RE: ACTS 5:29 clause order in D is puzzling

From: Clayton Bartholomew (
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
other apostles.

The whole verse reads:


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?

Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT