• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Ad Fontes

  • About Ad Fontes

New Testament

Acts 8:37?

NT Textual Criticism can seem esoteric and maybe some of it is. However, you may run into text-critical issues and decisions far more than you think you do. If you are using a translation of the scriptures (or of any other text) a number of different decisions and interpretations have already been made for you. Sometimes the editor and translators will call alert you to their decision in the footnotes and or margin notes of your chosen translation.

Disclaimer: The following summary is an oversimplification of how textual critical decisions are made. In general, I would say that text-critical decisions are made by those that follow into the following three main camps of reasoning:

  • (a) Those that go with the reading found in earlist available text or texts
  • (b) Those that go with the reading vast majority of textual witnesses
  • (c) Those that go with the reading they think reflects the text that their faith community has historical used and or that the church fathers used.

Now, If you own an English translation of the New Testament turn to Acts chapter 8. Now, check do you have verse 37 in the main body of your text or in a footnote? Are, you provided with any information about the manuscript evidence and different points of view? Which of the three camps mentioned above do you think the translators and or editors of your translation fall into at Acts 8:37?

Just for fun here are a few other opinions:

CASES FOR

  • The Case of the Missing Verse (Acts 8:37) LINK
  • Acts 8:37 – “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_ac8_37.html
  • Was Acts 8:37 removed from modern Bibles? https://carm.org/king-james-onlyism/was-acts-837-removed-from-modern-bibles/

CASES AGAINST

  • Why Is Acts 8:37 Omitted from Many Bible Translations? https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-is-acts-837-omitted-from-many-bible-translations
  • I never knew this before but https://catholicbiblestudent.com/2007/01/acts-837-i-never-knew-this-before-but.html

NEUTRAL / EXPLANATORY

Why Is Acts 8:37 Omitted from Some Translations and not Others? https://blog.logos.com/why-some-translations-include-acts-837-and-others-dont/

What do you think? How do you read the text?

The Minister and his Greek Testament

The following was written by  John Gresham Machen and originally published on February 7, 1918. 

The widening breach between the minister and his Greek Testament may be traced to two principal causes. The modern minister objects to his Greek New Testament or is indifferent to it, first, because he is becoming less interested in his Greek, and second, because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament.

The former objection is merely one manifestation of the well known tendency in modern education to reject the “humanities” in favor of studies that are more obviously useful, a tendency which is fully as pronounced in the universities as it is in the theological seminaries. In many colleges the study of Greek is almost abandoned; there is little wonder, therefore, that the graduates are not prepared to use their Greek Testament. Plato and Homer are being neglected as much as Paul. A refutation of the arguments by which this tendency is justified would exceed the limits of the present article. This much, however, may be said—the refutation must recognize the opposing principles that are involved. The advocate of the study of Greek and Latin should never attempt to plead his cause merely before the bar of “efficiency.” Something, no doubt, might be said even there; it might possibly be contended that an acquaintance with Greek and Latin is really necessary to acquaintance with the mother tongue, which is obviously so important for getting on in the world. But why not go straight to the root of the matter? The real trouble with the modern exaltation of “practical” studies at the expense of the humanities is that it is based upon a vicious conception of the whole purpose of education. The modern conception of the purpose of education is that education is merely intended to enable a man to live, but not to give him those things in life that make life worth living.

In the second place, the modern minister is neglecting his Greek New Testament because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament in general—less interested in his Bible. The Bible used to be regarded as providing the very sum and substance of preaching; a preacher was true to his calling only as he succeeded in reproducing and applying the message of the Word of God. Very different is the modern attitude. The Bible is not discarded, to be sure, but it is treated only as one of the sources, even though it be still the chief source, of the preacher’s inspiration. Moreover, a host of duties other than preaching and other than interpretation of the Word of God are required of the modern pastor. He must organize clubs and social activities of a dozen different kinds; he must assume a prominent part in movements for civic reform. In short, the minister has ceased to be a specialist. The change appears, for example, in the attitude of theological students, even of a devout and reverent type. One outstanding difficulty in theological education today is that the students persist in regarding themselves, not as specialists, but as laymen. Critical questions about the Bible they regard as the property of men who are training themselves for theological professorships or the like, while the ordinary minister, in their judgment, may content himself with the most superficial layman’s acquaintance with the problems involved. The minister is thus no longer a specialist in the Bible, but has become merely a sort of general manager of the affairs of a congregation.

The bearing of this modern attitude toward the study of the Bible upon the study of the Greek Testament is sufficiently obvious. If the time allotted to strictly biblical studies must be diminished, obviously the most laborious part of those studies, the part least productive of immediate results, will be the first to go. And that part, for students insufficiently prepared, is the study of Greek and Hebrew. If, on the other hand, the minister is a specialist—if the one thing that he owes his congregation above all others is a thorough acquaintance, scientific as well as experimental, with the Bible—then the importance of Greek requires no elaborate argument. In the first place, almost all the most important books about the New Testament presuppose a knowledge of Greek: the student who is without at least a smattering of Greek is obliged to use for the most part works that are written, figuratively speaking, in words of one syllable. In the second place, such a student cannot deal with all the problems at first hand, but in a thousand important questions is at the mercy of the judgment of others. In the third place, our student without Greek cannot acquaint himself with the form as well as the content of the New Testament books. The New Testament, as well as all other literature, loses something in translation. But why argue the question? Every scientific student of the New Testament without exception knows that Greek is really necessary to his work: the real question is only as to whether our ministry should be manned by scientific students.

That question is merely one phase of the most important question that is now facing the church—the question of Christianity and culture. The modern world is dominated by a type of thought that is either contradictory to Christianity or else out of vital connection with Christianity. This type of thought applied directly to the Bible has resulted in the naturalistic view of the biblical history—the view that rejects the supernatural not merely in the Old Testament narratives, but also in the Gospel account of the life of Jesus. According to such a view the Bible is valuable because it teaches certain ideas about God and his relations to the world, because it teaches by symbols and example, as well as by formal presentation, certain great principles that have always been true. According to the supernaturalistic view, on the other hand, the Bible contains not merely a presentation of something that was always true, but also a record of something that happened—namely, the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. If this latter view be correct, then the Bible is unique; it is not merely one of the sources of the preacher’s inspiration, but the very sum and substance of what he has to say. But, if so, then whatever else the preacher need not know, he must know the Bible; he must know it at first hand, and be able to interpret and defend it. Especially while doubt remains in the world as to the great central question, who more properly than the ministers should engage in the work of resolving such doubt—by intellectual instruction even more than by argument? The work cannot be turned over to a few professors whose work is of interest only to themselves, but must be undertaken energetically by spiritually minded men throughout the church. But obviously this work can be undertaken to best advantage only by those who have an important prerequisite for the study in a knowledge of the original languages upon which a large part of the discussion is based.

If, however, it is important for the minister to use his Greek Testament, what is to be done about it? Suppose early opportunities were neglected, or what was once required has been lost in the busy rush of ministerial life. Here we may come forward boldly with a message of hope. The Greek of the New Testament is by no means a difficult language; a very fair knowledge of it may be acquired by any minister of average intelligence. And to that end two homely directions may be given. In the first place, the Greek should be read aloud. A language cannot easily be learned by the eye alone. The sound as well as the sense of familiar passages should be impressed upon the mind, until sound and sense are connected without the medium of translation. Let this result not be hastened; it will come of itself if the simple direction be followed. In the second place, the Greek Testament should be read every day without fail, Sabbaths included. Ten minutes a day is of vastly more value than seventy minutes once a week. If the student keeps a “morning watch,” the Greek Testament ought to be given a place in it; at any rate, the Greek Testament should be read devotionally. The Greek Testament is a sacred book, and should be treated as such. If it is treated so, the reading of it will soon become a source of joy and power.

JUDE 1:5

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 28th edition has Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) in place of the term ‘Lord’ used in the Textus Receptus (as well as the vast majority of printed Greek New Testament editions) . The ESV and the NET follow the reading of 28th edition of the NA (or the apparatus of the 27th edition), while Translations like the KJV and NIV have Lord. The KJV or in Europe known as the authorised version follows the Textus Receptus (the received text) which is similar in a number of aspects to what is known in the byzantine majority textual tradition.

According to Late Greek Scholar Metznger, the previous edition of the NA (the 27th edition) did not adopt   ὁ Ἰησοῦς into the main text because:

“Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop, bo eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (ΚΧ being taken for ΙΧ). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Ἰησοῦς alone, but always Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P72 (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented also in other witnesses.

The great majority of witnesses read ὁ before κύριος, but on the strength of its absence from א Ψ and the tendency of scribes to add the article, it was thought best to enclose ὁ within square brackets.

[Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστός in 1 Cor 10:4), copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) “the original text had only ὁ, and that οτιο was read as οτι ΙΧ and perhaps as οτι ΚΧ” (“Notes on Select Readings,” ad loc.).”

Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 657–658.

ὁ Ἰησοῦς was indeed the reading that was difficult, because of the use of definite article with name Ἰησοῦς and the lack of Χριστός makes it pretty difficult for anyone to accept.

The exact linear string ὁ Ἰησοῦς (that’s the definite article nominative masculine singular immediately followed by Jesus noun nominative masculine singular proper) appears 280 times mostly in the Gospels and three times in the book of Acts. Outside, of Acts this linear string simply does not occur in writings of Paul, Peter, John, or Jude in what have been the standard printed Greek New testaments and in the standard morphological Greek NT.

But, note: rather than accepting ὁ Ἰησοῦς the editors of the NA 28 edition actually went with ὅτι Ἰησοῦς  maybe a compromise? This phrase appears in the following passages:

Matthew 20:30, Mark 10:47, Luke 18:37, John 4:1, John 4:47, John 5:15, John 6:24, John 7:39 John 11:20, John 20:14, John 20:31, John 21:4, Acts 6:14, 2 Corinthians 13:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 1 John 2:22,1 John 4:15, 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:5, and now in Jude 1:

While the title Lord(kurious) can be used for honourable persons in this context it is pretty clear that the Lord(Kurious) used refers to YHWH leading his people out of Egypt. Sometimes scribes did make mistakes especially with words that look or sound similar, but Lord(Kurious) and Jesus (Yesous) sound and look so different that it is hard for me to believe this was simply a slip of the hand. Either way this text gives us fresh insight into how the some of the early Christian communities under stood this text.

Interpretation in Luke 10:25 – 28?

The individual questioning Jesus is identified as a νομικός (Luke 10:25); an expert in the Pentateuch or Mosaic Law (See BDAG pg 676). Jesus naturally asks that expert how he interprets/reads the Pentateuch and Jesus does so using the Jewish version of the“Socratic method”. The expert, of course, quotes neither from Gamaliel nor from any of the books of the Prophets, and nor any of the sects mentioned above but from the Pentateuch, alone.

However, the expert is also interpreting these verses as the phrase ζωὴν αἰώνιον (eternal life) is to be found neither in relation to Deut 6:5 nor to Leviticus 19:18. In fact, the phrase is ζωὴν αἰώνιον is not found in the written text of the Pentateuch. The phrase is found in the LXX version of Daniel 12:2 and the Psalms of Solomon 3:12, but these texts have nothing to do with the two text quoted from the Pentateuch. What is more interesting is that Jesus agrees with this expert’s interpretation (Luke 10:28). However, nothing in the written text of Deuteronomy 6:5 or Leviticus 19:18 seem to suggest anything having to do with acquiring eternal life.

Questions for thought:
(1) Why did the expert identify Deut and Leviticus?
(2) How does the expert connect the verses in question to the concept of eternal life?
(3) What, was the method of hermeneutics was the expert utilizing?

Primary Sidebar

SEARCH

Categories

Recent Posts

  • The Cairo Bible, of the year 1010 
  • Greek Quote # 12
  • Greek Quote# 11
  • Greek Quote #10
  • Question about blank Parenthesis in electronic texts of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)

Recent Comments

  • Brian K. Mitchell on Greek Quote # 12
  • Anonymous on Greek Quote # 12
  • Brian K. Mitchell on Exodus 24:10 (saw or feared)?
  • Brian K. Mitchell on GENESIS 32:18
  • Brian K. Mitchell on Jeremiah 42:6 אֲנוּ VS אנו

136 PROUD SUBSCRIBERS

Copyright © 2025 · eleven40 Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in