Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:39 am

Jerome references Acts 8:37 even beyond the Vulgate authorship question.

Letter 53 - To Paulinus - Bishop of Nola
translated by William Henry Fremantle (1831-1916)
http://books.google.com/books?id=VHA7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA98
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001053.htm

In the Acts of the Apostles the holy eunuch (or rather "man" for so the scripture calls him Acts 8:27) when reading Isaiah he is asked by Philip "Do you understand what you read?", makes answer:— "How can I except some man should guide me?" Acts 8:30-31 To digress for a moment to myself, I am neither holier nor more diligent than this eunuch, who came from Ethiopia, that is from the ends of the world, to the Temple leaving behind him a queen's palace, and was so great a lover of the Law and of divine knowledge that he read the holy scriptures even in his chariot. Yet although he had the book in his hand and took into his mind the words of the Lord, nay even had them on his tongue and uttered them with his lips, he still knew not Him, whom— not knowing— he worshipped in the book. Then Philip came and showed him Jesus, who was concealed beneath the letter. Wondrous excellence of the teacher! In the same hour the eunuch believed and was baptized; he became one of the faithful and a saint. He was no longer a pupil but a master; and he found more in the church's font there in the wilderness than he had ever done in the gilded temple of the synagogue.

"In the same hour the eunuch believed and was baptized"

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.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:44 am

Andrew Criddle wrote: The Clementine Vulgate has Acts 8:37 but it was almost certainly not part of the original Vulgate text of Acts.
Ulan wrote: While Jerome changed much of the gospels to Alexandrian and Byzantine readings, removing many Western readings in the process, he did not touch Acts, which was handled by an unknown editor.
Ulan wrote: the parts not produced by Jerome seem to have been closely following the Alexandrian text (they are more or less quite exact matches to Sinaiticus).
This leads to a few questions, lets start with:

documentation on this match to Sinaiticus?
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:07 am

One of those statements you quote was by Andrew Criddle. As I said in my last post, I'm not that interested to go into the available so-called "Vulgate" manuscripts and verify these claims. Latin manuscripts seem to be all over the place, which leads to lots of effort for little gain.

Houghton (2016) The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press. p. 41:

The whole of the latter part of the Vulgate New Testament has a common origin. There is a noticeable difference in translation technique between the Gospels and the other writings: while Jerome introduces various forms for which no basis can be discerned in Greek, almost all of the innovations in the Vulgate of the other books represent Greek readings. What is more, the alterations made to Acts and the Catholic Epistles appear to reflect a Greek text similar to that of the early majuscule manuscripts rather than the later Greek text used by Jerome in the Gospels.69

The references go to Fischer 1972 and 1986 and Thiele 1972. The book is available online, so you can go and dig yourself.

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:10 am

Now I think I have the quotes right.:)

Nothing about Sinaiticus in the Hugh Houghton quote, I've never seen that claim about Sinaiticus and the Vulgate and Acts, I believe it was yours that does not hold up.

More planned to follow.

Steen

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:28 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:10 am
Nothing about Sinaiticus in the Hugh Houghton quote, I've never seen that claim about Sinaiticus and the Vulgate and Acts, I believe it was yours that does not hold up.
That's what's meant with "early majuscules". The texts of Acts in the Vulgate, א, A, B, and C (Alexandrian type) are pretty much identical. The Vulgate has very few remnants of the Western type in Acts (see summary by Ropes and Hatch, 1928). Hort also made that connection, as you should probably know, because Acts in the Vulgate uses chapter divisions that are unique to א and B among Greek manuscripts.

Whether Jerome knew 8:37, doesn't really matter. He should have known the verse from Old Latin texts. However, he didn't edit Acts. I'm not sure why all of this really matters, as the Vetus Latina text is the basis of any revision.

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:03 pm

Ulan wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:28 am
The texts of Acts in the Vulgate, א, A, B, and C (Alexandrian type) are pretty much identical.
Only with a very loosey-goosey idea of “identical”.

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:56 pm

Everything and everyone seems 'loosey-goosey' when compared with the inerrancy you claim as your ideals. Ulan's 'pretty much identical' is a far more reasonable estimation.
“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

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:01 pm

I almost wish Steve Avery simply came out with his ACTUAL beliefs rather than this little skirmish here and the Simonides thread and the like. Why not put all his cards on the table and present to all of us how reasonable his beliefs are http://www.purebibleforum.com/newreply. ... &noquote=1 At least Giuseppe is transparent about 'where everything leads' - i.e. some silly early Christian myth or many. Steve Avery pretends that he really cares about the details when he doesn't. It's all part of some meta-plot for a larger theory. Seems disingenuous.
“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

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:08 pm

Yes, this obsession with some idée fixe is weird. We have to live with the fact that the copying of manuscripts always involved errors and, sometimes, misguided corrections. We also have to accept that there were major edits undertaken. The idea that the version of the Bible you like most is the original is lunacy.

On a certain level, I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that you might think the Byzantine text represents something like a best effort of making sense of the old manuscripts and an honest attempt at correcting all perceived errors, with a little dose of doctrine thrown in. Why the Novum Testamentum Graece should be the basis for most common Bible editions is not really clear to me. I'd be fine if it stayed a scholar's Bible. It reeks like a different kind of fool's errand to think you come closer to the "truth" by using it. However, the KJV exists, and if you like it, just use it. Nobody prevents you from doing so. You even have the choice between normal English and the LARPers' version.

The descent into lunacy only starts there, where you define the KJV or its underlying Greek text as the "true" version and the actually early Christian manuscripts as "corruptions". That's where Steven Avery's difficulties with the distinction between "before" and "after" and his obsession with the manuscripts from the late Byzantine Empire come into play. Although he seems to be aware of the issue, which explains the Sinaiticus crusade.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Charles Wilson » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:03 pm

Ulan wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:08 pm
Why the Novum Testamentum Graece should be the basis for most common Bible editions is not really clear to me.
FWIW, I believe the Greek Imperative is to hide the Hebrew Roots of the Original background Stories: For ex.: "Immar" => "Lamb" <= "Immer" as a Word Play in Hebrew is completely lost if "Lamb" is rendered "Arnion" in Greek or what-not. No need to compose a Story to write the Priesthood out of the Drama if the Word-Plays are lost because the Stories are now "translated" into another language.
I'd be fine if it stayed a scholar's Bible. It reeks like a different kind of fool's errand to think you come closer to the "truth" by using it. However, the KJV exists, and if you like it, just use it. Nobody prevents you from doing so. You even have the choice between normal English and the LARPers' version.
Well stated and rather moderate compared with what you could have said. Very nice.

CW

Post Reply