Sunday, March 13th, 2022
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:
- 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/
- 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 following widely used texts agree with having אֲנוּ
1)The Jerusalem Crown: Keter Yerushalayim (pg. 467)
(2) The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, (pg 867)
(3)Rabbi M. Breuer’s Tanakh( שנט or pg. 359 )
(3)Meïr Halevi (Letteris) Tanakh (pg. 812)
(4)Norman Henry Snaith’s Tanakh (Pg. 776)
These three popular versions leave אנו unpointed
(1) C.D. Ginsburg Tanakh (pg. 912)
(2) Koren Tanach (pg. 430)
(3) Adi (A. Dotan) Tanakh (pg. 712)
(4) The Stone Edition of the Tanach (pg. 1172)
(5)The JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (pg. 1115)
TanakhML Project and the online Westminster Leningrad Codex 4.14 have אֲנַ֜חְנוּ in the text with אנו as a subscript. however, both also display other choices. If you click on אֲנַ֜חְנוּ in the TanakhML it will open another page with variants.