Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:01 am

I see the mountain is still in labor. I'm waiting with bated breath.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:45 pm

Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:01 am
I see the mountain is still in labor. I'm waiting with bated breath.
To be fair, it takes longer to do impossible things than it does to do possible or, better yet, probable things.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Ulan
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:52 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:45 pm
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:01 am
I see the mountain is still in labor. I'm waiting with bated breath.
To be fair, it takes longer to do impossible things than it does to do possible or, better yet, probable things.
To be completely fair, I'm not holding my breath, either. I'm just curious how the teased result of nearly three weeks worth of deep thought and experimentation (like a real textual critic, no less) over this momentous problem is supposed to look. I guess I have my peanuts to hold me over.

Maestroh
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh » Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:13 am

John T wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:27 am
Still, my hunch is, Acts 8:37 was deliberately removed in order to justify the non-scriptural doctrine of baptizing infants.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just include a baptism of infants?
John T wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:27 am
Perhaps I need to go on a tangent and ask when did the doctrine of baptizing infants begin and by whose authority?
The Didache and Irenaeus


Maybe he removed Acts 8:37 and then went on a quest to take it out of every text everywhere.

I mean, why would he quote it, right? (This whole discussion is ridiculous as this is another settled issue of TC folks don't want to admit).

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:27 am

Between Steven Avery's arrogance, Giuseppe's assuredness, and Charles Wilson's ridiculousness, John T takes all of that within himself and amplifies theme to absurd proportions. I doubt there is a user on here as disingenuous as he is.

Maestroh
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:03 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:27 am
Between Steven Avery's arrogance, Giuseppe's assuredness, and Charles Wilson's ridiculousness, John T takes all of that within himself and amplifies theme to absurd proportions. I doubt there is a user on here as disingenuous as he is.
Maybe they're all the same poster....?????

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by John T » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:26 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:45 pm
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:01 am
I see the mountain is still in labor. I'm waiting with bated breath.
To be fair, it takes longer to do impossible things than it does to do possible or, better yet, probable things.
Actually, getting the Greek to fit was the easiest part but you already knew that. That is not to say it was included in p45 but did the missing sections contain enough room for the nomina sacra formula to fit in just the same?

To rule it in or out requires using an overlay on top of p45 and the complexity of that is another matter altogether.

Not only do I lack the computer skills but I will likely need permission to use the p45 image from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

If I figured out how to do all of that and it turned out to work just as I hoped, would it matter anyway?

Because, no matter how convincing the evidence, you guys would still poo-poo it, such is your mythicist nature.

Still, I will continue the project just the same, just to satisfy my own curiosity.
I'll keep you posted on my progress.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Ulan
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:38 am

As expected, we just get excuses. There's no need to use any original images. A transcription of the original that preserves spatial relations would be sufficient, as Ben has shown.
John T wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:26 am
Actually, getting the Greek to fit was the easiest part but you already knew that. That is not to say it was included in p45 but did the missing sections contain enough room for the nomina sacra formula to fit in just the same?
No, actually everyone else except you came to the conclusion that "the Greek" doesn't fit. That's why we want to see your solution.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:39 am

John T wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:26 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:45 pm
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:01 am
I see the mountain is still in labor. I'm waiting with bated breath.
To be fair, it takes longer to do impossible things than it does to do possible or, better yet, probable things.
Actually, getting the Greek to fit was the easiest part but you already knew that. That is not to say it was included in p45 but did the missing sections contain enough room for the nomina sacra formula to fit in just the same?
You have mentioned the nomina sacra a few times now, as if there is some great importance to being able to shave off a few letters from about three words in verse 37. This is making me suspicious that we are undertaking different enterprises. What is it about the nomina sacra in verse 37 that makes you think it will fit in somewhere? Why does the probable abbreviation of three words, abbreviations which my letter counts already accounted for, make such a huge difference to your way of thinking?

I calculated some line counts in an earlier post: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4481&start=40#p91531, tallying letters from a selected character in one line up until the vertically corresponding character in the next line. In your opinion, are those line counts at least roughly correct? Does each line in this column of text hold about 53 letters (in a range, based on my selection of nine lines, of about 49 to about 58)?

If my line count average of just under 53 is at least in the ballpark, do you see how easily everything fits in the column of text if verse 37 is absent? The first white box in this post demonstrates it, based not just on it working out visually but rather on it working out mathematically, based on the line counts: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4481&start=50#p91535.

If that picture is, again, even roughly correct, do you see how verse 37 has to add 90+ characters to a line that is already full (or, at best, distributed between two lines that are already full)? Line #4 on the image has part of verse 36, and line #5 has part of verse 38, so the entirety of verse 37 has to fall somewhere on or between those two lines, correct? Are you mentally adding verse 37 somewhere else? It has to come between verse 36 and verse 38, so only lines 4-5 are in play. Each of those lines without verse 37 has a number of characters commensurate with the calculated line averages. How can you add 90+ letters to lines already containing about 50-60 each without absolutely destroying the average? If you cannot do an actual overlay, perhaps you can show me a bit of math that allows for this verse to fit in.

You write: "Actually, getting the Greek to fit was the easiest part but you already knew that," as if I am trying to hide some secret way of doing this from people for some reason. But I am completely stumped. I cannot get the Greek to fit unless I get it to fit somewhere other than the partially visible column of text: not just because it will not fit visually, but also because it will not fit mathematically.
If I figured out how to do all of that and it turned out to work just as I hoped, would it matter anyway?
Yes! Of course it would matter. I would love it if you could somehow show that the restored column of text works best with the inclusion of verse 37 rather than with its exclusion. To convincingly turn a consensus on its head is the dream.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:43 am

Here is an image which probably will not show up well on most screens, but in which I have tried to fit verse 37 into the column. There are four blocks of text:
  1. The first block lacks verse 37. Everything fits great.
  2. The second block has verse 37 added to the end of the line containing verse 36.
  3. The third block has verse 37 added to the beginning of the line containing verse 38.
  4. The fourth block has verse 37 distributed about equally between both lines.
Acts 8.34-40 Line Test.png
Acts 8.34-40 Line Test.png (135.49 KiB) Viewed 7804 times
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply