Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Ulan
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:01 am

John T wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:07 pm
Thanks for the help. However, I do not see the slot where Acts 8:37 can't possibly fit in, if it was ever there in the first place.
p45 is so damaged and missing so much from the left and right margins that it could have been there but was lost due to deterioration and wear.
Simply a case of guessing what the missing puzzle pieces actually said.

I'm no biblical scholar and can barely read Greek without a concordance. *Still, I can think of only one way to prove that Acts 8:37 wasn't there (p45) in the first place and the notes by Kurt Aland are not at all convincing for or against inclusion of Acts 8:37.

p45 is not proof that Acts 8:37 no longer existed by 250 A.D.

The mystery continues.

* edit made for clarity.
Really? That's your reaction to the provided pic? Ben's last post just illustrates the already obvious: It's 100% clear that Acts 8:37 was not present in P45. There is quite obviously no space for such a large amount of text.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by John T » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:34 am

Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:01 am
John T wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:07 pm
Thanks for the help. However, I do not see the slot where Acts 8:37 can't possibly fit in, if it was ever there in the first place.
p45 is so damaged and missing so much from the left and right margins that it could have been there but was lost due to deterioration and wear.
Simply a case of guessing what the missing puzzle pieces actually said.

I'm no biblical scholar and can barely read Greek without a concordance. *Still, I can think of only one way to prove that Acts 8:37 wasn't there (p45) in the first place and the notes by Kurt Aland are not at all convincing for or against inclusion of Acts 8:37.

p45 is not proof that Acts 8:37 no longer existed by 250 A.D.

The mystery continues.

* edit made for clarity.
Really? That's your reaction to the provided pic? Ben's last post just illustrates the already obvious: It's 100% clear that Acts 8:37 was not present in P45. There is quite obviously no space for such a large amount of text.
Then work with me and prove me wrong. Show me the objective evidence not the subjective theory.

Please point to me where the last word of Acts8:36 "baptisthenai' (#907) is located in p45 and the first word of Acts 8:38 'kai' (#2532). If the two words are side by side due to a contentious running line, then you have proven me wrong.

However, if they are not side by side and there is a gap, then tell how many letters can fit in between them?

I looked closely at the pics, (thanks again Ben for the red lettering photos) and there appears to be plenty of room for Acts 8:37 starting at the end of one line and finishing on the beginning of the next line but the margins/sections are completely missing due to damage.

I have no doubt modern scholars have already addressed this problem but I can't find a source.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Ulan
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:37 am

John T wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:34 am
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:01 am
John T wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:07 pm
Thanks for the help. However, I do not see the slot where Acts 8:37 can't possibly fit in, if it was ever there in the first place.
p45 is so damaged and missing so much from the left and right margins that it could have been there but was lost due to deterioration and wear.
Simply a case of guessing what the missing puzzle pieces actually said.

I'm no biblical scholar and can barely read Greek without a concordance. *Still, I can think of only one way to prove that Acts 8:37 wasn't there (p45) in the first place and the notes by Kurt Aland are not at all convincing for or against inclusion of Acts 8:37.

p45 is not proof that Acts 8:37 no longer existed by 250 A.D.

The mystery continues.

* edit made for clarity.
Really? That's your reaction to the provided pic? Ben's last post just illustrates the already obvious: It's 100% clear that Acts 8:37 was not present in P45. There is quite obviously no space for such a large amount of text.
Then work with me and prove me wrong. Show me the objective evidence not the subjective theory.

Please point to me where the last word of Acts8:36 "baptisthenai' (#907) is located in p45 and the first word of Acts 8:38 'kai' (#2532). If the two words are side by side due to a contentious running line, then you have proven me wrong.

However, if they are not side by side and there is a gap, then tell how many letters can fit in between them?

I looked closely at the pics, (thanks again Ben for the red lettering photos) and there appears to be plenty of room for Acts 8:37 starting at the end of one line and finishing on the beginning of the next line but the margins/sections are completely missing due to damage.

I have no doubt modern scholars have already addressed this problem but I can't find a source.

Sincerely,

John T
Ben already showed you in his last post. You would need an additional two whole lines of space for 8:37 to fit. Those two lines are obviously not there.

It's so painfully obvious that I'm not sure whether you are pulling my leg here.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by John T » Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:19 pm

Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:37 am
Ben already showed you in his last post. You would need an additional two whole lines of space for 8:37 to fit. Those two lines are obviously not there.
Actually, Ben was pulling your leg with his long-hand rendition. ;)

******************
So, how do you know that Acts 8:37 would take up an additional two lines? Did you actually measure it out or did you just eye-balled it like me?

If you or Ben actually measured it out, please give me the numbers:

1. What was the original dimensions of the page in question?
2. How many columns per page?
3. How many lines per page?
4. How many letters should fit on one line before it was damaged?

My eye-ball math says Acts 8:37 would take up less than 2/3rds of a full line.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Ulan
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:14 pm

John T wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:19 pm
Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:37 am
Ben already showed you in his last post. You would need an additional two whole lines of space for 8:37 to fit. Those two lines are obviously not there.
Actually, Ben was pulling your leg with his long-hand rendition. ;)

******************
So, how do you know that Acts 8:37 would take up an additional two lines? Did you actually measure it out or did you just eye-balled it like me?

If you or Ben actually measured it out, please give me the numbers:

1. What was the original dimensions of the page in question?
2. How many columns per page?
3. How many lines per page?
4. How many letters should fit on one line before it was damaged?

My eye-ball math says Acts 8:37 would take up less than 2/3rds of a full line.
Did you actually look at Ben's images, or why do you ask inane questions?

Image

The positions of the letters in red in this image are exactly the same as the positions of the letters underlined in red in the papyrus fragment he posted:

Image

Which means the spatial relations from the original papyrus are preserved in the first image (really, look at the red letters in both images) with the exception of the very first line (which is not a full line because it starts with 36) that lacks red letters (look at the rendition below the papyrus image to see those positions), and you have a very good idea of how long whole lines in this papyrus were. The overhang in the second row of the first image is exactly what you would need to make 8:37 fit.

It's 100% clear that 8:37 was not part of the flowing text. The only theoretical possibility you have for the text to be present would be in a commentary somewhere in the margins. I don't see why you would postulate this, as 8:37 is pretty much absent from just about all Greek manuscripts, and P45 is no exception. However, the onus of proof would be on your side in that case, as you would postulate something that obviously isn't there and doesn't fit.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by John T » Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:46 am

Ulan,

Your argument for spatial relations is a strong one and I thought that way as well upon my first eyeball glance. However, upon looking at the full image and zooming in and out and comparing it to the other leaves, I was no longer convinced.

This is where I wish I had the computer skills of Ben.

If I did, I would show you the full image of the leaf so you can see just how badly it is worn and how little of it remains.
At first glance of the zoomed image (thanks again for providing it Ben) it would seem that the highlighted text fills up much of each line but it does not, not even close.

The red letter words are placed to appear more or less in the middle of the lines but where is the actual middle?
The next problem is, how many characters can fit on a line and did the scribe have the practice of completely filling up each line with letters?

If Ben wanted to, he could make Acts 8:37 fit naturally in between baptisthenai and kai by inserting the beginning of the sentence after the last half of line one and the remainder at the beginning of line two. All without distorting the spatial relationship with the other red words.

But instead, Ben pulled your leg by placing all of Acts 8:37 after the word baptisthenai to make the line look ridiculous long and of course, you fell for it.

Of course, I could be wrong, (actually I want to be wrong) but once again, demonstrable evidence outweighed my easily fooled first impression. :cheers:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Ulan
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:57 am

You are aware that you cannot move any of the red letters? Those are the ones we know where they are. You also have to account for all the rest of the text, not just the "missing" one, but the one that is there anyway and already perfectly fills up the existing space, like in most Greek manuscripts. You know the overall length of the lines from the length of all other lines. So no, your solution doesn't work.

The example just shows that we are looking at a majority text type, which is much shorter than the Latin texts.

But go ahead, you don't need big computer skills to make a graphical representation of what you suggest, even if for the sole purpose that you recognize that your suggestion is impossible.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by John T » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:23 am

Ulan wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:57 am
You are aware that you cannot move any of the red letters? Those are the ones we know where they are. You also have to account for all the rest of the text, not just the "missing" one, but the one that is there anyway and already perfectly fills up the existing space, like in most Greek manuscripts. You know the overall length of the lines from the length of all other lines. So no, your solution doesn't work.

The example just shows that we are looking at a majority text type, which is much shorter than the Latin texts.

But go ahead, you don't need big computer skills to make a graphical representation of what you suggest, even if for the sole purpose that you recognize that your suggestion is impossible.
Perhaps Ben will come back and fess up to his little prank. After all, he was just having a little fun at my expense and I don't mind so much except for the fact that people like Ulan actually took him seriously.

Now, let's move on to Codex 1739 shall we?

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5646
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:38 am

Ulan wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:37 am
You would need an additional two whole lines of space for 8:37 to fit. Those two lines are obviously not there.

It's so painfully obvious that I'm not sure whether you are pulling my leg here.
Correct. Verse 37 would take up nearly 2 whole lines.

In one last attempt to restore sanity, here is a section of the relevant text with individual letters, all in a vertical line (or as close as I can get them), underlined in red:

P45 Redux.png
P45 Redux.png (352.18 KiB) Viewed 304 times

Each "line," for counting purposes, will start at an underlined letter and end at the letter before the underlined letter one line below it. (If the edges of the manuscript were intact, we could just use the manuscript's own lines more easily. But that is not the case, so our lines will have to run from fixed points instead of from the margins.)

And here is the relevant text of Acts with those same letters rubricated. I am using continuous text, not even trying to reproduce the lines of the manuscript, since we will be counting the letters one by one to get the exact number of letters per line:

Acts 8.34-40 (NA27): 34 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ εὐνοῦχος τῷ Φιλίππῳ εἶπεν· δέομαί σου, περὶ τίνος ὁ προφήτης λέγει τοῦτο; περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἢ περὶ ἑτέρου τινός; 35 ἀνοίξας δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν Ἰησοῦν. 36 ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ἦλθον ἐπί τι ὕδωρ, καί φησιν ὁ εὐνοῦχος· ἰδοὺ ὕδωρ, τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι; 37 - 38 καὶ ἐκέλευσεν στῆναι τὸ ἅρμα καὶ κατέβησαν ἀμφότεροι εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ, ὅ τε Φίλιππος καὶ ὁ εὐνοῦχος, καὶ ἐβάπτισεν αὐτόν. 39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέβησαν ἐκ το ὕδατος, πνεῦμα κυρίου ἥρπασεν τὸν Φίλιππον καὶ οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι ὁ εὐνοῦχος, ἐπορεύετο γὰρ τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ χαίρων. 40 Φίλιππος δὲ ερέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον· καὶ διερχόμενος εὐηγγελίζετο τὰς πόλεις πάσας ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς Καισάρειαν.

Spaces in the text will not count, since the manuscript itself does not leave spaces between words. Nor will the modern verse numbers or punctuation, obviously. Only the letters will be counted. Also, the underlined words above are actually nomina sacra in the text, counting for only 2 and 3 letters each, respectively:

Line 1: 57 letters.
Line 2: 55 letters.
Line 3: 49 letters.
Line 4: 58 letters.
Line 5: 50 letters.
Line 6: 49 letters.
Line 7: 53 letters.
Line 8: 53 letters.
Line 9: 51 letters.

Total: 475 letters.
Average: 52.78 letters per line.

Verse 37 (not included above because it does not fit: εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν) has 96 letters in Scrivener, assuming that the usual words (Θεοῦ, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν) have been rendered as nomina sacra. So it would take up about 1.82 lines at the above average of 52.78 letters per line. Obviously, since the line counts make sense without it, and since no part of that verse appears in the text of the manuscript, fitting it in is impossible without simply assuming that it was written away from the column of text, in the margin somewhere. If it were in the text, it would have to fall on line 4 (which contains part of verse 36), before line 5 even starts (which begins already three words into verse 38):

Line 1: 57 letters.
Line 2: 55 letters.
Line 3: 49 letters.
Line 4: 154 letters.
Line 5: 50 letters.
Line 6: 49 letters.
Line 7: 53 letters.
Line 8: 53 letters.
Line 9: 51 letters.

Can you spot the line that does not belong?

Verse 37 obviously held no place in the column of text on this page of Ƿ45. It is not even a close call.

ETA: Fixed an error. Verse 37 cannot be divided up between any two lines of the text; its entirety has to fall on line 4, which contains part of verse 36, since line 5 already starts with part of verse 38.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by John T » Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:19 am

Thanks Ben.

I'm quite willing to throw in the towel on p45 but you still haven't dis-proven my point by using the overlay method.
If I had your computer skills this is what I would do to prove me wrong:

I would line of up the red underlined letters in your text box in a straight up and down vertical column.
I would then place the rest of the black words from your text box on either side of the red ones as I think they would have appeared in p45.
I would then bold your text box words that are actually visible to the naked-eye on p45.
Finally, I would insert starting from the right middle of line 4 up to the left middle of line 5, Acts 8:37 using nomina sacra and the shortest version of Greek words and see if it fits.

If it doesn't fit then I will acquit.

I have little doubt that biblical scholars perhaps even Dan Wallace's team did something just like that but I don't know where to find their report on it.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Post Reply