὅραμα-event? If so, the pericope more exactly fits a reoccurring Lukan literary pattern. This vision likely requires an evolving interpretation as well. The Lord only tells him to stay in Corinth. He may have to interpret the duration of his stay in light of ensuing events.
It is Paul who experiences a change of mind in both visions. First, his mind changes from evangelizing Asia to Macedonia (whether or not this is the correct mindset). Second, in the case of the second vision, we might infer that his mind changes from leaving Corinth to staying. He experiences opposition (18:6), which may have otherwise compelled him to move on had he not received a word from the Lord specifically instructing him to stay.
The definite response is in the first case is to cross the Aegean Sea to preach to the Gentiles. The definite response in the second case is to stay and continue with the Corinthians.
The results of this investigation show that each of the three pericopes examined display seven features in-common: (1) involved two men, (2) inhibitions that would hinder the spread of the Gospel, (3) a crisis, (4) two visions described as a o[rama, (5) evolving o[rama-event interpretation, (6) a change of mind, and (7) definite resultant responses. In some cases the display of certain features are likely incidental (e.g., apathy as an inhibition in Corneilius’ case) while for others the display is critical for advancement of the plot (e.g., Peter’s prejudices as inhibitions). In some cases qualifications for sought features are ambiguous (e.g., does the vision of 18:9, 10 qualify as a second vision working in conjunction with that of 16:10?). Nevertheless, in each of the three selected pericopes, it is possible that every feature is satisfied. According to these parameters, a definite Lukan literary pattern is uncovered. Why does Luke employ this pattern? Standard answers might suffice: a standard ancient literary practice, a method to develop the overall plot, suspense, thematic development, and etc. Whatever his practice, it reveals his theology.
Most essential to recognize in this pattern is how the Lord interacts with his people in the advancement of the Gospel. In each of these cases the Lord interacts through a o[rama-event, which includes a complex of features to move individuals in new directions. The vision experiences themselves display no consistency. The diversity of experience includes a voice from the Lord, a voice of an angel, a voice of a man, seeing a man, seeing an angel, seeing an allegorical event, or any combination of these. The vision does not even necessarily involve a visual element. The vision experience plays out in a variety of states of being. It is experienced in prayer, in a trance, at night (maybe in a dream, but never conclusively), or in an undisclosed manner. The important issue is not that there is a vision, it is rather that it is an interruption from the Lord or at least interpreted as such. Thus we consider the whole event, the o[rama-event, which includes something called a vision.
Though others have stressed the commissioning element, especially with Saul and Peter, it seems that this is not necessarily the important feature. The more important feature is the Lord’s interruption. Saul’s course of action against the Christians is interrupted. Ananias’s fearful avoidance of Saul is interrupted. Cornelius’s accepted method of honoring God is interrupted. Peter’s passive exclusion of the Gentiles is interrupted. Paul’s work in Asia is interrupted. It is not that the Lord micromanages their commissions. There is no reason to think that Ananias was not fulfilling the Great Commission. There is no reason to think that Peter was not fulfilling the Great Commission among the Jews. There is every reason to think that Paul was aggressively fulfilling his commission among the Gentiles. What each of these o[rama-events have in common is an interruption that provokes the recipients to a course alteration.
The o[rama-events lack initial clarity. The Lord fails to take the opportunity in these events to provide thorough long-term instructions; he does little more than interfere. His interference provokes a crisis that forces both a broadening of the mind and a reaction. The ultimate result in every case is understood in light of ensuing events.
Can we, the contemporary church, expect
ὅραμα-events? Or, are we ready for the consequences? David deSilva points out that, “Visions prepare the participants and the reader for the amazing breakthrough of ethnic boundaries and long-standing identity markers.”
In light of our three reviewed pericopes, visions also prepare for breakthroughs in apathy, geography, fear, and religious prejudice. I think we could use some of this. In light of what we have observed, when we are participants in
o[rama-events, we should expect that the involvement of multiple people will confirm them, they will shake the issues that inhibit us from fulfilling the Great Commission, they will provoke crisis, they will not fit a consistent pattern of communication, they will require a broadening in our thinking and a response in spite of a lack of definite clarity. We should keep an eye out for the next
ὅραμα-event.
Benjamin J. Hubbard, “Commissioning Stories In Luke-Acts: A Study of Their Antecedents, Form and Content,” Semeia, 8 (1977): 103-26.
o`ra,ma may be introduced into the manuscript in 9:12. UBS4 includes it within square brackets. F.F. Bruce suggests that it is exegetically sound (F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. [London: Tyndale Press, 1951], 201). For the purposes of this investigation, I include it.
Richard N. Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, (pgs. 207-573 in EBC 9; gen. editor, F. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1984), 386.
