Re: Acts 4:2 in D, continued

From: Edward Hobbs (
Date: Tue Apr 29 1997 - 12:59:35 EDT

From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 29-APR-1997 11:57:42.76
To: IN%""
Subj: RE: Acts 4:2 readings from D

Dear Jim,

        A point which seems to be overlooked in the matter of how NA27
deals with D's correctors: In Acts 4:2, NA27 claims to be citing the
original hand--NOT a corrector (Clayton made this point in his first post).
Yet they in fact cite a much, much later corrector's guess as though it
were D*. This is not the "merging of correctors" Aland claims, but

Edward Hobbs

You wrote:

Just a brief post to follow up on what Edward posted a little earlier. My
experience in working with the NA27 in the book of Acts leads me to answer
the above question negatively. The NA27 seems to be consistent in citing a
corrector of D where appropriate. The problem lies in the NA27's lack of
precision in their citation of a corrector. DC Parker's study, _Codex
Bezae_, argued that over 19 hands could be detected in the manuscript, the
earliest of which, G, corrected the manuscript ca. 400. When the NA27
refers to the first corrector of D, they have in mind "a merging" of the
hands of several correctors, dating from the 6th-7th century (NA27, p.5*).
So, as can be seen, the NA27 is not terribly precise.


jim oxford
ph d candidate in religion
baylor university

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:14 EDT