Page 19 of 25
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pm
by DCHindley
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:43 pm
DCHindley wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:32 pmSteven, 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
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:37 pm
by DCHindley
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
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:59 pm
by Ben C. Smith
DCHindley wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:32 pmLet 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 Ƿ
74 as a witness for the omission of Acts 8.37.
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:06 pm
by MrMacSon
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 |
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm
by DCHindley
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 |
Editorial fatigue, has to be ...
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:37 pm
by MrMacSon
DCHindley wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:55 pm
Editorial fatigue, has to be ...
at least it's only of semi-colonic proportions ...
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:17 am
by gmx
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.
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:32 am
by Ulan
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 pmSteven, 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?
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:50 am
by Ben C. Smith
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.
Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:59 am
by Secret Alias
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.