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

From: Edward Hobbs (
Date: Sat Jun 21 1997 - 17:22:56 EDT

This post is on the citation of D in NA27.

Clay Bartholomew wrote:

Micheal W. Palmer wrote:


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.

(Edward Hobbs here:)

After examining a number of curious readings by the original hand of D, and
comparing them with NA27's citation of D, I concluded that Aland does NOT
cite D when he considers its reading to be an obvious mistake or a
grammatical oddity or an apparent copyist error-- this despite the fact
that he says D (05) is one of the "staendigen Zeugen," which I take to mean
always, constantly and consistently, cited whenever different from the text
of NA27.

What this means for Clay's project is that he will have to continue using
Ropes's edition of Acts and D (a good idea anyway!), and Tischendorf's 8th.
It is simply not safe to assume that one knows D's readings from the
apparatus in NA27.

Edward Hobbs

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