From: Clayton Bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 21 1997 - 06:25:10 EDT
RE: ACTS 5:29 clause order in D is puzzling
Micheal W. Palmer wrote:
The reading in D is
PEIQARCEIN *DEI* QEWi. . .
It is necessary to obey God. . .
isn't it? If D has PEIQARCEIN DE QEO. . . as you have it written above, it
is a really strange reading.
It seems very odd to me that NA27 does not list this variant reading.
Micheal is right, it is strange:
The reading in D (original hand) is
PEIQARCEIN *DE* QEWi. . .
Both Ropes and Henry Alford, who is following TIschendorf's 8th ed., show *DE*
in the original hand of D as well as the clause swap and the exclusion of the
The whole verse reads:
PEIQARCEIN DE QEWi MALLON H ANQRWPOIS. O DE PETROS EIPEN PROS AUTOUS . . .
NA27 does not deceive anyone, it cites D(c) not the original hand of D.
Ropes has a longish note on this reading where he theorizes that D (Greek)
attempted to follow D (Latin) but ended up being a conflation of sorts. Ropes'
note is cryptic, I could be misunderstanding him on this.
The Latin text of D is:
(5:29) do oportet magis quam honibus
(5:30) petrus vero respondit ad eos ds patrum nostrorum suscitavit ihm quem
vos interfecistis suspensum in lingo
note: *do*, *ds* and *ihm* are sacred name abbreviations.
*Please note* that my interest in this is not really text critical. Given the
reading that exists in the first hand of D (Greek), I am trying to make sense out
of Acts 5:28-29 in that manuscript. My question is one about syntax and
translation. How would you translate 5:28-29 if the words PEIQARCEIN DE QEO
MALLON H ANQRWPOIS were attached to those of the [high] priest?
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT