DCHindley, one question I asked was this.. why is this list supposed to be relevant to the textual question in Acts?
DCHindley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:45 pm
If one wants to understand Who axed Acts 8:37, the question should be "Who's axing?"
....
** Acts has first order witnesses from papyri
p8 (4th cent),
p29 (3rd),
p33+58 (6th),
p38 (ca 300 CE),
p41 (8th),
p45 (3rd),
p48 (3rd),
p50 (4th-5th),
p53 (3rd),
p56 (5th-6th),
p57 (4th-5th),
p74 (7th),
p91 (3rd) &
p112 (5th).
As for the related chart of Acts papyri, very pretty, and it simply reinforces my questions.
You successfully showed what we know, that there is only one early papyrus fragment relevant to Acts.
And one later one, P74. Which you missed.
DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:02 pm There is just one papyrus that has 8:34-9:6,
It is a bit ironic that you have good html skills, or good usage of the editor, and did not read correctly your own chart.
2:6-28:31
DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:02 pm Steven, this is the kind of legwork that *you* should be doing.
An ultra-ironic lecture.
============================
While the
selection fallacy was your talking about the earliest witnesses and omitting Irenaeus, Cyprian and other early church writings. You omitted the early church writers, when they are the most important witnesses.
Here was your assertion (fallacy phrase has emphasis added.) :
DCHindley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:45 pm This all means that Acts has witnesses that go back to 2nd-3rd century (101-300) CE, whereas
the earliest witness for vs. 8:37 date no earlier than 6th century. All those variants and the dates of the witnesses convinced W&H and NA to omit vs 8:37 as a scribal gloss. Since it serves as an expansion, it is surprising not to see it witnessed by Uncial D (Bezae, 5th century, the "western text"). IMHO, it may have been an expansion created in imitation of the western text type readings, which are usually expansions
As for Westcott and Hort, all they needed to see was Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.