Καὶ εὑρώνευρων f35D [85.5%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ευρον [9%] ¦ ευρειν A,B (5.5%) NU ¦ ευριν ℵτινας μαθητὰςτινας μαθητας rell¦ ∼ 21 OC2 εἶπενειπεν f35D (94.7%) HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ 1 τε ℵA,B (3.6%) NU ¦ 1 δε (1.7%)πρὸς αὐτούς, «Εἰ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες;» Οἱ δὲ εἶπονειπον f35[95%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ --- ℵA,B,D [5%] NUπρὸς αὐτόν, «Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲουδε f35(D) [98%] HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ουδ ℵA,B [2%] NUεἰ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιόν ἐστιν ἠκούσαμεν.» 3 Εἶπέν τε,1) ειπεν τε f35B (18.3%) NU ¦ ειπεν δε D (4.5%) ¦ ειπεν ουν (1.7%) 2) ειπεν τε προς αυτους (61.6%) HF,RP,OC,TR,CP ¦ ειπεν δε προς αυτους (5.1%) ¦ ειπεν προς αυτους (1.1%) 3) ο δε ειπεν ℵA (3.6%) ¦ ο δε ειπεν αυτοις (4%) ¦ ο δε παυλος προς αυτους 𝕻38At issue is a minor question of taste or style. The second set of three gives the complete formula, the first gives a shortened form. We observe that in verse 2 there is a complete exchange between Paul and the group of disciples, and the full introductory formula is used for both. In verse 3 there is a second complete exchange, wherein the second introductory formula is short—should not the first introductory formula also be short, to match it? That would seem to make for better style. But the attestation for the long form is fairly strong, 67.8% vs 24.5%. Presumably the contenders are the first variants in 1) and 2), so τε wins over δε. I consider that the first variant in 1) really is the better reading, as well as being attested by f35.«Εἰς τί οὖν ἐβαπτίσθητε;» Οἱ δὲ εἶπον,ειπον rell¦ ειπαν ℵA,B [2%] NU«Εἰς τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα.»