The Three reading of Acts 13:33

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Sep 18, 2007.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    It is quoted from Psalm 2:7

    Acts 13:33 is unique!
    I don't know of any other New Testament quotation of the OT that sites a reference chapter.
    But since the numbering of the majority of the NT came much later in history that's understandable.
    The book of Psalms, being an early form of hymn book, was different.

    Since the 16th century most translations have used, second psalm”, following the majority of the Greek texts.
    But the most common reading used by the early church fathers is first psalm”.
    The earliest extant text, P 45 (early third century), reads, in the Psalms”.


    33 ως και εν τω πρωτω ψαλμω γεγραπται υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε
    Tischendorf's Greek New Testament, (c1869-1894)

    God hath fulfilled vnto vs their chyldre in that he reysed vp Iesus agayne eve as it is written in the fyrste psalme: Thou arte my sonne this same daye begat I the.
    Tyndale New Testament [1525]

    *******************************************
    ὡς καὶ ἐν τω ψαλμω τω δευτερω γεγραπται, Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.
    Byz Majority Text

    ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν] ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν ὡς καὶ ἐν τω ψαλμω γεγραπται τω δευτερω, Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.
    NA/UBS GNT

    God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
    Acts 13:33 AV 1873

    *******************************************
    33 ο]τι ταυτην ο θς εκπεπλ[ηρωκεν
    Αναστησας] ι̅η̅’ ως και εν τοις ψαλμ [οις
    σημερο]ν γεγεννηκα σε′
    Acts 13:33 [P45]

    …that Son, spoken of in the Psalms, where he sayeth…
    (from Isaac Newton’s paraphrasic Exposition [1643-1727])
    An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures
    by Thomas Hartwell Horne, 1852, p. 373


    Rob
     
    #1 Deacon, Sep 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2007
  2. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Judging from my NA27 apparatus, I will have to go with, "Even as it is written in the second Psalm, 'You are My Son; Today I have begotten You,'" the witnesses are more impressive.

    2. Though P 45 has tois psalmois, the reading is not conclusively settled.
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    Erasmus worked with Greek manuscripts that used the “first Psalm” variant.
    He concluded that Psalm 1 was probably a preface to the Psalter.
    Erasmus’ Commentary on Psalm 2, by Allan K. Jenkins [LINK]

    In some traditions, Psalms 1 and 2 were considered one unit (Talmud, Berachoth 9b).
    Many rabbis and church fathers combined Ps 1 with Ps 2.

    “In the Jewish tradition, Rabbi Johanan is credited with the following words in the Babylonian Talmud: “Every chapter that was particularly dear to David he commenced with ‘Happy’ and terminated with ‘Happy.’ He began with ‘Happy,’ as it is written, ‘Happy is the man,’ and he terminated with ‘Happy,’ as it is written, ‘Happy are all they that take refuge in him’.” (Ber. 9b).”
    The reference here to the first verse of Ps 1 and the last verse of Ps 2 indicates that the two psalms together were considered to be a literary unit."
    Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50. (59).

    Psalm 1 is not numbered in some Hebrew manuscripts nor in some codices of the LXX. (the opening pages of Psalms in the Aleppo Codex [LINK] are in rather poor condition).

    My guess is that the verse was changed among some who were most familiar with the tradition of uniting Psalms one and two.
    I would presume that this variant was noticed very early in church history, so early as to effect the reading of even P45.

    Rob
     
    #3 Deacon, Sep 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2007
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this is a bit misleading, even though probably unintended. Neither the OT or the NT, were divided into chapters, per se, when written. Psalms would be the only book of Scripture (and perhaps some "acrostic" construction in other places) that would have such delineation, merely because of what you are writing below. In fact, even some individual "books" were combined in the Hebrew Scriptures, including Ezra/Nehemiah, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles, and "The Twelve" so-called Minor Prophets, which were one scroll in the Hebrew canon. The OT (or at least the Torah) was broken into some divisions from about 600 B.C; These 'divisions' were refined and expanded over time, and more of the OT was included, primarily for the aid of locating Scripture. The NT was divided into paragraphs by the time of the Council of Nicea in 325. A.D.; Chapters, as we know and basically have them them today, are the 'invention' of Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, ~ 1227 A.D.; The Wyclif Bible was the first to use this chapter division ~ 1382; The OT was broken down into verses by a Rabbi Nathan ~ 1440; and Stephanus divided the NT in similar manner ~ 1550. The first English "verse divided" Scripture was that of the NT in 1557 by Whittingham. The first complete English Bible so divided was the Geneva Bible in 1560. Basically the same breakdown is still in use today, some 4 1/2 centuries later, and in most, if not all, languages. Now see your following quote.

    Hope the above helps.

    Ed
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    Ed, you get the full benefit of my initial illiterate study notes.
    I usually edit things quite a bit after copying them and posting them here.
    This embarrassing err slipped past me.

    I wished it read:

    Acts 13:33 is unique!
    I don't know of any other New Testament quotation of the OT that sites a reference chapter.
    But since the numbering of the Scriptures came much later in history, that's understandable.
    The book of Psalms, being an early form of hymn book, was different.

    Rob
     
  6. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point is not that you did not edit this; the point I was attemptng to make is that there is no such thing as ANY reference chapter anywhere in the OT to "site" or "cite". Your words you wish you had said, help a bit, but are still somewhat lacking in aclarity, IMO. These "chapters" did not exist. The NT reference as to the second (or first) Psalm (or "the Psalms") is fine, for this does not attempt to make any such "reference chapter" distinction, as one could undoubtedly read them (and realize where one psalm ended, and another began) in the order in which they appeared. And the reading of "the Psalms" seems quite OK, as well, to me. (But I do agree with TCGreek that the probable reading is "second Psalm".) So I really take it not as a question of the text readings, but the contusions - 'er I mean conclusions - drawn. :tonofbricks:

    :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #6 EdSutton, Sep 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2007
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Not a big deal, we knew what was meant. The book of Psalms consists of individual psalms. Since each psalm is a single unit, the book of Psalms has no 'chapters' per se. I believe that the Hebrew psalms are one number different from the Greek (Septuagint) numbering, starting at about Psalm 10, and return to the same numbering for the last three; this due to each version treating two psalms as a single unit (happens two times apiece at different places). Acts 13:33 is unique, in that, while there are other quotes from psalms in the NT there are no other attempts to specifically identify them with a number.
     
    #7 franklinmonroe, Sep 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2007
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    This “literary unit” theory is distinctly different from Erasmus’ opinion that the first psalm was a preface to the book.

    If the “literary unit” theory is correct how would you unite these two distinctly different psalms?

    Would the political situation during Christ’s time contribute to combining their message?

    Rob
     
  9. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the Psalter was the Hymnal of the Second Temple worship, we are compelled to ask, What was its postexilic form?
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    The two psalms are distinctly separate compositions.
    Psalm one displays a chiastic form that is not followed through in the second psalm.

    I don't know of any ancient sources (other than the Talmud) that provide commentary about the two psalms.

    I was looking at the number of OT quotes in the NT and see there are quite a few more from Isaiah, the Psalms and the minor prophets.
    The number of Dead Sea Scrolls show a similar trend.
    It would be curious to see if the two psalms were considered one “literary unit” at that time because of their prophetic message – righteous/wicked and kingship.

    The time was ripe for the appearance of the Christ.

    Rob
     
  11. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Several have argued that Psalm one is an introductory piece by the editor of the Psalter, and therefore should be separated from Psalm 2.
     
  12. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
  13. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm not sure if this helps, but it's basically universally thought that the end of Malachi (4:4-6 [= 3:22-24 in Hebrew]) and the beginning of Psalms (Psalm 1) were added by the composer of the OT canon to link the book of the Prophets to the book of the Writings. "Remember the law of my servant Moses . . ." (Mal. 4:4) and blessed is the man whose "delight is in the law of the LORD" (Ps. 1:2) were written by one and the same person.
     

Share This Page

Loading...