Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:26 am
gMark was the first non-fiction account of the gospel of Jesus
What is the likelihood that an illiterate scribbling on a tablet in antiquity would match what we mean by 'non-fiction'? Clearly that's not the case.
The use of the modern categories of "fiction" and "nonfiction" seems to throw everybody off in these conversations, and nobody is sure exactly what the other person is claiming. Those categories probably ought to fall into disuse for discussions of ancient or even medieval texts.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:26 amThe lower you go down the social ladder the more prone to lies. Hence the torture of slaves for admitted testimony.
Whoa there. It sounds like you are deliberately succumbing to imperial propaganda here. Tell me Virgil is full of gospel truth when it comes to the Augustan hegemony.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias »

No I am simply using the social metrics of ancient society to establish 'trustworthiness' and 'untrustworthiness.' To go back to my frequent use of examples drawn from prostitution, a sex worker is typically someone who succumbed to sexual abuse as a young girl/young boy. It has made its way into popular culture - i.e. Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman 'If you hear bad things enough you start to believe it ...' The same thing is true in antiquity with regards to the untrustworthiness of slaves. As Nietzsche notes in the back pages of Beyond Good and Evil 'noble' had the connotation of 'good' and true and - by inference - poor with 'bad' and untrue. I am not a Hollywood movie writer rewriting history. Truth was controlled by the aristocracy. A person of the lower ranks of society wouldn't be expected to tell the truth. Nor would a person from the lower ranks expect himself to 'stick' to the facts. And to it's true today. Had the Germans won the second world war we'd all be writing about how 'truth' or the good guys overcame the bad guys in the opposite way that we do now. Power determines truth.
“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
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:02 pm
Steven Avery wrote: Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:27 pm
DCHindley wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:45 pmThis 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.
Selection fallacy. There are numerous early church writer references that are written in early centuries, even 180-250 AD.

There are some fairly early extant mss as well, but since the ECW are far more important, I will not check dates and languages at the moment.

==============

JW - where is Acts 8:37 an early confessional statement? You have any documents?
And, if true, you are arguing for authenticity, since confessional statements were built upon scripture.

However, since Acts 8:37 strongly supports believer’s baptism, and contradicts infant baptism, there would be a strong inclination od scribes to prefer the lacuna text. Note that this is different than the embedded confession.
Are you just making up fallacies at this point.

There is just one papyrus that has 8:34-9:6, which Ben S has already demonstrated, for the benefit of JohnT, could not possibly have included 8:37, and that was p45 (ca 250). 8:37 was not there. Period.

Steven, this is the kind of legwork that *you* should be doing.

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
True, but since he's never taken a course in Textual Criticism and yet arrogantly thinks he knows more about it than any living human being, you get nonsense like he types.

And speaking of fallacies, every single post of Steven Avery Spenser's that touches on Textual Criticism and Greek is - by definition - an argumentum ad verecundiam, but good luck getting him to shut his piehole.
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 »

Steven,

Whenever I see more than occasional use of different sized fonts in a post, I tend to withdraw from the discussion.

I'm really not into apologetics at all.

DCH
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery »

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.

Integrity first.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan »

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.

Integrity first.
P74 is 7th century, which was covered by DCH's statement that "the earliest witness for vs. 8:37 date no earlier than 6th century", to which you heavily objected. This objection was what DCH answered. Try to keep up with your own shenanigans. Before we get any other inane comment, let's be clear that this specific discussion was about textual witnesses, not secondary ones. Everyone here knows Irenaeus.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery »

Please. I think DCHindley knows the English language and logic better than that.

He lists all the Acts papyri and writes:
DCHindley wrote: Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:02 pm There is just one papyrus that has 8:34-9:6,
Simple enough.

And a simple mistake.
It was ironic, though, that he tried to lecture me about the chart.
DCHindley wrote: Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:02 pmSteven, this is the kind of legwork that *you* should be doing.
My objection to his 6th century statement was based on Irenaeus, Cyprian, etc.
And DCHindley simply did not address that at all.

Steven
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by andrewcriddle »

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
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

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
I share that guess with you.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:05 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
I share that guess with you.
Codex Glazier, which is one of the closest texts to Bezae ever found, also points into that direction.
Post Reply