Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7134
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:07 am

Ulan wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:33 am
Well, you have to work with the text of P45 we physically have (those red letters), and there obviously is no text or space for any text between the visible lines four and five. Your solution is impossible. Any solution you produce must necessarily exactly reproduce the text you see in the papyrus, or it's not valid. You cannot add any lines, not even a single one. Lines four and five must stay lines four and five, because that's what's visible.
My new suspicion, based on his repeated emphasis on the nomina sacra and his recently calling Scrivener's version "ridiculously long," is that he is considering only that part which is actually quoted by Irenaeus (ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩ ΤΟΝ ΥΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΥ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΙΗ ΧΡ, 29 characters, still too long by about 55% of an average line) and is also under the impression that virtually every word can be turned into a nomen sacrum (yielding something stupid and impossible to read, like ΠΩ ΤΝ ΥΝ ΤΥ ΘΥ ΕΙ ΤΝ ΙΗ ΧΡ, 18 characters, still about 34% of a line over the average, but perhaps close enough to make one hopeful that it might fit).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Ulan
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:19 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:07 am
Ulan wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:33 am
Well, you have to work with the text of P45 we physically have (those red letters), and there obviously is no text or space for any text between the visible lines four and five. Your solution is impossible. Any solution you produce must necessarily exactly reproduce the text you see in the papyrus, or it's not valid. You cannot add any lines, not even a single one. Lines four and five must stay lines four and five, because that's what's visible.
My new suspicion, based on his repeated emphasis on the nomina sacra and his recently calling Scrivener's version "ridiculously long," is that he is considering only that part which is actually quoted by Irenaeus (ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩ ΤΟΝ ΥΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΥ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΙΗ ΧΡ, 29 characters, still too long by about 55% of an average line) and is also under the impression that virtually every word can be turned into a nomen sacrum (yielding something stupid and impossible to read, like ΠΩ ΤΝ ΥΝ ΤΥ ΘΥ ΕΙ ΤΝ ΙΗ ΧΡ, 18 characters, still about 34% of a line over the average, but perhaps close enough to make one hopeful that it might fit).
Was any extreme application of abbreviations like that actually done even on rock inscriptions, where every letter counts? You can easily dismiss any such solution anyway, because such an approach would have to be reflected in the rest of the text, which it isn't. Which means, it still doesn't fit, as you state.

Also, why use different renditions than what you actually find in manuscripts (just not in P45)?


I still find this whole endeavor fascinating, because the question is "Why?" Why does this verse have to be forced into a manuscript where it obviously is not present? This doesn't even touch on the question we find in the title of this thread.

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by John T » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:00 am

There you have it Ben just as I predicted.

Facts do not matter to the trolls in the peanut gallery.
Have they ever?
So, once again, does it even matter if Acts 8:37 could fit on p45?

At least now you kinda of sort of admit that there maybe some extra space between lines four and five for Acts8:37.
Here is a big clue, your rendition included nomina sacra that is not found in p45, whereas my version does.
My version is readable and makes sense, your last post on nomina sacra is just being silly so as to mock me yet again.

I was trying to have a honest debate but once again this forum is overran by mythicist trolls who will not allow biblical criticism and history to take place on the Biblical Criticism & History Forum.

Now standby for more nasty smart-alleck comments from the mythicist trolls.

Matthew 7:6.

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

Ulan
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:21 am

John T wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:00 am
At least now you kinda of sort of admit that there maybe some extra space between lines four and five for Acts8:37.
No, he didn't. Why do you constantly misrepresent what other people write?
John T wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:00 am

Here is a big clue, your rendition included nomina sacra that is not found in p45, whereas my version does.
So both contain them. Talking gibberish again?
John T wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:00 am
My version is readable and makes sense, your last post on nomina sacra is just being silly so as to mock me yet again.
Nobody knows your version yet as you refuse to show it. You haven't produced any version containing verse 8:37 yet. You have 8:38 directly following 8:36 in what you wrote.

Your fantasizing over imaginary mythicists also gets boring.

Ulan
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:01 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:07 am
My new suspicion, based on his repeated emphasis on the nomina sacra and his recently calling Scrivener's version "ridiculously long," is that he is considering only that part which is actually quoted by Irenaeus...
Given the absurdity of this whole spectacle, my newest suspicion is that he misunderstood some label "8:36-37" without checking the translation, and for some reason assumed it contains at least part of the text of 8:37, which it doesn't.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7134
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:17 am

John T wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:00 am
So, once again, does it even matter if Acts 8:37 could fit on p45?
Yes, it does. I want to see it fit.
At least now you kinda of sort of admit that there maybe some extra space between lines four and five for Acts8:37.
This is untrue. There is no space in between lines 4 and 5.
Here is a big clue, your rendition included nomina sacra that is not found in p45, whereas my version does.
I included as many nomina sacra as I could, in order to make the verse shorter, so that it could fit more easily, if possible. If I expand the nomina sacra that I included, the verse becomes even longer. How does that help you fit it in?
My version is readable and makes sense, your last post on nomina sacra is just being silly so as to mock me yet again.
What is your version? Back up your claim. Just present it: your version of Acts 8.37.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7134
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:24 am

Ulan wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:01 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:07 am
My new suspicion, based on his repeated emphasis on the nomina sacra and his recently calling Scrivener's version "ridiculously long," is that he is considering only that part which is actually quoted by Irenaeus...
Given the absurdity of this whole spectacle, my newest suspicion is that he misunderstood some label "8:36-37" without checking the translation, and for some reason assumed it contains at least part of the text of 8:37, which it doesn't.
Anything seems possible at this point. But I do want to see the version that he is referencing, the one which makes more sense and all.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Ulan
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:38 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:24 am
Ulan wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:01 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:07 am
My new suspicion, based on his repeated emphasis on the nomina sacra and his recently calling Scrivener's version "ridiculously long," is that he is considering only that part which is actually quoted by Irenaeus...
Given the absurdity of this whole spectacle, my newest suspicion is that he misunderstood some label "8:36-37" without checking the translation, and for some reason assumed it contains at least part of the text of 8:37, which it doesn't.
Anything seems possible at this point. But I do want to see the version that he is referencing, the one which makes more sense and all.
If half of the time he spent on claiming how much better his approach is were spent on actually showing his approach, we could have finished this thread pages ago.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11263
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:30 pm

Come on. Do either of you REALLY believe there is a methodology here? 10 - 1 he just disappears and claims he's been mortally wounded by all the abuse.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7134
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:04 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:30 pm
Come on. Do either of you REALLY believe there is a methodology here? 10 - 1 he just disappears and claims he's been mortally wounded by all the abuse.
Well, I have been giving him every possible bit of leeway, since he mentioned the nomina sacra in an odd way and then said that Scrivener's rendition was "ridiculously long," so I wanted to see what he was talking about, at the very least.

But now I see that John T was talking about a version exactly like Scrivener's all along. His OP says:
John T wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:04 pm
Does anyone know the history behind why Acts 8:37 is missing (save a footnote) from the ESV, NRSV and most modern translations?

Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."...KJV
Which is a competent translation either of Scrivener's rendition or of something much like it:

37 εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

37 ΕΙΠΕ ΔΕ Ο ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣ ΕΙ ΠΙΣΤΕΥΕΙΣ ΕΞ ΟΛΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΡΔΙΑΣ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΡΙΘΕΙΣ ΔΕ ΕΙΠΕ ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩ ΤΟΝ ΥΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΥ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΙΗ ΧΡ.

So... John T's rendition is just as "ridiculously long" as Scrivener's, and I am out of possible explanations for his bravado.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply