Who axed Acts 8:37?

[Ulan]

¹ I presume you meant the fourth century (not the 14th).

No, 14th century it is. Greek Christianity was surprisingly uninterested in the teachings of the leading "great church father" of the West. They cherished some of Gregory's writings though.

Of course, in Constantinople proper, there were still people who could read Latin, at least till around 600.

By the way, I really recommend reading that Wikipedia article about the book loss. It contains a few rather surprising aspects.

[MrMacSon]

¹ I presume you meant the fourth century (not the 14th).

No, 14th century it is. Greek Christianity was surprisingly uninterested in the teachings of the leading "great church father" of the West. They cherished some of Gregory's writings though.

Ah, ok. That's interesting in terms of people asserting there was an early [Roman] Catholic church ie. from the 2nd century. I reckon there wasn't a Roman [Catholic] church until the 4th century (or even later), so, if that thesis is correct, Augustine could well be the fork in that road.

Of course, in Constantinople proper, there were still people who could read Latin, at least till around 600.

Yes, there had to have been.

By the way, I really recommend reading that Wikipedia article about the book loss. It contains a few rather surprising aspects.

Will do.

[MrMacSon]

This is terrific I have re-ordered the lists by date (if this is wrong I will undo that or delete the post) -

If one wants to understand Who axed Acts 8:37, the question should be "Who's axing?"
< . . snip . . >
If, alternatively, one believed that NT mss are like any other manuscripts that are frequently copied by scribes of various capabilities, one can expect the copies, over time, to develop variants. Phrases are accidentally omitted and when re-copied eventually replaced with paraphrases or reconstructed. There arise occasional errors themselves as they are often quickly corrected on-the-fly in the copying process, or even cross contaminated from other places in the NT. One has to adopt principles when attempting to reconstruct the "autograph," one that weeds out the errors that get introduced, leaving the text that is clearest and simplest.

From my N/A 27 GNT, like the problem of Romans 8:1 being discussed in another thread, the conclusion they made was that the witnesses for vs. 37* were few, late, of unknown history, or a translation into a foreign language, and so likely a gloss based on the theology of a later time. There are variations of this verse as well.**
___________________

*Majority Text editors Stephanus and Scrivener have the text of 8:37 as follows, which I have marked where major variants exist:

εἶπεν δὲ [ὁ Φίλιππος] Εἰ [alt. ἐὰν] πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης [τὴς] καρδίας [σου], ἔξεστιν [σωθήσει]. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε[ν] Πιστεύω [τὸν ὑιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐιναι [τὸν] Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν] [or εἰς τὸν Χριστόν τὸν ὑιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ]

The KJV translates 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."

The text of Acts 8:37 comes from

• E (08, Basel, 6th century),
• 323 (9th),
• 1739 (10th)
• 36 (12th), &
• 1891 pc (date not stated in either NA27 or UBS 2nd editions I have at hand).

The exceptions marked in the cited text above are:

1. Uncial E (08, 6th cent) adds ὁ Φίλιππος; ἐὰν rather then εἰ; adds σωθήσει; reads εἰς τὸν Χριστόν τὸν ὑιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ instead of τὸν ὑιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐιναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν against uncials 36 (12th, although some mss omit τὸν before Ἰησοῦν), 323 (9th), 1739 (10th) & 1891 (not stated), so IMHO this is likely the original form of this variant;
2. Minuscule 323 pc (11th cent., pc = a reading that varies from Maj. Text) omits σου;
3. Minuscule 36 (12th), 323 (11th), 945 (11th) & 1739 (10th) omit τὸν.

** Acts has first order witnesses from papyri

• p29 (3rd),
• p45 (3rd),
• p48 (3rd),
• p53 (3rd),
• p91 (3rd)
• p38 (ca 300 CE),
• p8 (4th cent),
• p50 (4th-5th),
• p57 (4th-5th),
• p112 (5th),
• p56 (5th-6th),
• p33+58 (6th),
• p74 (7th), &
• p41 (8th),

First order witnesses from the Uncials include

• 0189 (2nd-3rd),
• 4,01 אth cent),
• B (03, 4th),
• 057 (4th-5th),
• A (02, 5th),
• C (5th),
• 048 (5th),
• 0165 (5th),
• 0166 (5th),
• 0175 (5th),
• 0236 (5th),
• 0244 (5th)
• 077 (5th),
• 076 (5th-6th),
• E (08, 6th),
• 066 (6th),
• D (Bezae Catabrigensis, 6th),
• 0294 (6th-7th),
• 096 (7th),
• 097 (7th),
• 095 (8th),
• Ψ (044, 8th-9th), &
• 0140 (10th),

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.

[Steven Avery]

DCHindley - please explain why “first order witnesses” of papyri with Acts, but no part of Acts 8:36-38 extant, would have any significance in looking at the textual aspect of Acts 8:37.

Thanks!

[DCHindley]

DCHindley - please explain why “first order witnesses” of papyri with Acts, but no part of Acts 8:36-38 extant, would have any significance in looking at the textual aspect of Acts 8:37.

Thanks!

Them NA editors, they like to prioritize.

Per the Wiki page for Nestle Aland,

It is worth noting, though, that the Majority Text as a whole is classified by the editors of the NA28 (of whom Metzger is one) as a "consistently cited witness of the first order," meaning that whenever the text presented differs from the majority text this is recorded in the apparatus along with the alternate reading.

Novum Testamentum Graece

So, such mss are primary witnesses to the Majority Text, and when the editors elect another reading, they give a full explanation and all major variants.

Are you reading Kent Clarke's Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (1997), or Robinson & Pierpont's The Text of the New Testament in the Original Greek - Byzantine Text Form (2005)? You rascal!

While Clarke, or R & P, might think the weight of witnesses favors the Byzantine (Majority) Text type, I don't believe that Nestle und Aland would agree. They look at the frequency distribution of all mss, and look for early outliers as being most significant for reconstructing the likely autograph form. "Majority rules" is not quite the same as "the majority is always right." I'd like to see these kinds of disagreements set forth as logical cases. Unfortunately, when it comes to the "laws of large numbers" quite a few unexpected results can occur.

DCH

[Ulan]

While Clarke, or R & P, might think the weight of witnesses favors the Byzantine (Majority) Text type, I don't believe that Nestle und Aland would agree. They look at the frequency distribution of all mss, and look for early outliers as being most significant for reconstructing the likely autograph form. "Majority rules" is not quite the same as "the majority is always right." I'd like to see these kinds of disagreements set forth as logical cases. Unfortunately, when it comes to the "laws of large numbers" quite a few unexpected results can occur.

While I sympathize with the sentiment to make the logic behind the decisions more transparent, I'm not very optimistic that any of the approaches actually achieves what it supposedly aims at: reconstruct the original text or something at least similar to it. Oh well.

Anyway, I found one explanation why the text became more uniform in the manuscript transmission of the Middle Ages quite amusing: as many of the monks who did the copying couldn't actually read what they copied, there was no urge to "correct" or "improve on" the text.

[DCHindley]

While Clarke, or R & P, might think the weight of witnesses favors the Byzantine (Majority) Text type, I don't believe that Nestle und Aland would agree. They look at the frequency distribution of all mss, and look for early outliers as being most significant for reconstructing the likely autograph form. "Majority rules" is not quite the same as "the majority is always right." I'd like to see these kinds of disagreements set forth as logical cases. Unfortunately, when it comes to the "laws of large numbers" quite a few unexpected results can occur.

While I sympathize with the sentiment to make the logic behind the decisions more transparent, I'm not very optimistic that any of the approaches actually achieves what it supposedly aims at: reconstruct the original text or something at least similar to it. Oh well.

That is why I would feel better if these suppositions could be formulated into Hypotheses (I called them logical arguments or something similar) that could be tested. In Sociology or Psychology, these kinds of assumptions are tested. I mean by that, have undergrads copy some sort of foreign language text(s) they have no understanding of, letter for letter, then have someone correct what they write. Now have the same texts, with corrections, copied again, letter for letter and corrected, dozens or even hundreds of times, by different students. Then subject the results to analysis as done by both a reconstructive approach and by a "majority text" approach, to see if their respective approaches actually get close to the original text. Biblical and historical studies are notorious for making assumptions based on an individual scholar's "acumen," which is terribly subjective.

Anyway, I found one explanation why the text became more uniform in the manuscript transmission of the Middle Ages quite amusing: as many of the monks who did the copying couldn't actually read what they copied, there was no urge to "correct" or "improve on" the text.

So you are saying that many medieval monks just copied the letters, presumably from exemplars, without being able to read them?

I could see this as a strategy to reduce "reconstructive" type errors by literate scribes who have enough eddycation to be dangerous (like me). If there is no time frame for completion, it becomes something to keep the illiterate monks busy, like handicrafts for the residents of a Nursing Home, some of whom have long ago lost their full mental abilities. There were still plenty of errors, though. I suppose a literate monk might do the correcting.

Since you appear to come from an academic background, what works (in English) could I consult to confirm this?

DCH

[Ulan]

Since you appear to come from an academic background, what works (in English) could I consult to confirm this?

While I'm from an academic background, I don't have any Biblical Studies degree, just to make that clear. Unfortunately, I don't know any English language source. The claim comes from Herbert Hunger, a former Austrian specialist in Byzantine Studies, in a book about transmission history.

It's an explanation for the finding that, typically, whole lines were missing and later added by a corrector. If you read what you write, that shouldn't happen.

It also serves as explanation why some of the more "questionable" texts of antiquity (like erotic literature), which had the power to endanger the soul of a less resolved individual and which would have probably burned in the early days of Christian rule, were copied in the Middle Ages. If you can't read the text you write, your soul is safe.

[Steven Avery]

DCHindley - please explain why “first order witnesses” of papyri with Acts, but no part of Acts 8:36-38 extant, would have any significance in looking at the textual aspect of Acts 8:37.
Thanks!

Them NA editors, they like to prioritize.
Per the Wiki page for Nestle Aland,

It is worth noting, though, that the Majority Text as a whole is classified by the editors of the NA28 (of whom Metzger is one) as a "consistently cited witness of the first order," meaning that whenever the text presented differs from the majority text this is recorded in the apparatus along with the alternate reading.

Novum Testamentum Graece
So, such mss are primary witnesses to the Majority Text, and when the editors elect another reading, they give a full explanation and all major variants.
Are you reading Kent Clarke's Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (1997), or Robinson & Pierpont's The Text of the New Testament in the Original Greek - Byzantine Text Form (2005)? You rascal!
While Clarke, or R & P, might think the weight of witnesses favors the Byzantine (Majority) Text type, I don't believe that Nestle und Aland would agree. They look at the frequency distribution of all mss, and look for early outliers as being most significant for reconstructing the likely autograph form. "Majority rules" is not quite the same as "the majority is always right." I'd like to see these kinds of disagreements set forth as logical cases. Unfortunately, when it comes to the "laws of large numbers" quite a few unexpected results can occur.
DCH

What you write about here is a fav topic of mine, and I do hope we can engage it more.

However, my question was quite specific. Are you asserting that lists of Acts papyri are relevant to the textual aspects of Acts 8:37? When most of the papyri do not contain anything of Acts 8:36-38.

Same question on the uncials.

[Steven Avery]

It's an explanation for the finding that, typically, whole lines were missing and later added by a corrector. If you read what you write, that shouldn't happen.

What was the evidence for the "finding"? Which comes before the theory.

It sounds like another variant of Hort's recensions, which are in the dust-bin of textual history.

Steven