Steven Avery wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:03 pm
Ulan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:22 am 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:
- James Snapp found some surprising new evidence that had not been considered yet in this thread so far.
- James Snapp engaged in pure apologetics.
- 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:
James Snapp wrote: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:
James Snapp wrote:● 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.