Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias »

But what else does he have to read? Do you have any disputes with his explanation? I know you don't want to hear what he has to say. But seriously you have to come up with a better excuse than 'read this guy.'
“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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by MrMacSon »

Ulan wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:04 am
200s: The big crisis of the Roman Empire brings an end to education in the Latin parts of the Roman Empire. Greek isn't understood anymore in those areas. Not even most of the Latin church fathers can read Christian texts in their original language. That's where Latin translations branch off and a first shrinking of the Greek world takes place.
.
That's interesting. Do you have specific sources or citations (that I/we might read)?

Ulan wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:04 am
300s: The Roman capital is transferred to Constantinople1 in the East, which becomes the center of Christianity. Christianity gets first tolerated, then [becomes the] state religion [at] the end of the century. Church divisions mimic those of the Roman state. All seven ecumenical councils (325-800) take place in or around the new capital or not far away.
.
1 The Roman capital was moved east around 286 AD/CE - to Nicea I think - and may have moved around a bit before (including to Nicomedia, and maybe Nicea a second time), before being set in Byzantium/Constantinople, and even then not until 330, I think.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:34 pm But what else does he have to read? Do you have any disputes with his explanation? I know you don't want to hear what he has to say. But seriously you have to come up with a better excuse than 'read this guy.'
Especially since repeated evidence shows Avery never actually reads the materials he recommends. He grabs quotes that affirm his bigotry and often misses contradictory info on the same page.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:34 pm But what else does he have to read? Do you have any disputes with his explanation? I know you don't want to hear what he has to say. But seriously you have to come up with a better excuse than 'read this guy.'
It's just smoke bombs anyway. If you look closely, he just refers to the short 1 page summary of Robinson's hypothesis you can find on the net (which may as well be all he knows). While Robinson's manuscript work is appreciated within scholarship, his interpretations are generally not.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:31 pm
Ulan wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:04 am
200s: The big crisis of the Roman Empire brings an end to education in the Latin parts of the Roman Empire. Greek isn't understood anymore in those areas. Not even most of the Latin church fathers can read Christian texts in their original language. That's where Latin translations branch off and a first shrinking of the Greek world takes place.
.
That's interesting. Do you have specific sources or citations (that I/we might read)?
I was searching for an accessible English language source, but I haven't found one that fits exactly yet. Keep in mind that my sketch was necessarily rather sparse, because Steven Avery's idea I was addressing was this:

"With the large quantity of mss extant from c. 800 to 1500, I am not really following the connection you are trying to make here."

In this context, a few hundred years of fuzziness isn't really an issue. The process was definitely finished around 700, which was my cutoff point, and the realistic cutoff regarding the education decline is around the year 400. Education standards got a hit in the 200's because, after the end of the Pax Romana in 180 AD, the Roman Empire splintered into localized regions. The free exchange of goods, people and ideas became difficult. The situation improved in some later periods, but it never went back to the freedom of the first two centuries.

Easy to find for you is the situation with the four "great" church fathers of the Western Church. Ambrose and Jerome (obviously) knew Greek, Augustine and Gregory (the Great) didn't. Augustine is the most influential Catholic church father and was a contemporary of Ambrose and Jerome. He often regretted his lack of knowledge of Greek in his writings. He was a bit in a pickle. He had skipped learning Greek because he didn't like his teacher, but he didn't really trust the available Latin translations of his time, either. Which means he used the Septuaginta to check when it came to problems of faith, but he probably had to use dictionaries. There are scholars who think that some of his teachings seem to be simply based on mistranslations from the Septuaginta.

While Augustine regretted his lack of education, Gregory was different and seemed to have been a thoroughly unpleasant fellow. He was outright hostile to classical education (he forbade people in his company to quote any classics). He didn't learn Greek although he was sent as envoy to Constantinople, where he stayed 6 years. His abysmal Greek led to lots of trouble.

Not that the Greek world was much better. They thought speakers of Latin were barbarians who didn't produce anything worth reading anyway. Augustine got his first Greek translation in the 14th century, and then the Great Schism, which had its roots also in some of Augustine's teachings, had long happened.

With regard to the disappearance of books from the Roman world, there's a good Wikipedia article in French and German (for some reason there's no English version, but English-speaking scholarship seems to be on the "the Dark Ages didn't exist" boat at the moment):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCch ... %A4tantike

I didn't try, but Google Translate usually works better with French, if you cannot read any of the two languages. The French and German versions look identical to me (probably also the Danish one). The main value lies in the countless references, so there's something for you to find I hope.
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:31 pm
Ulan wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:04 am
300s: The Roman capital is transferred to Constantinople1 in the East, which becomes the center of Christianity. Christianity gets first tolerated, then [becomes the] state religion [at] the end of the century. Church divisions mimic those of the Roman state. All seven ecumenical councils (325-800) take place in or around the new capital or not far away.
.
1 The Roman capital was moved east around 286 AD/CE - to Nicea I think - and may have moved around a bit before (including to Nicomedia, and maybe Nicea a second time), before being set in Byzantium/Constantinople, and even then not until 330, I think.
Well, the 300s is the same as 4th century, which means I referred to 330. The factual capital had been at different places countless times. Constantine had ruled from Milan for a long time. Even cities like York in England can boast the status as temporary Roman capital. However, in all those cases, Rome remained the official capital, and it was the seat of the Senate, as little influence it may have had. The move to Constantinople was different. Constantine stripped Rome officially of its title as capital, and he brought half of the Roman nobility to move to the new capital. This was a radical move.
Last edited by Ulan on Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh »

No, he can’t read either German nor French (and is very poor at English), hence his whining about how a work of Tischendorf has “never been translated.”

All while he attacks people who can read it.


I’m sure you’ve figured it out, Ulan, as you’re a smart person but you are dealing with a monumentally stupid human being with a persecution complex, a narcisstic personality disorder, and extremely obtuse arrogance.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan »

Maestroh wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:38 am No, he can’t read either German nor French (and is very poor at English), hence his whining about how a work of Tischendorf has “never been translated.”

All while he attacks people who can read it.
Oh, my last post wasn't directed at Steven Avery. But yeah, I can obviously read Tischendorf's works in the original.
Maestroh wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:38 am I’m sure you’ve figured it out, Ulan, as you’re a smart person but you are dealing with a monumentally stupid human being with a persecution complex, a narcisstic personality disorder, and extremely obtuse arrogance.
Well, I was tempted several times to quote one of the sayings regarding discussions which are impossible to "win".
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by DCHindley »

If one wants to understand Who axed Acts 8:37, the question should be "Who's axing?"

If one believes the NT Greek text as authored is divinely inspired and thus should not be changed in any way, then any textual variants that omit what is otherwise in the copies of the Greek "autograph" *must* be incorrect. Believing that such a thing is even possible is verboten, and the inspiration for such ideas *must* be demonic!

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.**

DCH

*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),
36 (12th),
323 (9th),
1739 (10th) &
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
p8 (4th cent),
p29 (3rd),
p33+58 (6th),
p38 (ca 300 CE),
p41 (8th),
p45 (3rd),
p48 (3rd),
p50 (4th-5th),
p53 (3rd),
p56 (5th-6th),
p57 (4th-5th),
p74 (7th),
p91 (3rd) &
p112 (5th).

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

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.

Whew! :banghead:
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan »

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.
It would certainly be funny if the direction of change was from the writings of Irenaeus into the text of Acts.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:31 pm
Ulan wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:04 am 200s: The big crisis of the Roman Empire brings an end to education in the Latin parts of the Roman Empire. Greek isn't understood anymore in those areas. Not even most of the Latin church fathers can read Christian texts in their original language. That's where Latin translations branch off and a first shrinking of the Greek world takes place.
.
That's interesting. Do you have specific sources or citations (that I/we might read)?
Ulan wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:46 am
I was searching for an accessible English language source, but I haven't found one that fits exactly yet. Keep in mind that my sketch was necessarily rather sparse, because Steven Avery's idea I was addressing was this:

"With the large quantity of mss extant from c. 800 to 1500, I am not really following the connection you are trying to make here."

In this context, a few hundred years of fuzziness isn't really an issue.
Sure, I realised you were doing a precise and were covering a range of periods; so thank you for the full reply

Ulan wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:46 am
Education standards got a hit in the 200's because, after the end of the Pax Romana in 180 AD, the Roman Empire splintered into localized regions. The free exchange of goods, people and ideas became difficult. The situation improved in some later periods, but it never went back to the freedom of the first two centuries.

Easy to find for you is the situation with the four "great" church fathers of the Western Church. Ambrose and Jerome (obviously) knew Greek, Augustine and Gregory (the Great) didn't. Augustine is the most influential Catholic church father and was a contemporary of Ambrose and Jerome. He often regretted his lack of knowledge of Greek in his writings. He was a bit in a pickle. He had skipped learning Greek because he didn't like his teacher, but he didn't really trust the available Latin translations of his time, either. Which means he used the Septuaginta to check when it came to problems of faith, but he probably had to use dictionaries. There are scholars who think that some of his teachings seem to be simply based on mistranslations from the Septuaginta. Enlightening regarding the state of education during his time was one of the reasons why he strongly objected to Jerome's translation of the Bible: he thought there was nobody capable around who was able to check Jerome's translations.

While Augustine regretted his lack of education, Gregory was different and seemed to have been a thoroughly unpleasant fellow. He was outright hostile to classical education (he forbade people in his company to quote any classics). He didn't learn Greek although he was sent as envoy to Constantinople, where he stayed 6 years. His abysmal Greek led to lots of trouble.

Not that the Greek world was much better. They thought speakers of Latin were barbarians who didn't produce anything worth reading anyway. Augustine got his first Greek translation in the 14th century1, and then the Great Schism, which had its roots also in some of Augustine's teachings, had long happened.
Cheers, a lot of that is new to me.

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

Ulan wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:46 am With regard to the disappearance of books from the Roman world, there's a good Wikipedia article in French and German (for some reason there's no English version, but English-speaking scholarship seems to be on the "the Dark Ages didn't exist" boat2 at the moment):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCch ... %A4tantike

I didn't try, but Google Translate usually works better with French, if you cannot read any of the two languages. The French and German versions look identical to me (probably also the Danish one). The main value lies in the countless references, so there's something for you to find I hope.
2 I think there is a general western, Christian resentment about the Dark Ages, but I think it's got worse in reaction to Catherine Nixey's The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, Pan Macmillan, UK.


Ulan wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:46 am
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:31 pm
Ulan wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:04 am
300s: The Roman capital is transferred to Constantinoplea in the East, which becomes the center of Christianity. Christianity gets first tolerated, then [becomes the] state religion [at] the end of the century. Church divisions mimic those of the Roman state. All seven ecumenical councils (325-800) take place in or around the new capital or not far away.
.
a The Roman capital was moved east around 286 AD/CE - to Nicea I think - and may have moved around a bit before (including to Nicomedia, and maybe Nicea a second time), before being set in Byzantium/Constantinople, and even then not until 330, I think.
Well, the 300s is the same as 4th century, which means I referred to 330. The factual capital had been at different places countless times. Constantine had ruled from Milan for a long time. Even cities like York in England can boast the status as temporary Roman capital. However, in all those cases, Rome remained the official capital, and it was the seat of the Senate, as little influence it may have had. The move to Constantinople was different. Constantine stripped Rome officially of its title as capital, and he brought half of the Roman nobility to move to the new capital. This was a radical move.
Cheers again. I figured you knew that, and made my comments generally. I think the changes in the Roman empire after 'the end of the Pax Romana in 180 AD' where, as you said above 'the Roman Empire splintered into localized regions' is significant in the development and evolution of Christianity, but is largely understated.
Post Reply