Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The opening οὐ makes the high priest’s sentence an indignant question.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
Did not we straitly command you?
Authorized Version
“Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” — Acts 5:28
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
We strictly commanded you
Translation or explanation
We strictly commanded you
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 3 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion, authorial usage, grammar, or immediate context; the printed confidence ratings represented here are {C}, {B}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on Acts 5:28, 5:28, 5:28
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
No UBS6 / intended NA29 main-text change is recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Acts 5:28, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Principal competing reading: We strictly commanded you Issue class: Edition Split Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. Scrivener and NA28 retain it; SBLGNT and several older critical editions omit it. Acts 5:28 shows why ‘the critical text’ can be an imprecise label: SBLGNT, NA28, Tregelles, and Westcott–Hort may divide over the very words at issue, so a claim about a modern critical reading must name the edition meant.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Acts 5:28 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
Sources and further reading The Holy Bible, Authorized Version, Acts 5:28. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (1894), Acts 5:28.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A source-level internal and transcriptional synopsis remains open; consult the full essay.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The Interrogative Reading Scrivener’s received text underlies the reading “Did not we straitly command you?.”
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Acts 5:28. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Principal competing reading: We strictly commanded you Issue class: Edition Split Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. Scrivener and NA28 retain it; SBLGNT and several older critical editions omit it. Acts 5:28 shows why ‘the critical text’ can be an imprecise label: SBLGNT, NA28, Tregelles, and Westcott–Hort may divide over the very words at issue, so a claim about a modern critical reading must name the edition meant.
Conclusion
The immediate sequence gives Acts 5:28 a concrete setting: Acts 5:27 says, “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,.” Acts 5:29 says, “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”
Keep the interrogative received form and state clearly that NA28 agrees with it against SBLGNT.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Acts 5:28, the received text reads “Did not we straitly command you?” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” — Acts 5:28”. The assessed critical reading is “We strictly commanded you”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Acts 5:28, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Did not we straitly command you?”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” — Acts 5:28”. The assessed critical form is “We strictly commanded you”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Acts 5:28, the received text reads “Did not we straitly command you?” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” — Acts 5:28”. The assessed critical reading is “We strictly commanded you”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- Digital ECM — Acts 5:28Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Acts 5:28
Received reading: Did not we straitly command you?
Principal competing reading: We strictly commanded you
Issue class: Edition Split
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
The opening οὐ makes the high priest’s sentence an indignant
question. Scrivener and NA28 retain it; SBLGNT and several older
critical editions omit it. Punctuation alone cannot restore the same
negative question once the particle is absent.
“Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in
this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and
intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” — Acts 5:28
“Did
Not We Straitly Command You?” The Interrogative Reading
Scrivener’s received text underlies the reading “Did not we straitly
command you?.” The principal competing form is “We strictly commanded
you.”
Acts 5:28 shows why ‘the critical text’ can be an imprecise label:
SBLGNT, NA28, Tregelles, and Westcott–Hort may divide over the very
words at issue, so a claim about a modern critical reading must name the
edition meant.
The immediate sequence gives Acts 5:28 a concrete setting: Acts 5:27
says, “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council:
and the high priest asked them,.” Acts 5:29 says, “Then Peter and the
other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than
men.”
Keep the interrogative received form and state clearly that NA28
agrees with it against SBLGNT.
Sources and further reading
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2221
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, received reading, principal SBLGNT reading, and reported NA28 alignment checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the official SBLGNT text and comparison apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Authorized Version Scripture is public domain in the United States; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- This staging record summarizes the defined variation unit and representative edition evidence. It is not a fresh collation of every extant manuscript, version, lectionary, patristic citation, or ECM coherence relation.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Acts 5:28 — “Did Not We Straitly Command You?” The Interrogative Reading,” VAR-2221, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas