Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery »

John T wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:27 amAlthough I'm not a fan of KJVO (King James Version Only) I think they have a strong argument on this one. Still, my hunch is, Acts 8:37 was deliberately removed in order to justify the non-scriptural doctrine of baptizing infants. John T
This might be a factor.

This article discusses how the removal is much more comfortable for infant baptism doctrines.

Millenial Harbinger (1860)
James Henshaw
http://books.google.com/books?id=_X8oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA149

"It was much easier for a Pedobaplist to defend Infant Baptism against the commission of our Lord; ... the clear requirement of faith before baptism, and entitling the party to it, was the moving cause of its removal."

Henshaw is excellent on the missing answer problem when the Acts chapter is mangled with the omission.

"I agree with Wolf, who contended that the context required it. If it is spurious, you have a most important question unanswered, and huflishly treated with contempt! Where else, in the New Testament, is a serious question either put to the Master, or to any of his servants, without an answer. You may search in vain. .. (continues with examples of questions and answers)"

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

The post with the url to the James Snapp material is here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4481&start=80#p91720

This is vastly superior to the apparatuses.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:04 pm So... John T's rendition is just as "ridiculously long" as Scrivener's, and I am out of possible explanations for his bravado.
The bravado? It's the toe stub business (the AoJ drama) all over again. He never admitted that he was obviously wrong there, either. You find the same wrong claims about things you allegedly "admitted". There he also finished with some rant about imaginary "mythicists" who are out to get him.

I know JohnT's failure to even try to explain his position is frustrating, but then again, as JohnT doesn't even try, your side of the argument wins by default.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I am posting this here just to document some of the absurdity of this thread for future reference. I have noticed and am preserving for posterity, John T, that you have indulged in hubris, moved the goalposts, and been deceptive in your dealings on this topic.

1. Indulging in hubris.

Once Ƿ45 came up as the earliest manuscript attesting to the context around Acts 8.37, you asked for a link to the relevant page of the papyrus. Andrew Criddle kindly obliged. You responded:
John T wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:28 amThanks for the link but I can't translate P45 due to it being badly damage. I tried looking for the word 'eunuch'(eunouchos #2135) as a reference point but I can't locate it.

http://csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P45
The Greek word for "eunuch" actually appears twice in part on this page and once nearly in full (only the final letter is challenging):

Eunuch (P45).png
Eunuch (P45).png (427.11 KiB) Viewed 9513 times

If this word was hard to find on this page of Ƿ45, then obviously the seeker has little or no facility with manuscript Greek. Now, this is no sin in and of itself; but it contrasts sharply with your arrogant pronouncements elsewhere in the thread:
John T wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:52 pmLet it go Ulan, it is simply out of your league both in linguistics and mathematics.
And hubris is a sin.

2. Moving goalposts.

After I showed conclusively that Acts 8.37 would not fit in the column of text on this page of the manuscript, you accused me of playing a prank:
John T wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:19 pmActually, Ben was pulling your leg with his long-hand rendition. ;)
John T wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:46 amIf 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.
I still went ahead and gave three different ways of arranging the text with Acts 8.37 in it, including the insertion of "the beginning of the sentence after the last half" of the one line and the insertion of "the remainder at the beginning" of the next line (option #4 on the linked page, just as you suggested), and none of the three looked even remotely close to a real column of text. I also pointed out that the other verses in context show up on two lines (each) of the column of text while verse 37 does not show up at all, despite it being of commensurate length with the other verses.

Your response was to suggest that my rendition of the verse was too long:
John T wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:21 am
....
37: ΕΙΠΕΔΕΟΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣΕΙΠΙΣΤΕΥΕΙΣΕΞΟΛΗΣΤΗΣΚΑΡΔΙΑΣΕΞΕΣΤΙΝΑΠΟΚΡΙΘΕΙΣΔΕΕΙΠΕΠΙΣΤΕΥΩΤΟΝΥΙΟΝΤΟΥΘΥΕΙΝΑΙΤΟΝΙΗΧΡ [96 characters]
....

....
The blue line is Ben's torturous, voluminous and ridiculously long rendition of Acts 8:37. Yes, Ulan, he was pulling your leg.
Never mind that "my" rendition was actually straight from Scrivener's text, which agrees nearly verbatim with all other published texts of this verse known to me.

3. Being deceptive.

In that same post, you even suggested what my efforts should have looked like:
John T wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:21 amNow if Ben's exercise were to be a fair representative of the problem we facing in textual criticism the red letters would line up more or less in a vertical column. Sort of like this.


ΑΙΣΟΥΠΕΡΙΤΙΝΟΣΟΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣΛΕΓΕΙΤΟΥΤΟΠΕΡΙΕΑΥΤΟΥΗΠΕΡΙΕΤΕΡΟΥΤΙΝΟΣ
ΑΝΟΙΞΑΣΔΕΟΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣΤΟΣΤΟΜΑΑΥΤΟΥΚΑΙΑΡΞΑΜΕΝΟΣΑΠῸΤΗΣΓΡΑΦ
ΗΣΤΑΥΤΗΣΕΥΗΓΓΕΛΙΣΑΤΟΑΥΤΩΙΤΟΝΙΗ ΩΣΔΕΕΠΟΡΕΥΟΝΤΟΚΑΤΑ
ΤΗΝΟΔΟΝΗΛΘΟΝΕΠΙΤΙΥΔΩΡΚΑΙΦΗΣΙΝΟΕΥΝΟΥΧΟΣΙΔΟΥΥΔΩΡΤΙΚΩΛΥΕΙΜΕΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΗΝΑΙ
ΚΑΙΕΚΕΛΕΥΣΕΝΣΤΗΝΑΙΤΟΑΡΜΑΚΑΙΚΑΤΕΒΗΣΑΝΑΜΦΟΤΕΡΟ
ΙΕΙΣΤΟΥΔΩΡΟΤΕΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣΚΑΙΟΕΥΝΟΥΧΟΣΚΑΙΕΒΑΠΤΙΣΕΝΑΥΤΟΝ

Oh! If I were being fair, my red reference letters would have lined up pretty much in a vertical column. You went on to explain that you did the best you could in getting them to line up vertically, but it is not easy. Fair enough, but what ever happened to my own efforts to do exactly this: to line up the red reference letters vertically?
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:11 amWithout verse 37:

Acts 8.34-40 (NA27):
34 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ εὐνοῦχος τῷ Φιλίππῳ εἶπεν· δέομαί σου, περὶ
1 τίνος ὁ προφήτης λέγει τοῦτο; περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἢ περὶ ἑτέρου τινός; 35 ἀνοίξας
2 δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης
3 εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν Ἰη. 36 ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ἦλθον ἐπ-
4 ί τι ὕδωρ, καί φησιν ὁ εὐνοῦχος· ἰδοὺ ὕδωρ, τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι; 37 - 38 καὶ
5 ἐκέλευσεν στῆναι τὸ ἅρμα καὶ κατέβησαν ἀμφότεροι εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ,
6τε Φίλιππος καὶ ὁ εὐνοῦχος, καὶ ἐβάπτισεν αὐτόν. 39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέ-
7 βησαν ἐκ το ὕδατος, πνα κυ ἥρπασεν τὸν Φίλιππον καὶ οὐκ εἶδ-
8 εν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι ὁ εὐνοῦχος, ἐπορεύετο γὰρ τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ χαίρων. 40
9 Φίλιππος δὲ ερέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον· καὶ διερχόμενος εὐηγγελίζετο
- τὰς πόλεις πάσας ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς Καισάρειαν.

With verse 37:

Acts 8.34-40 (NA27):
34 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ εὐνοῦχος τῷ Φιλίππῳ εἶπεν· δέομαί σου, περὶ
1 τίνος ὁ προφήτης λέγει τοῦτο; περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἢ περὶ ἑτέρου τινός; 35 ἀνοίξας
2 δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης
3 εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν Ἰη. 36 ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ἦλθον ἐπ-
4 ί τι ὕδωρ, καί φησιν ὁ εὐνοῦχος· ἰδοὺ ὕδωρ, τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι; 37 εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰν Χν 38 καὶ
5 ἐκέλευσεν στῆναι τὸ ἅρμα καὶ κατέβησαν ἀμφότεροι εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ,
6τε Φίλιππος καὶ ὁ εὐνοῦχος, καὶ ἐβάπτισεν αὐτόν. 39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέ-
7 βησαν ἐκ το ὕδατος, πνα κυ ἥρπασεν τὸν Φίλιππον καὶ οὐκ εἶδ-
8 εν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι ὁ εὐνοῦχος, ἐπορεύετο γὰρ τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ χαίρων. 40
9 Φίλιππος δὲ ερέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον· καὶ διερχόμενος εὐηγγελίζετο
- τὰς πόλεις πάσας ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς Καισάρειαν.

I had already done, some five days earlier, exactly what you accused me of not doing: lining up my own red reference letters vertically (and my letters even came out more vertically aligned than yours). But surely this was just an oversight on your part, not a deliberate deception, right? Who would lie in such a blatantly obvious fashion as to advertise the lie in the very telling of it? Alas, no, it was deception, since you had already quoted the very post of mine in which I lined those reference letters up:
John T wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:11 am John T, I will have to guess on the exact margin cut-offs, since what we have is from the middle of the column and I do not know for sure how centered it is within the original column. You have already accused me of acting in bad faith (by "pranking" you somehow, in a way that is not at all clear to me). What is to prevent you from doing the same when I present a format for which I have, by necessity, made some educated guesses?? This is why the word counts are better: no guessing required. Either the verse in question fits in with the rest of the line counts or it stands out.

Nevertheless....

Without verse 37:

Acts 8.34-40 (NA27):
34 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ εὐνοῦχος τῷ Φιλίππῳ εἶπεν· δέομαί σου, περὶ
1 τίνος ὁ προφήτης λέγει τοῦτο; περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἢ περὶ ἑτέρου τινός; 35 ἀνοίξας
2 δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης
3 εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν Ἰη. 36 ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ἦλθον ἐπ-
4 ί τι ὕδωρ, καί φησιν ὁ εὐνοῦχος· ἰδοὺ ὕδωρ, τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι; 37 - 38 καὶ
5 ἐκέλευσεν στῆναι τὸ ἅρμα καὶ κατέβησαν ἀμφότεροι εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ,
6τε Φίλιππος καὶ ὁ εὐνοῦχος, καὶ ἐβάπτισεν αὐτόν. 39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέ-
7 βησαν ἐκ το ὕδατος, πνα κυ ἥρπασεν τὸν Φίλιππον καὶ οὐκ εἶδ-
8 εν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι ὁ εὐνοῦχος, ἐπορεύετο γὰρ τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ χαίρων. 40
9 Φίλιππος δὲ ερέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον· καὶ διερχόμενος εὐηγγελίζετο
- τὰς πόλεις πάσας ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς Καισάρειαν.

With verse 37:

Acts 8.34-40 (NA27):
34 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ εὐνοῦχος τῷ Φιλίππῳ εἶπεν· δέομαί σου, περὶ
1 τίνος ὁ προφήτης λέγει τοῦτο; περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἢ περὶ ἑτέρου τινός; 35 ἀνοίξας
2 δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης
3 εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν Ἰη. 36 ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ἦλθον ἐπ-
4 ί τι ὕδωρ, καί φησιν ὁ εὐνοῦχος· ἰδοὺ ὕδωρ, τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι; 37 εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰν Χν 38 καὶ
5 ἐκέλευσεν στῆναι τὸ ἅρμα καὶ κατέβησαν ἀμφότεροι εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ,
6τε Φίλιππος καὶ ὁ εὐνοῦχος, καὶ ἐβάπτισεν αὐτόν. 39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέ-
7 βησαν ἐκ το ὕδατος, πνα κυ ἥρπασεν τὸν Φίλιππον καὶ οὐκ εἶδ-
8 εν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι ὁ εὐνοῦχος, ἐπορεύετο γὰρ τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ χαίρων. 40
9 Φίλιππος δὲ ερέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον· καὶ διερχόμενος εὐηγγελίζετο
- τὰς πόλεις πάσας ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς Καισάρειαν.

Thanks Ben,

I wrote out by hand a truncated version of Acts 8:37 using nomina sacra and majuscules in the style of p45 and it appears to fit nicely between lines four and five.

The problem is I don't have the computer skills to turn it into an overlay and superimpose it on the photo image of p45.

Perhaps you can help.
What software program did you use to make those nice red lines on the photo image?
Also, I need a program for typing out Koine Greek in capital letters.
The promised image has never made an appearance, so I cannot directly judge the sincerity of your statement above, but to accuse me of not doing something which I did, and which you had indeed already quoted me as doing, is dishonest.

And there is more. As documented above, you called my rendition of Acts 8.37 "torturous, voluminous," and "ridiculously long," despite it being the standard rendition of that verse; I called on you to give me your (presumably shorter) rendition of the verse, to no avail (thus far), before remembering that you had already given it in the OP of the thread:
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
This version is a competent translation of the Greek text (from Scrivener) that I had given:

Acts 8.37: 37 εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

The KJV rendition that you gave in the OP is a pretty literal translation of this Greek, and very close to word for word. So it turns out that your own rendition is essentially the same as "mine" (again: actually Scrivener's) which you had characterized as "ridiculously long." This is more deception on your part.

I am leaving this post here and bookmarking it in my browser as a reminder of your methods (if they can even be called such) the next time I am tempted to engage you on this forum. The last time you behaved this way you claimed that you were just imitating mythicists; but now it seems clear that this is par for the course for you; it is your standard behavior toward people who do not immediately agree with you. I do owe you a great laugh, though:
John T wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:52 pmLet it go Ulan, it is simply out of your league both in linguistics and mathematics.
Best if imagined spoken in a pompous Foghorn Leghorn sort of voice. So... thanks for that, anyway.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:32 pm, edited 7 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias »

" Pas de besoin de gril : l’enfer c’est les autres”
“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
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by robert j »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:16 am
John T ... you have indulged in hubris, moved the goalposts, and been deceptive in your dealings on this topic.
I think you made the case admirably.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh »

John T wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:27 am
Although I'm not a fan of KJVO (King James Version Only) I think they have a strong argument on this one.

Still, my hunch is, Acts 8:37 was deliberately removed in order to justify the non-scriptural doctrine of baptizing infants.
"Hey folks, I'm just going to say right out that Christians intentionally altered the text to get support their theology, a claim that is little more than an echo of Bart Erhman."

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:20 pm This might be a factor.
It just as easily "might" not.

This article discusses how the removal is much more comfortable for infant baptism doctrines.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:20 pm Millenial Harbinger (1860)
James Henshaw
http://books.google.com/books?id=_X8oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA149

"It was much easier for a Pedobaplist to defend Infant Baptism against the commission of our Lord; ... the clear requirement of faith before baptism, and entitling the party to it, was the moving cause of its removal."
"Let me quote from the paper of a church adamantly opposed to infant baptism and give you his speculation on the THEOLOGY, never addressing the text-critical data."
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:20 pm Henshaw is excellent on the missing answer problem when the Acts chapter is mangled with the omission.
He doesn't know whether Henshaw is "excellent" or not. He likely didn't even read the entire article and most likely just found it about five minutes before he cited it here.

It wouldn't be the first or even only tenth time Steven Avery, the non-Greek scholar, simply passed on a quote from a book he never actually read.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:20 pm "I agree with Wolf, who contended that the context required it. If it is spurious, you have a most important question unanswered, and huflishly treated with contempt! Where else, in the New Testament, is a serious question either put to the Master, or to any of his servants, without an answer. You may search in vain. .. (continues with examples of questions and answers)"
Note again this is NOT a text-critical argument, it's a theological one.

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:20 pm The post with the url to the James Snapp material is here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4481&start=80#p91720

This is vastly superior to the apparatuses.
Not really. But we thank you for your contribution of nothing to the issue.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Erasmus and Acts 8:37

Post by Steven Avery »

Ulan wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:02 amErasmus saw the marginal notes in a manuscript from the 15th century (see here). Erasmus had no access to any old versions of the texts. The manuscripts he used were hardly older than he himself (12th to 15th century).
Erasmus was well aware that Acts 8:37 was a minority reading in the Greek line. Erasmus stated that he felt this was due to the negligence of the scribes. (Likely, Erasmus also considered the possibility of scribes preferring the short version once faced with a split line.)

Erasmus obviously knew of the very strong Latin support for the verse, and he would know the similarly strong early church writer support. Although afaik he did not specifically mention Irenaeus (who has two references) and Cyprian , at least not in the Annotationes. (And I have not checked if the Irenaeus writing was available to Erasmus.) It would be interesting to look for what is in the Erasmus edition in Cyprian, afaik he included Testimonies Against the Jews in his 1520 edition of Cyprian, published by Froben, and that writing was also involved in the Romans 9:5 controversies.

Opera Divi Caecilii Cypriani Episcopi Carthaginensis: ab innumeris mendis repurgata, adiectis nonnullis libellis ex uetustissimis exemplaribus, quae hactenus no[n] habebantur, ac semotis ijs, quae falsò uidebantur inscripta, unà cu[m] annotatiunculis (1521)
https://books.google.com/books?id=lbpSAAAAcAAJ - 1521
https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/d ... 00005.html - 1521
http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansi ... /107406/1/

And since there was no controversy on his inclusion of the verse, there would be no real need to update the earlier 1516 annotations.

It would also be interesting to see the Acts Paraphrase text in English of Erasmus.
Found it!

Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles
By Desiderius Erasmus
https://books.google.com/books?id=xxV0A1bBYB0C&pg=PA63
While Philip was speaking of these and many other things with the eunuch, the latter happened to see a little spring close to the road and said to Philip, 'Why do we put off a matter of such importance. See, here is water; you have instructed, I am ready. What stands in the way of my being baptized right now?' Then Philip replied, 'Nothing stands in the way, provided you believe with your whole heart the things I have taught. This is the only condition encountered in baptism.' Then the eunuch eagerly replied, 'I believe that Jesus is the Christ promised by the prophets, and the Son of God through whom eternal salvation is offered to all.' Whereupon, Philip ordered the chariot to be stopped. It was a magnificent carriage, worthy of the magistrate of a barbarian queen, but one who wishes to be worthy of baptism must descend, must strip himself of all his fine clothes. They both went down into the water, and Philip baptized the eunuch - the poor baptized the rich; the lowly, the powerful; one fully a man baptized a eunuch; a Jew, an Ethiopian. Not the least respect of persons here, where faith meets, and oneness of heart in Jesus Christ, all things are appropriate. After baptism, he is not a eunuch, or an Ethiopian, but a new creation.

As soon as Philip came out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried him away, and the eunuch saw him no more. Nor did he miss his teacher once he had been breathed upon by the Holy Spirit through baptism, but full of joy because he had learned Jesus Christ, he completed his journey so that he might preach the name of Christ among his own Ethiopians also. Then an angel set Philip down in Azotus, the city closest by and the one from which he had come. Proceeding from there, he preached the gospel whenever he came upon a village or town, until he came to Caesarea in Palestine, where he had a house.
So it is quite clear that Erasmus felt that the verse was an integral part of the narrative of Acts 8.

Returning to Erasmus and Cyprian, one of the most curious questions is the silence in not discussing the Unity of the Church reference that uses the heavenly witnesses verse. This was, of course, noted soon enough in the 1500s, it does seem that Erasmus preferred it hush-hush.

Steven
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan »

This has mostly been dealt with in this thread. It is clear that Erasmus included the verse because he was well acquainted with it from the text the Roman Catholic Church had been using for centuries and which its Protestant offshoots continued to use. This is not the issue. The issue is that, when you want to produce a standard early Greek text, you should use the standard Greek form as it has been used in pretty much all our oldest known Greek manuscripts, from the oldest one (P45) onwards.

There is also no real need to treat 8:37 any differently from other cases, as it has been clear that we know of at least two rather old versions of the whole book of Acts of the Apostles with vastly different lengths in text size. 8:37 is from the extended version, the so-called Western text that Irenaeus used. A single verse difference may be due to politics, but the sheer amount of text that is different between both versions suggests a more deliberate attempt to promote particular theological concepts by the editor of the Western text type that 8:37 is part of.


I would be hesitant with calling shenanigans here to try and pick "the true texts". The "short" version of Acts simply follows the better text evidence, but if you want to use a different text, you are certainly free to do so. I'm rather pessimistic that we will ever find versions of the NT texts we could consider originals. As such, the believer is more or less free to choose which one of the many editorial steps he wants to use for his holy texts. I think Trobisch's approach is quite refreshing in that regard, in that he tries to separate those two aspects in his life. While he has no qualms with accepting the findings of textual criticism of the last centuries, he thinks that Christians should just use the text that informed their respective beliefs. This is one of the reasons why he thinks that ditching the Septuagint in favor of the Masoretic text was a mistake, because Christianity used the former to build its views. That's why the given explanation for one of the defining moments in the founding of Christianity is nowadays relegated to a footnote in pretty much all Bibles. Which is somewhat unsatisfactory for believers, I guess, because it makes the founding of Christianity look like based on a mistake.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the Reformation BIble is the Greek and Latin harmony text

Post by Steven Avery »

Ulan wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:30 am The issue is that, when you want to produce a standard early Greek text, you should use the standard Greek form as it has been used in pretty much all our oldest known Greek manuscripts, from the oldest one (P45) onwards.
The Reformation Bible was created as a standard Greek and Latin text.
Ulan wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:30 amThere is also no real need to treat 8:37 any differently from other cases, as it has been clear that we know of at least two rather old versions of the whole book of Acts of the Apostles with vastly different lengths in text size. 8:37 is from the extended version, the so-called Western text that Irenaeus used.
This grossly underplays the very wide support for Acts 8:37.
Ulan wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:30 amA single verse difference may be due to politics, but the sheer amount of text that is different between both versions suggests a more deliberate attempt to promote particular theological concepts by the editor of the Western text type that 8:37 is part of.
The same underplay error combined with hyper-speculation of doctrinal motives.
Ulan wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:30 amI would be hesitant with calling shenanigans here to try and pick "the true texts". The "short" version of Acts simply follows the better text evidence,
Have you read the James Snapp paper? It will help you with actually understanding the text evidences.

And I am skipping your general theorizing about the NT text, with the David Trobisch emphasis.

Steven
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: the Reformation BIble is the Greek and Latin harmony text

Post by Ulan »

Given that your post is more or less just an emotional reaction from you, just a comment with regard to this:
Steven Avery wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:36 am
Ulan wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:30 amA single verse difference may be due to politics, but the sheer amount of text that is different between both versions suggests a more deliberate attempt to promote particular theological concepts by the editor of the Western text type that 8:37 is part of.
The same underplay error combined with hyper-speculation of doctrinal motives.
When someone extends Acts by nearly one tenth of its length (as Bruce Metzger puts it), with phrases that mostly deal with the Jewish rejection of Christ and with the role of the Holy Spirit, then we are not looking at "hyper-speculation of doctrinal motives" (whatever that is supposed to mean exactly), but just with stating the obvious. These words and phrases are distributed across the whole text and change its whole character, which means we are looking at large-scale editing. Given that the earlier representatives of the Western text-type of Acts also possess numerous differences between each other, it's somewhat more likely that the we are looking at interpolations instead of omissions.

Anyway, these general observations of course don't necessarily mean that this specific minor case of Acts 8:37, which just deals with a single verse, has to follow the same direction, but at least it's a solid guess. The reason why this specific verse is a big issue in discussions is just because the whole verse number is "missing" in most Bibles, or in other words, that it's obvious to the common reader.

And no, I don't read Facebook.
Post Reply