Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2519
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by DCHindley » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:43 pm
DCHindley wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:32 pm
Steven, Whenever I see more than occasional use of different sized fonts in a post, I tend to withdraw from the discussion.
You might want at leasr to acknowledge your error in missing P74 before you withdraw.
After all, it was your error in reading your own chart.
Here you go.

Papyrus#
Approx Date
What's in it
P.008 350 Acts 4:31-37; 5:2-9; 6:1-6, 8-15
P.029 250 Acts 26:7-8; 26:20
P.033,58 550 Acts 7:6-10; 7:13-18; 15:21-24, 26-32
P.038 300 Acts 18:27-19:6; 19:12-16
P.041 750 Acts 17:28-31; 17:34-18:2; Acts 18:17-18, 22-23; Acts 18:24-25, 27; Acts 19:1-4, 6-8; Acts 19:13-16, 18-19; Acts 20:9, 10-13, 15-16; Acts 20:22-24, 26-28; Acts 20:28-30; Acts 20:30-31; Acts 20:32-35; Acts 20:35-38; 21:1-3, 26-27; Acts 22:11-14, 16-17
P.045 250 Acts 4:27-36; 5:10-21, 30-39; 6:7-7:2, 10-21, 32-41; 7:52-8:1, 14-25; 8:34-9:6, 16-27, 9:35-10:2, 10-23, 31-41, 11:2-14, 11:24-12:5, 13-22, 13:6-16, 25-36, 13:46-14:3, 15-23, 15:2-7, 19-27, 15:38-16:4, 15-22, 32-40; 17:9-17
P.048 250 Acts 23:11-17, 23:25-29
P.050 400 Acts 8:26-30, 8:30-32, 10:26-27, 10:27-30, 10:30-31
P.053 250 Acts 9:33-10:1
P.056 500 Acts 1:1-5, 7-11
P.057 400 Acts 4:36-5:2, 8-10
P.074 650 Acts 1:2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 22-25, 2:2-4, 2:6-28:31
P.091 250 Acts 2:30-37, 2:46-3:2
P.112 450 Acts 26:31-32, 27:6-7
P.127 450 Acts 10:32-35, 40-45, 11:2-5, 11:30-12:3, 5, 7-9, 15:29-30, 34-41, 16:1-4, 13-40, 17:1-10
P.136 601-700 Acts 4:27-31; 7:26-30

DCH (Edit: Highlighted P.74 for Steven's sake, so he can do a short lived victory lap)
Integrity first.
And what kind of victory is it? Let me know if you find any reference to P.74 in the mss cited in support of 8:37. The fact is, there isn't, so it wasn't there either!

So boo hoo, I must go now and open my veins in the bathtub.

*This* is what I was referring to by "apologetic." Do your homework.

DCH

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2519
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by DCHindley » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:37 pm

andrewcriddle wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:36 am
DCHindley wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:31 pm
andrewcriddle wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:01 am
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.
Codex Bezae is missing here.

Andrew Criddle
Well, codex Bezae (D) does have a gap of about 8 leaves, which includes 8.37, so I concede that this is likely why 8:37 is not supported by D.

Are you suggesting that the mss that do contain 8:37 are perhaps based on the same mss tradition as Codex D?

The sheer number of variants in vs. 37, IMHO, argue against this.

DCH
Given the Old Latin support for inclusion I would guess that D had the verse. But that is only a guess.

Andrew Criddle
Thanks, Andrew.

I am still concerned by the number of variants in vs 37.

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:59 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm
Let me know if you find any reference to P.74 in the mss cited in support of 8:37. The fact is, there isn't, so it wasn't there either!
Apparently true. LaParola lists Ƿ74 as a witness for the omission of Acts 8.37.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:06 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm
Here you go.

Papyrus#
Approx Date
What's in it
P.074 650 Acts 1:2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 22-25, 2:2-4, 2:6-28:31

DCH (Edit: Highlighted P.74 for Steven's sake, so he can do a short lived victory lap)
D'Oh. Ya missed the semi-colon thus

Papyrus#
Approx Date
What's in it
P.074 650 Acts 1:2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 22-25; 2:2-4, 2:6-28:31


User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2519
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by DCHindley » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:06 pm
DCHindley wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm
Here you go.

Papyrus#
Approx Date
What's in it
P.074 650 Acts 1:2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 22-25, 2:2-4, 2:6-28:31

DCH (Edit: Highlighted P.74 for Steven's sake, so he can do a short lived victory lap)
D'Oh. Ya missed the semi-colon thus

Papyrus#
Approx Date
What's in it
P.074 650 Acts 1:2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 22-25; 2:2-4, 2:6-28:31

:facepalm: Editorial fatigue, has to be ...

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:37 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm
:facepalm: Editorial fatigue, has to be ...
at least it's only of semi-colonic proportions ... :P

gmx
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by gmx » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:17 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:25 pm
The verse appears in the Old Latin, one of the Syriacs, the Vulgate, and one of the Coptics.
So Ben, do you think the verse is original?

I have read from Google one possible reason for the verse being removed... as the result of an early church interpretation that serious sin could not be forgiven after baptism, which resulted in a preference to delay baptism until an initiate had demonstrated their fitness of character. Thus acts 8.37 may have been excised due to its support of immediate baptism. I cannot obviously vouch for the legitimacy of the argument.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.

Ulan
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:32 am

DCHindley wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:43 pm
DCHindley wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:32 pm
Steven, Whenever I see more than occasional use of different sized fonts in a post, I tend to withdraw from the discussion.
You might want at leasr to acknowledge your error in missing P74 before you withdraw.
After all, it was your error in reading your own chart.
Here you go.

Papyrus#
Approx Date
What's in it
P.008 350 Acts 4:31-37; 5:2-9; 6:1-6, 8-15
P.029 250 Acts 26:7-8; 26:20
P.033,58 550 Acts 7:6-10; 7:13-18; 15:21-24, 26-32
P.038 300 Acts 18:27-19:6; 19:12-16
P.041 750 Acts 17:28-31; 17:34-18:2; Acts 18:17-18, 22-23; Acts 18:24-25, 27; Acts 19:1-4, 6-8; Acts 19:13-16, 18-19; Acts 20:9, 10-13, 15-16; Acts 20:22-24, 26-28; Acts 20:28-30; Acts 20:30-31; Acts 20:32-35; Acts 20:35-38; 21:1-3, 26-27; Acts 22:11-14, 16-17
P.045 250 Acts 4:27-36; 5:10-21, 30-39; 6:7-7:2, 10-21, 32-41; 7:52-8:1, 14-25; 8:34-9:6, 16-27, 9:35-10:2, 10-23, 31-41, 11:2-14, 11:24-12:5, 13-22, 13:6-16, 25-36, 13:46-14:3, 15-23, 15:2-7, 19-27, 15:38-16:4, 15-22, 32-40; 17:9-17
P.048 250 Acts 23:11-17, 23:25-29
P.050 400 Acts 8:26-30, 8:30-32, 10:26-27, 10:27-30, 10:30-31
P.053 250 Acts 9:33-10:1
P.056 500 Acts 1:1-5, 7-11
P.057 400 Acts 4:36-5:2, 8-10
P.074 650 Acts 1:2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 22-25, 2:2-4, 2:6-28:31
P.091 250 Acts 2:30-37, 2:46-3:2
P.112 450 Acts 26:31-32, 27:6-7
P.127 450 Acts 10:32-35, 40-45, 11:2-5, 11:30-12:3, 5, 7-9, 15:29-30, 34-41, 16:1-4, 13-40, 17:1-10
P.136 601-700 Acts 4:27-31; 7:26-30

DCH (Edit: Highlighted P.74 for Steven's sake, so he can do a short lived victory lap)
Integrity first.
And what kind of victory is it? Let me know if you find any reference to P.74 in the mss cited in support of 8:37. The fact is, there isn't, so it wasn't there either!

So boo hoo, I must go now and open my veins in the bathtub.

*This* is what I was referring to by "apologetic." Do your homework.

DCH
Mea culpa. I gave Steven Avery the benefit of the doubt (in hindsight, not sure why actually) and thought he had at least checked that far. Let's look at the James Snapp document he recommended numerous times so I could get educated on the topic:
James Snapp wrote:Besides the witnesses already mentioned (including the hundreds of minuscules which contain the Byzantine Text of Acts), the following Greek witnesses support the non-inclusion of Acts 8:37:

P74 – 600’s, a strong representative of the Alexandrian Text.

Maybe, just maybe, Steven Avery should actually read the literature he suggests?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:50 am

gmx wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:17 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:25 pm
The verse appears in the Old Latin, one of the Syriacs, the Vulgate, and one of the Coptics.
So Ben, do you think the verse is original?

I have read from Google one possible reason for the verse being removed... as the result of an early church interpretation that serious sin could not be forgiven after baptism, which resulted in a preference to delay baptism until an initiate had demonstrated their fitness of character. Thus acts 8.37 may have been excised due to its support of immediate baptism. I cannot obviously vouch for the legitimacy of the argument.
That reason for excision is not a bad one at all, IMHO. But no: I do not think the verse is original.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10001
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:59 am

Maybe, just maybe, Steven Avery should actually read the literature he suggests?
Steve Avery is the evangelical equivalent of Giuseppe. They want something to be true and just cite opinions and articles to help THEM win over converts. It's not a search for the truth they are on. They engage in a quest to convince people to agree with their a priori beliefs. They engage in a search for followers. It's bizarre. With that sort of zeal they should be selling things and getting rich. Doesn't make sense to waste so much time on their endeavors.
“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

Post Reply