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 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:10 am

Ulan wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:32 am
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?
Maybe you should read the thread. DCHindley made the chart but missed P74 as a papyrus that has the section but not the verse. I informed him of what he had missed.

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:26 am

But why then are you citing Snapp as support for your position? We're not getting why you are directing us to read scholars who hold normative views when your overall position is so out there.
“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 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:53 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:26 am
But why then are you citing Snapp as support for your position? We're not getting why you are directing us to read scholars who hold normative views when your overall position is so out there.
It's Snapp's conclusion that appealed to him. Snapp wants us to favor patristic evidence over manuscript evidence. For reasons.

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:12 am

Like the longer ending of Mark.
“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 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:29 am

Exactly.

Now, of course it's correct not to look past Irenaeus (and the other Latin fathers, but those are later and from the "same branch"). While the match of 8:37 with the Western text-type may not be perfect, it's generally a good approximation. Irenaeus uses the Western text-type of Acts. The different translations of the Vetus Latina are mostly from the Western text-type. 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. Some of the "outlier" manuscripts, like the coptic Codex Glazier, are also a mix of Western and Vetus Latina readings. I'd say, from a textual evolution viewpoint, we are mostly looking at a single clade here, which goes at least back to the 2nd century. This simplifies matters somewhat.

The deciding factor, at least for me here, is that the Western text-type of Acts is a major extension that mostly adds explanations and smooths out the language. For me, this tips the balance towards "later addition".

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:30 am

Makes sense.
“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

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:44 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:26 am
But why then are you citing Snapp as support for your position?
James wrote the best article I know on Acts 8:37.

He also supports the verse as scripture. What is the puzzle?

perseusomega9
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by perseusomega9 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:25 pm

Exactly.

KJV FTw!

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:08 pm

Ulan wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:29 am
Exactly.

Now, of course it's correct not to look past Irenaeus (and the other Latin fathers, but those are later and from the "same branch"). While the match of 8:37 with the Western text-type may not be perfect, it's generally a good approximation. Irenaeus uses the Western text-type of Acts. The different translations of the Vetus Latina are mostly from the Western text-type. 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. Some of the "outlier" manuscripts, like the coptic Codex Glazier, are also a mix of Western and Vetus Latina readings. I'd say, from a textual evolution viewpoint, we are mostly looking at a single clade here, which goes at least back to the 2nd century. This simplifies matters somewhat.

The deciding factor, at least for me here, is that the Western text-type of Acts is a major extension that mostly adds explanations and smooths out the language. For me, this tips the balance towards "later addition".
Thr Clementine Vulgate has Acts 8:37 but it was almost certainly not part of the original Vulgate text of Acts.

Andrew Criddle

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

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Ulan » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:29 pm

andrewcriddle wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:08 pm
Ulan wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:29 am
Exactly.

Now, of course it's correct not to look past Irenaeus (and the other Latin fathers, but those are later and from the "same branch"). While the match of 8:37 with the Western text-type may not be perfect, it's generally a good approximation. Irenaeus uses the Western text-type of Acts. The different translations of the Vetus Latina are mostly from the Western text-type. 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. Some of the "outlier" manuscripts, like the coptic Codex Glazier, are also a mix of Western and Vetus Latina readings. I'd say, from a textual evolution viewpoint, we are mostly looking at a single clade here, which goes at least back to the 2nd century. This simplifies matters somewhat.

The deciding factor, at least for me here, is that the Western text-type of Acts is a major extension that mostly adds explanations and smooths out the language. For me, this tips the balance towards "later addition".
Thr Clementine Vulgate has Acts 8:37 but it was almost certainly not part of the original Vulgate text of Acts.

Andrew Criddle
You are right, as 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). Vetus Latina translations had still been in use for centuries after the Vulgate was composed. There was quite a lot of back and forth between different Latin translations though, so the verse seems to have made it into several older manuscripts that are classified as "Vulgate" (which isn't always that clear-cut, and I'm not really that deeply interested to dig through every manuscript classified as such). Latin Bibles seem to have been quite a diverse bunch.

I don't think that changes much about my conclusion though, which isn't really a "strong" conclusion anyway.

Post Reply