Acts 8:37

Yes, very many of the Greek manuscripts of the book of Acts do not include 8:37. In the opinion of the editors of the Greek text published by the United Bible Societies, it is “virtually certain” that Acts 8:37 is not a genuine part of the New Testament, but a later addition. If you will turn to the page on which Acts 8:36 appears in that text, you will find a list of the very important Greek manuscripts which do not include verse 37. In the manuscripts in which v. 37 is included, it appears in many different forms with many variations which are also noted on the same page of the same Greek text.

 

This verse is found quoted by:Irenaeus,Tertullian,Cyprian,Pacian,and Ambrose;and can be found in Unical Manuscript E,Old Latin Manuscripts(which predates the 'oldest and best' by 150 years),Old Syriac Manuscripts,plus the Armenian and Georgian translations;it can also be found in Cursive 629.

By checking the dates of the Church Fathers listed above,you'll find the verse was being quoted 100 to 200 years BEFORE Sinaiticus(Galatians 4:24-25)and Vaticanus(Revelation 17) were even penned.

The verse is authentic.

 

So now you are arguing that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Pacian, and Ambrose are inspired and authoritative on what God's word is? Why are you trusting these scholars? Who appointed them to decide for you what God's word is? And who appointed you to decide that they knew what they were talking about?

 

Maybe he had an "advanced" revelation! LOL.

I wonder if Ruckman has uttered this type of line that Anti-A is using? Let me guess Anti-A, it's some sort of conspiracy started by the RCC right? Oh ok whatever!

Acts 8:37,[And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] NASB

NASB
*Many manuscripts do not contain this verse

This is nothing new. The AV1611 had a side note in the following:

Luke 17:36,” ||Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left” AV1611

||This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.

I would suspect that Anti-A does not have a problem with the KJV casting doubts on a verse. Sigh....The same thing happened in the KJV in Luke 17:36 that happened in MV in Acts 8:37.

 

Looks as if it boils down to "translator's choice". The AV translators didn't want to leave out anything, while more modern translators didn't wanna ADD anything. Yet, the AV translators were honest enough to note that the verse was wanting in most of the material they had, same as modern translators often say, "not found in NU Text", etc.

As for the good ole boys Anti_Alex names - Could one of THEM have ADDED that verse?

 

But is that any other verse in the New Testament which delineates the requirement for a person to fully believe prior to salvation?

Without the verse in question, doesn't the door to infant baptism swing wide open?

 

Will those who disagree with the authenticity of this passage please answer the evidence Anti-A cited? Thanks.

 

There is really nothing to answer. The verse is omitted by all the major uncials and minuscules as well as all the Byzantine texts which underlie the KJV. It is omitted from the Vulgate, the Syriac, Ethioptic and the Coptic versions, and is missing from the quotes of the passage in Chrysostom and Theophylact.

It is included only in 88, 104, 630, 945, 1739, 1877, 1877, one Latin Vulgate and a few Old Latin texts but with many variables, none of which match the KJV reading.

It is included in the Armenian and Georgian versions and is cited by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Pacian, Ambrose, Augustine, and one copy of Theophylact, but none of them read the way the KJV does.

As it reads in the KJV it is found in no Greek manuscript, with the exception of 629 which is a manuscript containing the Latin and Greek side by side and dates to the 14th century and it is thought that the Greek may be a translation of the Latin.

This is not a question of "answering" Anti-Alexandrian, for in this case it also does not exist in the Byzantine text.

What we, as Christians, must do is look at the evidence and accept what the evidence tells us. As I was taught in General Semantics, "We ought to acknowledge that whatever we 'know,' 'believe', or 'assume' is derived from incomplete information, therefore we ought to hold our conclusions, judgments, beliefs, and assumptions rather tentatively, subject to revision should subsequent 'facts' or events indicate."

 

Acts 8:37 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible)
[And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart you may."
And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]e

Footnote e: Other mss omit bracketed text

 

These Church Fathers witnessed this verse BEFORE B and Aleph MSS appeared. Acts 8:37 was included in a some MSS, however the reason that this verse was omitted is because A.J. Alexander suggested that this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, as "unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd Century." (KJVD page 201)

 

Makes sense.
The 2ed and 3rd century saints
would mentor a new convert for
a year or two before presenting them
for baptism. If they had a Baptist church
with 500 baptized members, they had 500 folks
show up on Sunday morning; by contrast
we have 500 baptized members and only 147 will
show up on Sunday morning.

 

These Church Fathers witnessed this verse in their lifetime. God used them for His purpose that they witnessed this verse -- Genuine!

 

Yes, Bro. HankD, it is interesting how half the
folks here vote for:

"3 The Bible is inerrant
in the original autographs 43% (15)"

I see two problems.

1. We don't have the original autographs. I want
to have the inerrant Bilbe IN MY HAND.
(And I do, which ever faithful translation
I have in my hand).
So I voted my convictions which is:
"6 The Bible is inerrant in all faithful English translations 9% (3)"

2. Just kidding' about 2 probvlmes
did you know the KJV New TEestament
soruces disagree with each other?
37 variants are documented in the New Testament
by the original King James Version translators.
This document is found in faithful renditions
of the King James Version like the KJV1611 Edition
and the KJV1873 edition. Even some "don't mention that there
are various versions of the KJV" are still honest about
the translator sidenotes (footnotes).

 

Or maybe the church fathers added it in. Which goes back to my question: Why are they your authority? You claim that the Bible is your authority, but you cite the Greek Fathers as if they are your authority.

The evidence from AA has been answered before.

 

skanwmatos asked:

Without the verse in question, doesn't the door to infant baptism swing wide open?

A, the Ethiopian eunuch wasn't an infant, nor is there one in sight.

B, I have yet to see a Biblical defense of infant baptism that uses the story of the Ethiopian eunuch.

C, one could say with equal basis in logic that retaining the verse opens the door to salvation by reciting the appropriate creed. Of course, neither appeal to consequence is a valid argument.

 

That means nothing when you consider oral tradition and also what scripture declares in John 21:15, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”

Just because something was in circulation does not give it any credibility to be in scripture. They could be good and accurate sayings and full of truth and still not be scripture.

 

Consider the facts.

* Ac. 8:37 is absent from EVERY known Greek manuscript before the 6th C.

* It is absent from the MAJORITY of extant Greek manuscripts, incuding those of the Byzantine text type.

* It is absent from EVERY known pre-Vulgate version in the entire ancient world EXCEPT the Old Latin.

* It is absent from the citations of EVERY known pre-Vulgate church Father in the entire ancient world EXCEPT those in the Latin West.

* It is found EXCLUSIVELY in ONE REGION of the ancient world (the Latin West) in the pre-Vulgate centuries.

What would account for these facts?

(1) The verse was originally a part of Acts, but for some mysterious reason it was systematically removed from the earliest received texts used in the Greek, Syriac, and Coptic churches. In other words, it vanished without a trace from under the very noses of orthodox Christian believers everywhere in the ancient world without anyone noticing. Only the Latin West escaped this widespread excision of the verse.

OR

(2) The verse was originally not a part of Acts, but originated in the Latin West and later spread sporadically throughout other regions of the ancient world.

Explanation (2) is FAR more reasonable, and on its own establishes that Ac. 8:37 was a later addition to the text. This explanation is strengthened in light of the following corroborating evidence:

* The Old Latin texts and patristic writings from the Latin West are filled with apocryphal additions.

* The "Western" text of Acts is some 10% longer than the text of Acts in the Alexandrian MS tradition.

* Ac. 8:37 is found in two different forms in the Old Latin sources, one resembling the story of the Philippian jailer's conversion (Ac. 16:31), the other resembling the baptismal liturgy of the Western church.

This corroborating evidence provides a reason WHY Ac. 8:37 was added to the Western Latin text: under the influence of a regional apocryphal tradition, or the regional baptismal liturgy (possibly patterened on Ac. 16:31), or both.

The verse is spurious.