Textus Receptus vs. Nestle's text

You're asking about Acts 10:48

Usually the earlier reading wins out but there are no second or third century witnesses to the text so this is given a bit less consideration here.

Metzger's textual comentary says "that the impressive weight and diversity of the witnesses that read 'Jesus Christ'" swayed their decision.

There are even texts that read, "Lord Jesus Christ".

Rob

 

Note from the NET Bible on that verse:
Or “Messiah”; both “Christ” (Greek) and “Messiah” (Hebrew and Aramaic) mean “one who has been anointed.” Jesus’ right to judge as the provider of forgiveness is highlighted here.

This is from the Wycliffe NT:
Acts 10:48
(48) And he comaundide hem to be baptisid in the name of the Lord Jhesu Crist. Thanne thei preieden hym, that he schulde dwelle with hem sum daies.

and from Tyndale's:
Acts 10:48
(48) And he comaunded them to be baptysed in the name of the Lorde. Then prayde they him to tary a feawe dayes.

and from KJV 1611:
Acts 10:48
(48) And hee commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarie certaine dayes.


But if you are translating strictly from the TR, It should be Lord, notice the following:
And from the TR:
προσεταξεν τε αυτους βαπτισθηναι εν τω ονοματι του κυριου τοτε ηρωτησαν αυτον επιμειναι ημερας τινας

kurios: Lord

 

Apparently, this is one of the most 'debated', or uncertain as to exact wording, passages in the Greek. I have in my hot little paws, THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT According to the Majority Text (Second Edition) edited by Zane C. Hodges and the late Arthur L. Farstad.

It would appear that part (but with no clear 'majority', here) of the majority texts here reads 'Lord" as does the 1825 Oxford TR (TR); part would read Lord Jesus; and part would read Jesus Christ. The latter reading is also somewhat consistent with that of Aleph, 'B', and 'A', that was adopted by the so called 'Critical' text (Cr) of Nestle`/Aland. I did find it a bit interesting that the so-called 'Egyptian' witnesses here of Aleph, B and A and the Cr read a different word order as to the location of the word 'baptized' in the text, from the TR and most, if not all, of the Majority or so-called Byzantine texts. Personally, I don't think there is any real doctrinal difference between any of the three readings, of Lord, Lord Jesus, or Jesus Christ, at all. We should strive, I believe, for the reading given by the authors of the text. But I don't believe one could be dogmatic in this case. I'm certain that I have given more attention to this verse attempting to answer your question, than I would have ever given to the Greek reading otherwise, as a quick glance would have suggested to me that the issue is a non-issue, here. That is not always the case. But I would not be upset over any of the three renderings, and given what I now know might lean toward using Lord Jesus Christ, as 'Deacon' suggested a few texts read, although that is probably a 'minority' text position. Interesting, for I am normally a "Majority textist", where I am aware of debate, as opposed to any other starting point, with little time given to any "Only" positions of any sort. Make that less than "little time".

Ed:wavey:

 

Along with the Wycliffe's Bible, the 1538 Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament, and the Douay-Rheims Bible also have "Lord Jesus Christ" at Acts 10:48 as does an English translation of the old Syriac Peshitta (a Syriac translation on the KJV-only line of good Bibles).

 

Just some more data

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ βαπτισθῆναι] [Jesus Christ]
Alexandian: p74 ‭א [aleph]A B 81[c] 181 (1175) cop[sa] cop[bo] WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM Cæs: arm[mss] Cyril-Jerusalem
West/Byz: E
West: it[ar] it[c] it[dem] it[e] it[gig] (it[ph]) it[ro] it[w] vg[ww] vg[st] cop[mae] Jerome Rebaptism
Byz: syr[h] eth slav Chrysostom

βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] [Jesus Christ]
Alex: Ψ 33 326 2344
Alex/West: 945 1739
West: 614 629 630 1891 2412
Byz: 36 307 453 610 1678 l60 (l591) l1178

βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου] [Lord]
Alex: P 104 330 451 2492
West: 1505 2495 vg[ms]
Byz: H L 049 056 0142 88 1877 2127 Byz[pt] (l170) Lect[pt] lAD ς ND Dio

βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ] [Lord Jesus]
Alex: 1241
Byz: 436 Byz[pt] (l1021) Lect[pt]

βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] [Lord Jesus Christ]
Alex: (81*) (1409)
Cæs: (arm[mss]) (geo)
West: D it[d] it[p] vg[cl]
Byz: syr[p]

NOTE: as posted above there are more variances in this verse than just the title.

IMO anyone that makes a distinction in doctrine based upon this verse needs to be corrected.

Rob

 

'Lord' is to be preferred on internal grounds as it is the shortest, and can be thought to be the origin of all the other readings.

1. Lord
2. Lord Jesus
3. Jesus Christ
4. Lord Jesus Christ

Of course an eclectic position could argue for the following sequence of readings, #3 being a conflate of #1 and #2:

1. Jesus Christ
2. Lord
3. Lord Jesus Christ
4. Lord Jesus

The problem with the latter configuration is that 'Jesus Christ' does not account for the existence of the other readings, while in the former (first) configuration, 'Lord' accounts for the existence of all the others. In other words, if 'Jesus Christ' were original, why change it? But if 'Lord' is original, on the other hand, why not make it sound a little better?

 

You present a very logical and persuasave theory but it doesn't hold it's water when you look at the dates of the manuscripts that we have.

They date similar to the eclectic text version you provided.

I've placed the estimated dates in brackets [***].

BTW - I did notice that when viewed using MS Internet Explorer (with New Times Roman font) the Greek letters didn't always show up, being replaced by squares.
You can see the complete Greek text using Mozilla Foxfire (with Veranda font).

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ βαπτισθῆναι] Rebaptism [258] copsa [III/IV] copbo [III/IV] copmae [III/IV]‭ א [IV] B [IV] vgww [IV-1889] vgst [IV-1975] Cyril-Jerusalem [386] Chrysostom [407] Jerome [420] A [V] armmss E ite eth syrh p74 [VII] itar slav itro 81c 181 (1175) (itph) [XII] itc itdem itgig itw WH Riv CEI Nv TILC NM NR

βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Ψ [VIII/IX] 33 [IX] 307 [X] 1739 [X] 1891 [X] l60 945 2344 (l591) l1178 36 326 610 2412 614 453 629 630 1678

βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου] vgms H [IX] L [VIII] P [VI] 049 Lectpt 056 [X] 0142 ? [X] 451? [XI] 104 ? [c. 1097] 88 [XII] 330 [XIII] 1505 2127 2492 1877 (l170) 2495 ς Dio lAD ND Byzpt

βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ] Lectpt 436 [XI] 1241 [XII] (l1021) [XII] Byzpt

βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] vgcl [IV-1592] itd [V] syrp [V] (armmss) [V] (geo) [V] D [V] (81*) itp (1409)

Rob

 

Nice, Rob. Problem is that no reading, on paper, is older than the 2nd/3rd century here. And since basically all the major changes occurred _prior_ to that time (!), a reading from 3rd/4th century is not good enough. We need the original 1st century reading, and that may well be preserved in the consensus of 12th century MSS, such as Mt. 27:49, where _all_ the surviving Greek MSS from before the 5th century are presumed to be _corrupt_! Ha!

 

You are probably right!
We'll may never know what the original writer wrote with absolute certainty (intil we meet him).
...then I'd ponder to say he'd say, "Either one would do just fine." :thumbs:

Say, whatever does this have to do with "rebaptism"?

The most pertinent thing I could come up with was a controversy regarding percecution in the second century [Cyprian of Carthage]?

Rob

 

"Christ" is not his name: His name is "Jesus".

 

With all respect here Bluefalcon, I'd offer that an awfully lot of assumptions as to weight, number, authority, as well as interpretation of Greek manuscript evidence has been assumed in your two posts, here. For example, the assumption that the shorter reading is assumed the preferred reading in the texts is one; as is that of which reading is preferred over a four to ten century gap (absent any real evidence on the readings, and to be contrasted against, for another unrelated example, that of, say, a lack of solid Gk. MS evidence for "the Joannine comma", or the question in another thread of Kingdom of God/Kingdom of heaven, and a poster claiming that there is some 'real' and 'solid' manuscript evidence for a rendering of "Kingdom of heaven" in John 3, where actually the info that I have (which could also be faulty, granted) suggests a reading of such in 'Aleph', which (supposedly) was 'corrected', BTW, by another hand to kingdom of God, and a lack of but one additional manuscript, and that of an Old Latin version, vs. the overwhelming numbers of extant manuscripts for a millenium support 'kingdom of God'.

This does not seem to be the case, here, for there would seem to be an open question as to which is the correct reading. And one's personal preference is something hard to overcome, in an objective manner. Or at least it is for me. And I would suspect for you and the rest of you folks, as well.

Ed

 

While I do think I understand what you are diving at, Hope, I do believe that in at least one place, Scripture speaks of "at the name of Jesus", in another, speaks of "in the name of the Lord" and in yet a third, phrases something as "name the name of Christ". Further, Paul uses the nominative case in I.Cor 15, when he says "that Christ died for our sins...", a usage that is consistent with here using the word "Christ" (χριστος, and BTW, the same in the TR and Nestle's) as a name. So I'd offer that I, personally, would not be all that dogmatic about this, for I don't believe Scripture will support any one to the exclusion of the others.

Ed

 

There is one place that says "in the name of Christ", and that's in 1 Peter 4:14, but what is the name of Christ? (I think, perhaps it was worded this way because of the use of the word "Christian" on down in verse 16.)

On a side note, the KJV has "name of Christ" in 2 Timothy 2:19, but that's not what the Greek says; it says "name of [the] Lord", but the Lord is identified in the verse as "the God".

But, in several places, Jesus tells us that many will "come in my name" and claim to be the Christ.

 

Ed, I like you, so this will be a light defense. I was merely saying that a few "old" MSS mean nothing if they don't have the original reading. We use critical rules to determine the original reading. But as for date, e.g., in Mt. 6:33 _no_ MS before the 5th century has the presumed original "kingdom of God", and only three MSS before the 8th century have it. Thank God we have more than three pre-8th century copies containing the original text to rely on for Mt. 6:33! Like here and Mt. 27:49 and so many other places, early means cr*p, and I'm beginning to believe Wettstein's old theory that the earliest preserved (Egyptian) MSS are actually _not_ the best, for a few centuries later the best ones begin to become extant in other parts of the world. How do we know they are the best? By using laws of textual criticism to determine the quality of their text, not by comparing them to the earliest MSS to see how they compare with them.