A little lesson on the use of brackets ( . ) in the apparatus of NA28.
In Acts 21:5 the text reads either (with selected evidence for the word order variation ημας εξαρτισαι from NA28 [mainly]):
οτε δε εγενετο εξαρτισαι ημας τας ημερας, εξελθοντες κτλ.
A B*.2 E 2344
or:
οτε δε εγενετο ημας εξαρτισαι τας ημερας, εξελθοντες κτλ.
all others including P74 Alef B1 C (33) 1739 Byz
I was interested in the (33) - the brackets indicate a minor variation - where the text is given in an appendix of NA28 on page 829 (first printing): ημας ημερας εξαρτισαι.
Stated in this way 33 is closer to the majority reading than the minority one. However, the full picture is slightly different.
33: οτε δε εγενετο εξελθειν ημας ημερας εξαρτισαι εξελθοντες
(there is possibly punctuation after ημας)
What we have is that the infinitive following εγενετο, εξαρτισαι, is replaced with εξελθειν, most likely under influence of the following participle εξελθοντες, and the article before ημερας is omitted. Then the correct infinitive is reinserted.
On the basis of εγενετο + INF + ημας, which is the real issue in the word order variant, I would argue that 33 could be included in support of the minority reading:
οτε δε εγενετο εξαρτισαι ημας τας ημερας, εξελθοντες κτλ.
A B*.2 E (33) 2344
I would be almost fine with having this word order in the main text. (Ah, you say Tregelles had this already?)
In Acts 21:5 the text reads either (with selected evidence for the word order variation ημας εξαρτισαι from NA28 [mainly]):
οτε δε εγενετο εξαρτισαι ημας τας ημερας, εξελθοντες κτλ.
A B*.2 E 2344
or:
οτε δε εγενετο ημας εξαρτισαι τας ημερας, εξελθοντες κτλ.
all others including P74 Alef B1 C (33) 1739 Byz
I was interested in the (33) - the brackets indicate a minor variation - where the text is given in an appendix of NA28 on page 829 (first printing): ημας ημερας εξαρτισαι.
Stated in this way 33 is closer to the majority reading than the minority one. However, the full picture is slightly different.
33: οτε δε εγενετο εξελθειν ημας ημερας εξαρτισαι εξελθοντες
(there is possibly punctuation after ημας)
What we have is that the infinitive following εγενετο, εξαρτισαι, is replaced with εξελθειν, most likely under influence of the following participle εξελθοντες, and the article before ημερας is omitted. Then the correct infinitive is reinserted.
On the basis of εγενετο + INF + ημας, which is the real issue in the word order variant, I would argue that 33 could be included in support of the minority reading:
οτε δε εγενετο εξαρτισαι ημας τας ημερας, εξελθοντες κτλ.
A B*.2 E (33) 2344
I would be almost fine with having this word order in the main text. (Ah, you say Tregelles had this already?)