Who axed Acts 8:37?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Maestroh
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh » Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:42 pm

Ulan wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:58 am
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:20 am
Jerome said specifically that the eunuch believed and was baptised...
Yeah, we already went over all of this. Jerome didn't produce the Acts translation, so it doesn't matter what he quotes from the Old Latin version, from which we know that it had the verse.

The Oxford NT uses nearly all old Vulgate manuscripts that we have, so there isn't really anything you have in your hand against it. The stuff talking about "the majority of manuscripts" makes as little sense as when you make the same remark about Greek manuscripts. It's a measure that doesn't matter, because the later manuscripts (the "many") are at the end of a development process.

I'm not even sure why all of this would matter to the case for or against Acts 8:37. It doesn't. The important switch lies somewhere at the root between the Greek Western (which lies at the root of the Old Latin version) and the Alexandrian (which lies at the root of the Vulgate) text types. Nobody knows anything about that time when they diverged.
Particularly when Avery himself rejects the majority of Greek manuscripts at 1 John 5:7.

The Greek majority is nothing but a deceptive argument he can throw out - since he himself doesn't even believe in it.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:28 am

Hi Ulan,

If I remember right, Jerome said he translated the full New Testament.
If so, why not simply accept his words?
Who else claimed to do the books beyond the Gospels?

As for the Oxford NT, how does its count of mss split?
Without that info, there is little value in the reference.

And I realize you ignore the genealogical element of textual transmission, what were the ancestors of 1,000 mss? So we can put that aside.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 am

Omitting a phrase or verse from a textline is easy. Look at 1 John 2:23b as an example.

1 John 2:23 (AV)
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

One of the (many) key weaknesses of textual criticism today is assuming that theories of addition and omission are symmetrical in analysis. In fact, omissions are often quite easy, while conjectured additions have to jump over a high bar of difficulty.

Even worse is the acceprance of lectio brevior as the preferential position, long shown to be a false paradigm.

Steven

perseusomega9
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by perseusomega9 » Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:14 am

The key weakness of textual criticism using it to entrench one's position by using church edited texts that date to over a century or more from the purported composition date.

User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1126
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by rakovsky » Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:50 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:25 pm
The verse appears in the Old Latin, one of the Syriacs, the Vulgate, and one of the Coptics.
The Church Slavonic lectionary, as well as the 20th century Russian Orthodox Church's modern Russian language bible contains it. here it is in Church Slavonic:
See: "Деяния святых Апостолов, зачало 20"
https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/lekcion ... s.shtml#1a

The relevance is that the Russian Church bases its readings on the Greek Church's centuries-old practice.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:51 am

rakovsky wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:50 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:25 pm
The verse appears in the Old Latin, one of the Syriacs, the Vulgate, and one of the Coptics.
The Church Slavonic lectionary, as well as the 20th century Russian Orthodox Church's modern Russian language bible contains it. here it is in Church Slavonic:
See: "Деяния святых Апостолов, зачало 20"
https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/lekcion ... s.shtml#1a

The relevance is that the Russian Church bases its readings on the Greek Church's centuries-old practice.
There is a clear 'Western' element in the Slavonic NT text.
The explanation is unclear.
However, we do know that in early Medieval times the Slavonic church used Latin (based on some form of the Vulgate) as well as Slavonic in worship.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:20 am

Here is a new reference for Acts 8:37 in the early Bibles, a solid allusion.

Pure Bible Forum
Acts of Philip - For I also firmly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart, and with all my soul
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 5#post2215
Acts of Philip
https://books.google.com/books?id=9MsUG7o1wuwC&pg=PA503

And having thus spoken, he ordered that he should he baptized. And he called Nathan to him, and said to him: How hast thou seen those baptized who believe in Christ? Come to me, and baptize me in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. For I also firmly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart, and with all my soul; because nowhere in the whole world is there another who has created me, and made me whole from my wounds.
I actually ran into this when I was looking up references for Matthew 28:19.

Maestroh
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:07 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 am
Omitting a phrase or verse from a textline is easy.
Well DUH!

This isn't news to anyone.

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 am
Look at 1 John 2:23b as an example.

1 John 2:23 (AV)
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Yes, I appreciate you acknowledging the reading found in Aleph and B as opposed to the Byzantine text is the correct reading.

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 am
One of the (many) key weaknesses of textual criticism today is assuming that theories of addition and omission are symmetrical in analysis.
There is literally not one single textual critic who does this.

Hence, you're whacking at yet another straw man.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 am
In fact, omissions are often quite easy,
True
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 am
while conjectured additions have to jump over a high bar of difficulty.
False.

You have the wrong half of a half-truth.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 am
Even worse is the acceprance of lectio brevior as the preferential position, long shown to be a false paradigm.
Even worse is pretentious KJV Onlyists, who don't "really" care about Greek at all except to appeal to it to support their KJVO bigotry.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:36 am

Maestroh wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:07 am
Yes, I appreciate you acknowledging the reading found in Aleph and B as opposed to the Byzantine text is the correct reading.
Your welcome.

In fact, the strength of the Received Text on this 1/2 verse has caused difficulties for Byzantine and Majority Greek text proponents.

Maestroh
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Who axed Acts 8:37?

Post by Maestroh » Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:15 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:36 am
Maestroh wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:07 am
Yes, I appreciate you acknowledging the reading found in Aleph and B as opposed to the Byzantine text is the correct reading.


Your welcome.

In fact, the strength of the Received Text on this 1/2 verse has caused difficulties for Byzantine and Majority Greek text proponents.
You clearly don't even understand ENGLISH grammar much less Greek grammar.

Post Reply