Who axed Acts 8:37?

[Steven Avery]

cWhen someone extends Acts by nearly one tenth of its length (as Bruce Metzger puts it),

The support of Acts 8:37 is far, far, wider than the Western text, making your speculations GIGO.

Again, read the James Snapp paper. Not perfect, but quite good.

Your fallacy is one of the variants of the fallacy of composition. Because Acts 8:37 is included in the Western Text, you blunder into claiming that its features are identical too and limited by the general Western text features and weaknesses. I thought you could do better.

Waste of time. From the Garbage In approach, you come up with weak hyper-speculations of doctrinal motivations for the verse. Which actually fits perfectly into the original Acts text. While the lacuna omission text is clearly a corruption. It is much easier to explain its dropping from a full text that a possible addition to a omisson text.

Steven

[Ulan]

cWhen someone extends Acts by nearly one tenth of its length (as Bruce Metzger puts it),

The support of Acts 8:37 is far, far, wider than the Western text, making your speculations GIGO.

Again, read the James Snapp paper. Not perfect, but quite good.

Your fallacy is one of the variants of the fallacy of composition. Because Acts 8:37 is included in the Western Text, its features are identical too and limited by the general Western text features.

Waste of time. From the Garbate In approach, you come up with weak hyper-speculations of doctrinal motivations for the verse, which actually fits perfectly into the original Acts text. While the lacuna is clearly a corruption.

Steven

You are just talking rubbish now. Which one is the "original Acts"? Which early Greek manuscripts that are not from the Western type contain 8:37?

[Steven Avery]

My belief is that the original Acts text includes Acts 8:37. Two of the earliest Acts evidences are Irenaeus and Cyprian using the text.

Your question is parsed to ignore many other evidences, we only have a handful of early Greek mss with the Acts text so you have the typical Westcott-Hort recension blindness. Please come back when you have at least read the James Snapp paper. Thanks!

[Ulan]

My belief is that the original Acts text includes Acts 8:37. Two of the earliest Acts evidences are Irenaeus and Cyprian using the text.

So Western-type it is. Thanks for playing.

[perseusomega9]

You are just talking rubbish now. Which one is the "original Acts"?

The one that aligns with his theology of course.

[Steven Avery]

So Western-type it is.

I have tried to help you on this, and I did recommend the James Snapp article. This is from a section of bullet points:

==================================

● The inclusion of Acts 8:37 is supported by early (Roman-Empire-era) patristic writers in a wide variety of locales.

● The inclusion of Acts 8:37 is supported by three patristic writers (Irenaeus and Cyprian and Pontius) whose manuscripts of Acts 8 were older than any manuscript of Acts 8 currently extant in any language.

● Acts 8:37 is well-supported not only by “Western” witnesses but also by family-1739. Besides being included in 1739, Acts 8:37 has support from group-members 322, 323, 429, 453, 522, 630, 945, 1704, 1891 and 2200.

● Acts 8:37 was the dominant reading in Old Latin versions of Acts, both African and European.

● The support of copG67 makes it difficult to sustain the theory that Acts 8:37 originated as a Latin interpolation which infiltrated non-Latin texts.

==================================

There are a group of Acts variants that are peculiarly Western, without other support. It is simply wrong to place Acts 8:37 in that group.

[Ulan]

So Western-type it is.

I have tried to help you on this, and I did recommend the James Snapp article. This is from a section of bullet points:

==================================

● The inclusion of Acts 8:37 is supported by early (Roman-Empire-era) patristic writers in a wide variety of locales.

● The inclusion of Acts 8:37 is supported by three patristic writers (Irenaeus and Cyprian and Pontius) whose manuscripts of Acts 8 were older than any manuscript of Acts 8 currently extant in any language.

● Acts 8:37 is well-supported not only by “Western” witnesses but also by family-1739. Besides being included in 1739, Acts 8:37 has support from group-members 322, 323, 429, 453, 522, 630, 945, 1704, 1891 and 2200.

● Acts 8:37 was the dominant reading in Old Latin versions of Acts, both African and European.

● The support of copG67 makes it difficult to sustain the theory that Acts 8:37 originated as a Latin interpolation which infiltrated non-Latin texts.

==================================

There are a group of Acts variants that are peculiarly Western, without other support. It is simply wrong to place Acts 8:37 in that group.

Well, I consider you misspoke and meant "not particularly Western". I actually read the article. Going into this, I was not sure what to expect from your claim that we would find something in there that somehow disproves my statements:

1. James Snapp found some surprising new evidence that had not been considered yet in this thread so far.
2. James Snapp engaged in pure apologetics.
3. Steven Avery misrepresents the findings of the article.

I came to the conclusion that we are looking at a case of point 3 and not points 1 and 2 here, which wasn't overly surprising, given the handling of evidence you generally have shown so far on this forum. The article is indeed a good overview of the textual evidence for 8:37. In cases where the evidence for inclusion of 8:37 is on shaky grounds, the author clearly states such. However, in principle the whole article simply echoes the findings we already stated in this thread, and this includes my own statements with regard to the issue. Family 1739 is late and of no importance to the question of the thread (it's generally considered to have branched off in the 5th or 6th century), and all the listed late Latin church fathers are also expected to use the Latin text from the basic assumptions that have already been stated over and over in the current discussion. The author also lists Latin texts that don't include 8:37. copG67 is no outlier either, as it's also Western text type, with some old Latin readings. In the end, the Snapp manuscript is just a plea to weight the patristic evidence higher than the textual. J. Snapp's conclusion at the end:

I believe that Acts 8:37 should be retained in the text. If it is accompanied by a footnote, the footnote should be balanced: the footnote should inform the reader that although the verse is not in the majority of manuscripts, nor in the oldest manuscripts, it has very early and widespread patristic support.

So he wants us to favor the patristic support over the manuscript support. That's his conclusion.

Steven, I am not sure where your misunderstanding lies. Do you not know which area is considered to be "Latin" in the Roman Empire? Africa or Spain are part of that classification. Do you consider that you somehow give a bad name to authors when you distort their findings? Like when you excise a bullet point like:

● The combination of א B A 81 Byz Sah Pesh against the inclusion of Acts 8:37 is very strong.

This shows that James Snapp is looking at the whole picture. He doesn't really differ in anything I say regarding the evidence, he just weights the evidence differently in favor of inclusion.

I'm also honestly puzzled by your railing against the concept of "Western" text family. Everyone knows that the "Western" family is very old, so it's in no way derogatory. I'm not even sure it helps your case if you get rid of that family. Texts within that family are rather diverse, which isn't exactly encouraging for someone who believes in the faithful transmission of the NT texts.

Anyway, James Snapp's article simply confirms what has been said lots of times in this thread already. The most important pieces of evidence for 8:37 are the Western type and Irenaeus as earliest witness. Irenaeus seems to be the centerpiece of orthodoxy, as usual. It's no surprise when many people consider him to be rather formative as far as Christianity goes.

Looks like you have engaged in bluffing once again.

[Steven Avery]

You read the James Snapp article. After many requests. Very good.

Now you know that simply insisting that Acts 8:37 is simply a Western reading, as if that closes the matter, is totally wrong.

Your chatter above is mildly interesting, but really adds nothing.

Steven

[Ulan]

Now you know that simply insisting that Acts 8:37 is simply a Western reading, as if that closes the matter, is totally wrong.

No, the Snapp article actually confirms that it's a Western reading.

I don't know why you always have to make your case by contorting the facts. You can make a case for including 8:37, but you have to approach it differently. James Snapp goes that approach. Stick to the facts and make your case from there. Instead you just claim stuff you pull out of your posterior.

Your chatter above is mildly interesting, but really adds nothing.

Adding made-up stuff is indeed your forte, not mine.

[Steven Avery]

The reason there is a superb defense of the authenticity of Acts 8:37 is because it has it has western support, and far more including solid minority byzantine, wide-ranging ECW and and superb internal support, the short version being a corrupt lacuna. Also, the dropping of the verse is not surprising, especially in circles that do not believe in believer’s baptism. A scribe faced with the two variants could prefer the short corruption text. Dropping of text is common, sincce it does not leave a very visible trail ... “no one told me about her, she’s not there.”

James wrote a good article, I have written little on the verse the last 5-10 years.

Often the articles of James are very weak in undervaluing the mass of Greek mss. He does not have that problem on this verse.