Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - TRA
ttps://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1810456886466832/
ACTS 8:37: ADDED OR AUTHENTIC?
The two most difficult verses included in translations taken from TR Texts are 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. For years, I wasn't convinced either one was authentic, but after study, I discovered I didn't receive all of the relevant information to make an informed decision. Instead of repeating our most defensible variants (ending of Mark, the account of the woman caught in adultery, or even 1 Timothy 3:16), those who use these verses should be ready to give an answer. My intent is to inform and shed light on the subject, not to generate heat. This study is meant for those asking questions and seeking answers, not for those who may not be aware of the subject or even those who are completely settled. It's okay to agree to disagree, and I invite scrutiny and sharpening. For me, the burden of proof lies on those of us who use these verses, and this is an attempt to be transparent with the information. Feel free to read what I've written on 1 John 5:7, which is a far more difficult reading than Acts 8:37. I'm fully convinced both 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 are what the Spirit breathed out as the Word of God.
The verse in question reads in response to the question "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Verse 37 includes a condition and confession: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." It's a verse I've used countless times when explaining believer's baptism, as it clearly points out the condition of belief preceding baptism. While it's not the only demonstration of believer's baptism, it's quite a conclusive one. Most modern versions remove the condition and confession of verse 37 or relegate it to a footnote.
What did Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch actually say?
What is the evidence for and against inclusion?
It's imperative that those who study texts and manuscripts represent the evidence accurately. Transparency builds trust. Both proponents and detractors of this verse have misrepresented the evidence or conveniently left out information.
Let me be clear: This is an example of a variant that is not easily defended. A vast majority (pun intended) of the variants between the TR and NA-28 are well attested in the majority of manuscripts we have available. It's incorrect to claim that this verse is found in a majority of manuscripts and only Alexandrian manuscripts exclude it. Please do not make up conspiracy theories, numeric connections, or resort to ad hominem attacks to defend this verse. It demonstrates ignorance and laziness. It's also not accurate to say this was a mistake by the KJV translators or Erasmus when compiling texts and that there is little to no evidence for inclusion. So many gloss over the actual evidence behind this verse and make it seem silly or ridiculous that anyone would ever consider it to be authentic. I believe it should be included for a number of reasons, but I can understand why it needs an explanation. Let me lay out the evidence.
EVIDENCE FOR ACTS 8:37 BEING ADDED:
Keep in mind I’m giving an answer so my presentation of evidence will also include an answer. Let me know what I’ve missed or misrepresented.
1.) Those representing the NA-28, UBS, as well as Majority Text positions correctly claim that Acts 8:37 is not found in a majority of manuscripts. The NA-28 and UBS proponents point out that Papyrus 45 (third century), Codex B and Aleph (early fourth-century) Codex A and Codex C (both fifth century), Papyrus 74 (seventh century), Codex L (eighth century) and Codex P, Ψ, Uncial 049, and minuscule 33 (all ninth century) all exclude this verse (more on P 45 later.). Some Latin Vulgate and Ethiopic texts exclude this verse, and a majority of Syriac and Coptic manuscripts exclude it as well.
Dan Wallace notes, “A few later mss (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891) add, with minimal differences in wording, 8:37 “He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Verse 37 is lacking in P45,74 א A B C 33 614 vg syp,h co. ….It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed the necessity of a confession of faith.” Dan Wallace, NET footnotes
Bruce Mezger summarizes: “Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in P45, א A B C 33 81 614 vg syrp, copsa, eth, but is read, with many minor variations, by E, many minuscules, itgig, vgmss syrh with * copG67 arm. There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text.
What both fail to disclose is that in P 45 only a fragment in that section of scripture (picture included on article picture) remains. If you go to that portion you’ll discover that the entire section hasn’t survived (take a look at the picture.) It’s a gross argument from silence to say it’s missing from P45 because the section itself is gone. We don’t know either way. P 45 also doesn’t have “Look, here is water…” It’s misleading and inconclusive at best to say P45 excludes Acts 8:37. They also don’t mention that Vaticanus has an umlaut (or distigmi, two dots) in this section to indicate a variant. Whether or not the umlaut was added later or not, at least one scribe wanted to indicate there was a variant reading. https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P45
2.) Metzger introduces some internal evidence remarking that, “It should be noted too that τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression. The formula πιστεύω … Χριστόν was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies, and may have been written in the margin of a copy of Acts. Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip would not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative.” Such a claim is somewhat of a sleight of hand as “τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν” appears two other times in Acts 5:42 and 18:5 (same words and insignificant different order.) He knows well as Wallace noted that word order means very little in Greek.
Pointing to the various ways it appears in the manuscripts alludes to inconsistency and error for those who aren’t familiar with variants and Greek grammar. For instance, it’s claimed that 20 variants exist and only one manuscript agrees exactly with Acts 8:37. That information is incomplete as it’s entirely acceptable to have differences in word order. There are over 400k variants in the NT —more variants than words but only 1% of those are viable and meaningful. The differences between those manuscripts that include this verse are not meaningful. For instance, 88 omits o Philippos (Phillip) and adds o eunouchos (the eunuch) and auto (very). Thus the verse reads in 88, "And he said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And the eunuch answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the very Son of God." Jeff Riddle notes that, “Some commentators are also keen to note that even among the manuscripts which contain it, there are some variations, but this should not be overstated. Codex E, for example includes the name “Philip” in the opening, “And Philip said to him” and adds “in the Christ” before the confession “the Son of God.” The similarities of the verse in the manuscripts which contain it are greater than the differences.” http://www.jeffriddle.net/.../word-magazine-45-is-acts...
3.) Metzger points to when this reading first appears and when it was in the textual tradition, “ Although the earliest known New Testament manuscript that contains the words dates from the sixth century (ms. E), the tradition of the Ethiopian’s confession of faith in Christ was current as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it (Against Heresies, III.xii..” Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 315-316.
In other words he admits there is a 6th Century Uncial attestation and believes it was at least in some texts or tradition 200 years before B and Aleph exclude it. I’m thankful he includes that as it’s a key point of evidence but for many to say that nobody knew of this verse before the 6th Century is also incorrect as it’s quoted and translated.
Lightfoot makes this claim, “Because no Greek manuscript earlier than the sixth century knows of this reading, beyond doubt it could not have formed a part of the original account of Acts." {Source: "How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot, Third Edition, 2003, pages 99-100} Such a conclusion is premature.
The early manuscripts are extremely few and the differences in testimony from an Uncial perspective is just 200 years. Uncials often don’t agree with each other. I could also easily say that none of the Bible is attested until 300 or 400 years after the original autographs.
4.) Meztger also adds that Erasmus found the verse in the margin of ms. 4, from which he inserted it into the text, having “judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of the scribes (arbitror omissum librariorum incuria)” (Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, p. 360).
Once again he makes it sound like the only evidence of inclusion is regelated to a marginal reading and that’s simply not true.
5.) The main evidence I’ve heard against that holds weight to a “received or ecclesiastical text” position is that it isn’t found in the majority of manuscripts. For those of us who make an argument that we have the books and the words that were received by churches we have to realize that in some cases that doesn’t always have the clearest extant evidence. We have to remember we don’t have every manuscript ever written, only that which has survived,. While that’s also an argument from silence there has to be consideration to what was quoted, translated and recognized as scripture.
Those who hold a view of preservation that the authentic reading is preserved in at least one of the manuscripts should not have a problem philosophically with a reading that is not found in the oldest or even majority of manuscripts. James White refers to this as the “tenacity of the text”.
Even if Acts 8:37 was found in every other manuscript other than B and Aleph it would most likely still be excluded. To use a majority text argument in Acts 8:37 and a minority and “older is better” argument for the ending of Mark, or difficult is better for I Timothy 3:16, and conjectural emendation is better in 2 Peter 3:10 is inconsistent. Those of the KJV persuasion need to be careful also presenting everything as a majority text argument when in reality there are some TR readings that are included from a Latin text and patristic quotation priority position.
Why is it missing? J. A. Alexander in his 1867 commentary on Acts theorizes that by end of the third century it was common practice to delay the baptism of Christian converts to assure that they had truly understood their commitment to Christ and were not holding to one of the various heretical beliefs prevalent at that time. Hills makes this argument in his work (The King James Version Defended, p. 201). J.A. Alexander, The Acts Of The Apostle (New York: Scribner, 1967), vol. 1, 349-350. I’m hesitate to accept this explanation but wanted to include it as a possibility as it was presented by non KJVO proponents. It’s clear from other remaining passages that baptism follows salvation, and I’m hesitant to point to scribal intention when it could have just been scribal incompetence.
It’s often presented that there are over 5000 manuscripts and this reading is found in just a few manuscripts. Such a statement gives an impression that we have 5000 full NT copies when in reality we have fragments and copies here and there and only around 600 pieces of evidence to consider in full that even contain this portion of Acts. Out of that there are over 60 evidences for manuscripts containing this verse.
Jeff Riddle also leaves the argument of Cottell Carson:
“Let me add that at least one modern critic has challenged the status quo and argued for reconsideration of Acts 8:37. Cottrel Carson, former NT Professor at Mercer University, is the author of “Acts 8:37—A Textual Reexamination” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 51:1-2 (1997): pp. 57-78. Again, Carson is by no means a TR advocate. Still, among other points, he made the following observations regarding the critical text omission of Acts 8:37:
a. The critical text reflects over-reliance on the uncial mss. and under-reliance on the Church Fathers and papyri.
b. In the case of Acts 8:37 he notes that while p45 is dated to the third century, p74 is dated to the seventh century.
c. He suggests that Acts 8:26-39 might have been “an independent document” used as a source by Luke in which “the baptismal formula, including v. 37, was integral to the independent document” (p. 66).
d. He suggests that p50 (dated to the third century) might be an example of this “independent document” though, unfortunately, the fragment of the passage only contains Acts 8:26-32 (p. 67).
e. He suggests historical reasons why v. 37 might have been omitted in the fourth century, including an attempt to remove the practice of a direct declaration (pp. 71-72) and an effort to put the focus on Cornelius as the first Gentile convert, rather than the Ethiopian Eunuch (pp. 72-75). These are speculative, but they provide attempts to explains how and why v. 37 might have come under suspicion.
f. Carson concludes that “in the final analysis, there is a strong case for verse 37’s being part of a tradition earlier than that found in the fourth-century manuscripts” (p. 75). As to the NA and UBS Greek NTs, he says “there is not sufficient evidence to justify the certainty with which these two texts reject verse 37. At the very least, verse 37 should be moved from the textual apparatus into the text, perhaps with brackets” (p. 76).”
EVIDENCE FOR ACTS 8:37 BEING AUTHENTIC:
Now, consider the evidence for it being authentic and not added (for those of the other persuasion feel free to provide observations and explanations.)
1.) This verse is included in E (6th Century), 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others amounting to around 60 or 10%-15% of extant Greek manuscripts.
Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, p. 345
In full transparency Codex E [Codex Laudianus] has parallel readings of both Latin and Greek, so an objection could be made that it was simply following the Latin. (It’s interesting that a phrase reading “it’s ok” is in the margin at this point.) Even when that concession, it’s still attested to in the 500’s and a witness in both Greek and Latin holds weight. Codex E is the sixth oldest record we have of the book of Acts. http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/icv/page.php... .
It is also the reading found in the Old Latin manuscripts that predate anything we have in Greek, including the Old Latin texts of ar, c, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, and r.
Even the notes in critical text editions tell us that this verse existed in the Old Latin copies, some Coptic versions, the Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic, the Syriac Peshitta and Armenian early Bible versions. It is also found in the Vulgate Clementine.
Dr. Jeff Riddle summarizes the textual evidence for inclusion by also noting other manuscripts, “Inclusion of v. 37 is supported by the following Greek mss.: E (Codex Laudianus), 36, 323, 453, 945, 1739, 1891, 2818 and others. Among the versions, it is also included in the Old Latin, the Clementine Vulgate, some Harklean Syriac mss., and the Mesokemic [Middle] Egyptian.”
2.) Early church fathers who witness to it being a part of inspired Scripture are Irenaeus (178 AD), Cyprian (258 AD), Chromatius,Tertullian (220 AD), Ambrosiaster (384 AD), Pacian, Ambrose (397 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370’s-395), Augustine (430 AD), Fulgentius of Ruspe (507-533)m Theophylact and Venerable Bede of England in 735.
For example, Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) supports the inclusion of verse 36-37 when he says, "In the Acts of the Apostles Treatise 12:3: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Phillip, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian 12.3 )
Irenaeus (115-202 AD), Against Heresies 3.12: "Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.”
Augustine (354-430 AD), Sermon 49: "The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water.”
Tertullian (early 200’s, Latin) is listed in the apparatus in UBS-2 but not in UBS-4 as his quotation is inconclusive. He writes of “a faith inspiring passage and faith makes no delay.” This quotation is vague in my opinion and hard to prove that it directly relates to verse 37, but apparently at some point the UBS thought it did.
The strongest quotation I would include would be Cyrprian in the 200’s affirmed by Pontius the Deacon (258 AD).
Scrivener affirmed the quotations, “Irenaeus, who wrote in Gaul in the second century, recognised it without hesitation, as did Cyprian in the third century, Jerome and Augustine in the fourth.” - Six Lectures, 1875, p. 73.
James Snapp lays out an attestation of Cyrprian’s quote: “Pontius, who had been a close acquaintance of Cyprian, utilizes Acts 8:37 in the course of a parenthetical remark in the third paragraph: ‘For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart,” page 268, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, 1886, Roberts & Donaldson.
De Rebaptismate, an anonymous Latin composition written in the 250’s, in response to Cyprian, does not feature a specific quotation of Acts 8:37 in its fourth chapter, but it does mention the Ethiopian eunuch’s faith: “Just as the Ethiopian eunuch, when he was returning from Jerusalem and was reading the prophet Isaiah, and was perplexed, received assistance from the Spirit, and heard the truth from Philip the deacon, believed, and was baptized.” From Florilegium Patristicum, Fasciculus XI, Gerardus Rauschen, Tertulliani De Baptismo et Ps-Cypriani De Rebaptismate Recensio Nova, 1916
The Ambrose of Milan quotation is also especially compelling (bishop from 374 to 397.) Ambrose’s name was in the UBS-2 apparatus as a witness for the inclusion of Acts 8:37. , We must believe, therefore, so that we can be born. For so says Philip, “If you believe . . . you may.” http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/pacian_5_baptism.htm .
Ambrosiaster (sometime in 366-384) in composition Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, 91:6, as he addresses the heresy of Photinus and discusses the uniqueness of Jesus as the Son of God, he writes:
“But say, Photinus, why belief is put in the true Son of God, if he is not true. What need is
there for a person to believe in the Son of God, if this one is [merely] like the rest of the saints
who are worthy to be called the children of God? Inasmuch as it is said, “I believe that Christ is the Son of God,” He is necessarily greater than the others; otherwise, would it not thus imply that
something is believed about him that is also descriptive of the rest? For there are many who are
designated the children of God, because of their sanctity, but when a person believes upon the only
true Son of God, isn’t he saying that He is unique?”
Gregory of Nyssa (active 370’s-395) in the composition De Baptismo, says of the Ethiopian Eunuch “For he prudently supposed that every place is alike to the Lord, and that all water is suitable to be used for baptism, if only he has been found to have faith,"
Chromatius of Aquilea (active 388-407), in Sermo 2.7 wrote, “This eunuch, since he is a dove, is chosen, but Simon the magician, since he is a raven, is rejected; for the former believed with his
whole heart and whole faith, but the latter drew near, doubting in his mind and all full of faith.: Cited on page 98 of Arator on the Acts of the Apostles – A Baptismal Commentary, by Richard Hillier, © Richard Hillier 1994, Oxford University Press. William A. Strange, in The Problem of the Text of Acts, located Chromatius’ use of Acts 8:37 in CChr.SL 9A, page 11, lines 124-127. essness.”
Hilary of Poiters (c. 360) in Homilies on the Psalms
“Now, Ethiopia precedes in its confession of faith through the eunuch of Candace; for while he demanded for himself the grace of baptism, saying 'See, there is water, who will prevent my being baptized?' he so anticipated with his hand that very sacrament of baptism in the desire of his impatient longing, that, desirous of his own salvation, he exacted from a deacon the ministering of an apostolic duty. (Hillary, Tract in Ps. 67.33)
Augustine of Hippo (active 391-430) in his Sermons on Selected Lessons of the Gospels, wrote:
“The eunuch believed on Christ, and said, when they came unto a certain water, “See, water, who does hinder me to be baptized?” Philip said to him, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ?” He answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water.”
“There [that is, in Acts] again, “and the eunuch said in reply, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Speculum is on pages 307-308 of Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum,
Fulgentius of Ruspe (active 507-533) used Acts 8:37 in his composition De Veritate Praedestinationis et Gratiae Dei ad Joannem et Venerium sometime after 523: “The act of saving grace was thus accomplished, as this enlightened eunuch, having believed that Christ is the Son of God, coming to the sacred pool, received not only the effective washing he had asked for, but he also departed filled with the Holy Spirit.” Another utilization of Acts 8:37 by Fulgentius is in Epistle XII, Ad Ferrandum 14 (CChr. SL 91, page 390, lines 282ff.
The Venerable Bede (active 690-735, wrote in Latin) “At this point, there is another rendering, and the Greek exemplar has some more verses, where it is written, “Behold, water, who will forbid me to be baptized?”: Philip said to him, “If you believe with all your heart, you shall be saved.” He answered and said, “I believe in Christ, the Son of God.” And he commanded the chariot to stop,” and so forth.”
James Snapp in his unpublished “Evidences and Analysis” has gone a tremendous job collating and summarizing other evidence:
“We now turn to a more generalized survey of evidence. Text und Textwert supplies the following data:
78 Greek manuscripts of Acts are not extant for this part of the text.
417 Greek manuscripts do not include Acts 8:37.
Sixty-four Greek manuscripts include Acts 8:37.38
Those 64 Greek manuscripts are listed here, with notes about some of them:
E – Codex Laudianus, 08, described above.
88c – 1100’s. Notable because it has I Cor. 14:34-35 after 14:40, and has the CJ added in the margin.
94 – c. 1200. (8:39 – as in 1739.) 103 – 1100’s. (8:39 – as in 1739.)
180 – 1273. 221mg – 900’s (for main text). 296 – 1500’s. Entire NT.
307 – 900’s. (8:39 as in 1739.) Closely related to 453. Related to 1739.
322 – 1400’s. (8:39 as in 1739.) A member of family 1739.
323 – 1100’s. (8:39 as in 1739.) A member of family 1739.
385 – 1407. (8:39 as in 1739.)
429 – c. 1300. Has the CJ added secondarily. A member of family 1739.
452c – 1100’s? 453 – 1300’s? (8:39 as in 1739.)
455 – 1300’s. 464 – 1000’s. (attached to Gospels-MS 252 when pristine.)
467 – 1400’s. (8:39 as in 1739.) 522 – 1515. Related to 1739.
606 – 1000’s. 607 – 1000’s. 610 – 1100’s. Related to 453.
628c – 1300’s. Greek and Latin in parallel columns.
629 – 1300’s. Codex Ottobonianus. Includes the CJ. Described by Waltz as “apparently the only “Western” minuscule.”39 (#298 in the Ottobianus collection in the Vatican Library)
630 – c. 1300. Unusual mixture. 636 – 1400’s. Has the CJ in the margin.
641 – 1000’s. Text accompanied by the commentary of Oecumenius.
876 – 1100’s. At CSNTM.40 913 – 1300’s.
945 – 1000’s. A member of family 1739. 1104 1501 1509
1609 1610 1642 1678 – Closely related to 453. Related to 1739.
1704 – Related to 1739. 1735
1739 – 900’s. Athos Laura MS 184. (8:39: – The Holy Spirit fell on the eunuch and the angel of the Lord snatched away Philip.) Written by Ephraim the Scribe, who replicated his exemplars, which were probably from the library at Caesarea, and probably made no later than the late 400’s.
1751 1765 (1300’s) 1780 1830 1832 1851
1853 1869 1877c 1883 1884
1891 – (900’s) A member of family 1739. 1892c 1903
2200 – Related to 1739. 2298 – (1000’s) Related to 1739. 2473
2488 2494 2544c 2619 2737 2805
2816c – used by Erasmus, formerly called MS #4. 2818 – Closely related to 453, formerly #36.
It seems safe to say that Acts 8:37 is read in about 15% of the extant Greek manuscripts of Acts 8. It also seems safe to say that the inclusion of Acts 8:37 is a distinctive feature of the text of family 1739.
In “The Problem of the Text of Acts”, Dr. William Strange presents a detailed list of Latin witnesses for Acts 8:37. William A. Strange, The Problem of the Text of Acts, © Cambridge University Press, 1992. (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 71.) Dr. Strange is currently the Archdeacon of Cardigan, in Wales. http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Society.../dp/0521413842 . These witnesses echo Latin ancestors which contained translations that were made before the production of the Vulgate (that is, before the late 300’s). Old Latin manuscripts that support the inclusion of Acts 8:37 are:
6 = Codex Colbertinus (OL c) – 1200’s
50 = the Latin column of Codex Laudianus (OL e) – 550
51 = Codex Gigas, a.k.a. Codex Holmiensis (OL gig)42 – c. 1250
54 = Codex Perpinianus (OL p) – 1150
56 = Liber Comicus (OL t) – c. 85043
57 = Codex Schlettstadtensis, a lectionary (OL r) – 700’s or 800’s
58 = Codex Wernigerodensis (OL w) – 1400’s44
59 = Codex Demidovianus (OL dem) – 1250
61 = Book of Armagh (OL D*) – 800’s (contains the Alexandrian reading of Mt. 27:49)
62 = Bible de Rosas, a.k.a. Biblia Sancta Petri Rodensis (OL r R*) – 1000’s, a four-volume Bible
63 = Codex Philadelphiensis (OL ph) – 1150
67 = Codex Legionensis, a.k.a. the Léon Palimpsest (OL l) – 600’s
Dr. Strange has also listed the following Vulgate-copies as support for the inclusion of Acts 8:37:
Vgam = Codex Amiatinus (Vg A*) – 600’s
VgMM = Missale Mixtum – 1000 (?)
Vgtol = Codex Toletanus (Vg T*) – 900’s
Vgvalic = Codex Valicellanus (Vg V*) – 800’s
Vg231a = Codex Sarisburiensis, a.k.a. Salisburgensis, (231a, W*) – 1200’s
Vg243 = Brit. Lib. Add. MS 11852 (Vg U*) – c. 900
Vg493 = Bodleian 3418 (Vg O*) – 700’s
Vg1266 = Codex Theodulfianus (Vg Θ) – 800’s
Vg1396 = Bamberg Bibl. Mun. A.I.5 (Vg B*) – late 700’s or early 800’s (by students of Alcuin)
Vggk629 = MS 629, the Latin column in Codex Ottobonianus
Armenian version (produced in the 400’s, initially from a Syriac base-text in 411, but then thoroughly conformed, after 430, to a Greek base-text from Constantinople), the Georgian version (translated (mainly) from the Armenian version(s), later in the 400’s), One Ethiopic manuscript (the exact history of the origin and development of the Ethiopic version is debated, but the Garima Gospels, the earliest Ethiopic manuscript of any New Testament text, has been carbon-dated to no later than the mid-600’s),
The Dutch version (1200’s), The High German version (Codex Teplensis) (1300’s), and the Provençal/Catalan version (1100’s) (represented by Paris MS #8086; which has a mixture of Old Latin and Vulgate readings like Codex Wernigerodensis).
In addition, the Harklean Syriac contains Acts 8:37, accompanied by an asterisk.
Some general observations:
The inclusion of Acts 8:37 is supported by early (Roman-Empire-era) patristic writers in a wide variety of locales.
The inclusion of Acts 8:37 is supported by three patristic writers (Irenaeus and Cyprian and Pontius) whose manuscripts of Acts 8 were older than any manuscript of Acts 8 currently extant in any language.
Acts 8:37 is well-supported not only by “Western” witnesses but also by family-1739. Besides being included in 1739, Acts 8:37 has support from group-members 322, 323, 429, 453, 522, 630, 945, 1704, 1891 and 2200.
Acts 8:37 was the dominant reading in Old Latin versions of Acts, both African and European.
The support of copG67 makes it difficult to sustain the theory that Acts 8:37 originated as a Latin interpolation which infiltrated non-Latin texts.
If B¨ is contemporary with B, this would increase the already impressive range of early support for the inclusion of Acts 8:37. “ James Snapp “Evidence and Analysis”
The Trinitarian Bible Society has also summarized the evidence well in their paper: https://cdn.ymaws.com/.../156A9AA2.../Notes-on-Acts-8-37.pdf
Conclusion:
While it true that Acts 8:37 is not in the oldest nor majority of manuscripts it’s in 10-15% of manuscripts that contain this section of Acts and has early and widespread patristic support.
It should be included with a footnote explaining its inclusion.
I wouldn’t recommend this being used as an example of an error incorporated into the NA-28 and it would be dishonest to present the evidence as being majority when it’s decidedly minority with patristic support.
Either way, the doctrine is accurate and as many have said it was at the very least spoken. Baptism follows belief.
This was not written to attack modern translations or a particular text type. It was given as an answer to why it’s included in the TR texts.
If this verse is added, it's still accurate.
If this verse was removed, it removed one of the strongest verses demonstrating believers baptism.
You may dismiss as some sort of confirmation bias or crony journalism or realize that perhaps you were not given all of the information.
Let the reader decide. I remain convinced thhat Acts 8:37 is authentic and words breathed out by the Spirit of God.
ttps://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1810456886466832/
ACTS 8:37: ADDED OR AUTHENTIC?
The two most difficult verses included in translations taken from TR Texts are 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. For years, I wasn't convinced either one was authentic, but after study, I discovered I didn't receive all of the relevant information to make an informed decision. Instead of repeating our most defensible variants (ending of Mark, the account of the woman caught in adultery, or even 1 Timothy 3:16), those who use these verses should be ready to give an answer. My intent is to inform and shed light on the subject, not to generate heat. This study is meant for those asking questions and seeking answers, not for those who may not be aware of the subject or even those who are completely settled. It's okay to agree to disagree, and I invite scrutiny and sharpening. For me, the burden of proof lies on those of us who use these verses, and this is an attempt to be transparent with the information. Feel free to read what I've written on 1 John 5:7, which is a far more difficult reading than Acts 8:37. I'm fully convinced both 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 are what the Spirit breathed out as the Word of God.
The verse in question reads in response to the question "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Verse 37 includes a condition and confession: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." It's a verse I've used countless times when explaining believer's baptism, as it clearly points out the condition of belief preceding baptism. While it's not the only demonstration of believer's baptism, it's quite a conclusive one. Most modern versions remove the condition and confession of verse 37 or relegate it to a footnote.
What did Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch actually say?
What is the evidence for and against inclusion?
It's imperative that those who study texts and manuscripts represent the evidence accurately. Transparency builds trust. Both proponents and detractors of this verse have misrepresented the evidence or conveniently left out information.
Let me be clear: This is an example of a variant that is not easily defended. A vast majority (pun intended) of the variants between the TR and NA-28 are well attested in the majority of manuscripts we have available. It's incorrect to claim that this verse is found in a majority of manuscripts and only Alexandrian manuscripts exclude it. Please do not make up conspiracy theories, numeric connections, or resort to ad hominem attacks to defend this verse. It demonstrates ignorance and laziness. It's also not accurate to say this was a mistake by the KJV translators or Erasmus when compiling texts and that there is little to no evidence for inclusion. So many gloss over the actual evidence behind this verse and make it seem silly or ridiculous that anyone would ever consider it to be authentic. I believe it should be included for a number of reasons, but I can understand why it needs an explanation. Let me lay out the evidence.
EVIDENCE FOR ACTS 8:37 BEING ADDED:
Keep in mind I’m giving an answer so my presentation of evidence will also include an answer. Let me know what I’ve missed or misrepresented.
1.) Those representing the NA-28, UBS, as well as Majority Text positions correctly claim that Acts 8:37 is not found in a majority of manuscripts. The NA-28 and UBS proponents point out that Papyrus 45 (third century), Codex B and Aleph (early fourth-century) Codex A and Codex C (both fifth century), Papyrus 74 (seventh century), Codex L (eighth century) and Codex P, Ψ, Uncial 049, and minuscule 33 (all ninth century) all exclude this verse (more on P 45 later.). Some Latin Vulgate and Ethiopic texts exclude this verse, and a majority of Syriac and Coptic manuscripts exclude it as well.
Dan Wallace notes, “A few later mss (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891) add, with minimal differences in wording, 8:37 “He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Verse 37 is lacking in P45,74 א A B C 33 614 vg syp,h co. ….It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed the necessity of a confession of faith.” Dan Wallace, NET footnotes
Bruce Mezger summarizes: “Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in P45, א A B C 33 81 614 vg syrp, copsa, eth, but is read, with many minor variations, by E, many minuscules, itgig, vgmss syrh with * copG67 arm. There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text.
What both fail to disclose is that in P 45 only a fragment in that section of scripture (picture included on article picture) remains. If you go to that portion you’ll discover that the entire section hasn’t survived (take a look at the picture.) It’s a gross argument from silence to say it’s missing from P45 because the section itself is gone. We don’t know either way. P 45 also doesn’t have “Look, here is water…” It’s misleading and inconclusive at best to say P45 excludes Acts 8:37. They also don’t mention that Vaticanus has an umlaut (or distigmi, two dots) in this section to indicate a variant. Whether or not the umlaut was added later or not, at least one scribe wanted to indicate there was a variant reading. https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P45
2.) Metzger introduces some internal evidence remarking that, “It should be noted too that τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression. The formula πιστεύω … Χριστόν was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies, and may have been written in the margin of a copy of Acts. Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip would not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative.” Such a claim is somewhat of a sleight of hand as “τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν” appears two other times in Acts 5:42 and 18:5 (same words and insignificant different order.) He knows well as Wallace noted that word order means very little in Greek.
Pointing to the various ways it appears in the manuscripts alludes to inconsistency and error for those who aren’t familiar with variants and Greek grammar. For instance, it’s claimed that 20 variants exist and only one manuscript agrees exactly with Acts 8:37. That information is incomplete as it’s entirely acceptable to have differences in word order. There are over 400k variants in the NT —more variants than words but only 1% of those are viable and meaningful. The differences between those manuscripts that include this verse are not meaningful. For instance, 88 omits o Philippos (Phillip) and adds o eunouchos (the eunuch) and auto (very). Thus the verse reads in 88, "And he said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And the eunuch answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the very Son of God." Jeff Riddle notes that, “Some commentators are also keen to note that even among the manuscripts which contain it, there are some variations, but this should not be overstated. Codex E, for example includes the name “Philip” in the opening, “And Philip said to him” and adds “in the Christ” before the confession “the Son of God.” The similarities of the verse in the manuscripts which contain it are greater than the differences.” http://www.jeffriddle.net/.../word-magazine-45-is-acts...
3.) Metzger points to when this reading first appears and when it was in the textual tradition, “ Although the earliest known New Testament manuscript that contains the words dates from the sixth century (ms. E), the tradition of the Ethiopian’s confession of faith in Christ was current as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it (Against Heresies, III.xii..” Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 315-316.
In other words he admits there is a 6th Century Uncial attestation and believes it was at least in some texts or tradition 200 years before B and Aleph exclude it. I’m thankful he includes that as it’s a key point of evidence but for many to say that nobody knew of this verse before the 6th Century is also incorrect as it’s quoted and translated.
Lightfoot makes this claim, “Because no Greek manuscript earlier than the sixth century knows of this reading, beyond doubt it could not have formed a part of the original account of Acts." {Source: "How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot, Third Edition, 2003, pages 99-100} Such a conclusion is premature.
The early manuscripts are extremely few and the differences in testimony from an Uncial perspective is just 200 years. Uncials often don’t agree with each other. I could also easily say that none of the Bible is attested until 300 or 400 years after the original autographs.
4.) Meztger also adds that Erasmus found the verse in the margin of ms. 4, from which he inserted it into the text, having “judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of the scribes (arbitror omissum librariorum incuria)” (Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, p. 360).
Once again he makes it sound like the only evidence of inclusion is regelated to a marginal reading and that’s simply not true.
5.) The main evidence I’ve heard against that holds weight to a “received or ecclesiastical text” position is that it isn’t found in the majority of manuscripts. For those of us who make an argument that we have the books and the words that were received by churches we have to realize that in some cases that doesn’t always have the clearest extant evidence. We have to remember we don’t have every manuscript ever written, only that which has survived,. While that’s also an argument from silence there has to be consideration to what was quoted, translated and recognized as scripture.
Those who hold a view of preservation that the authentic reading is preserved in at least one of the manuscripts should not have a problem philosophically with a reading that is not found in the oldest or even majority of manuscripts. James White refers to this as the “tenacity of the text”.
Even if Acts 8:37 was found in every other manuscript other than B and Aleph it would most likely still be excluded. To use a majority text argument in Acts 8:37 and a minority and “older is better” argument for the ending of Mark, or difficult is better for I Timothy 3:16, and conjectural emendation is better in 2 Peter 3:10 is inconsistent. Those of the KJV persuasion need to be careful also presenting everything as a majority text argument when in reality there are some TR readings that are included from a Latin text and patristic quotation priority position.
Why is it missing? J. A. Alexander in his 1867 commentary on Acts theorizes that by end of the third century it was common practice to delay the baptism of Christian converts to assure that they had truly understood their commitment to Christ and were not holding to one of the various heretical beliefs prevalent at that time. Hills makes this argument in his work (The King James Version Defended, p. 201). J.A. Alexander, The Acts Of The Apostle (New York: Scribner, 1967), vol. 1, 349-350. I’m hesitate to accept this explanation but wanted to include it as a possibility as it was presented by non KJVO proponents. It’s clear from other remaining passages that baptism follows salvation, and I’m hesitant to point to scribal intention when it could have just been scribal incompetence.
It’s often presented that there are over 5000 manuscripts and this reading is found in just a few manuscripts. Such a statement gives an impression that we have 5000 full NT copies when in reality we have fragments and copies here and there and only around 600 pieces of evidence to consider in full that even contain this portion of Acts. Out of that there are over 60 evidences for manuscripts containing this verse.
Jeff Riddle also leaves the argument of Cottell Carson:
“Let me add that at least one modern critic has challenged the status quo and argued for reconsideration of Acts 8:37. Cottrel Carson, former NT Professor at Mercer University, is the author of “Acts 8:37—A Textual Reexamination” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 51:1-2 (1997): pp. 57-78. Again, Carson is by no means a TR advocate. Still, among other points, he made the following observations regarding the critical text omission of Acts 8:37:
a. The critical text reflects over-reliance on the uncial mss. and under-reliance on the Church Fathers and papyri.
b. In the case of Acts 8:37 he notes that while p45 is dated to the third century, p74 is dated to the seventh century.
c. He suggests that Acts 8:26-39 might have been “an independent document” used as a source by Luke in which “the baptismal formula, including v. 37, was integral to the independent document” (p. 66).
d. He suggests that p50 (dated to the third century) might be an example of this “independent document” though, unfortunately, the fragment of the passage only contains Acts 8:26-32 (p. 67).
e. He suggests historical reasons why v. 37 might have been omitted in the fourth century, including an attempt to remove the practice of a direct declaration (pp. 71-72) and an effort to put the focus on Cornelius as the first Gentile convert, rather than the Ethiopian Eunuch (pp. 72-75). These are speculative, but they provide attempts to explains how and why v. 37 might have come under suspicion.
f. Carson concludes that “in the final analysis, there is a strong case for verse 37’s being part of a tradition earlier than that found in the fourth-century manuscripts” (p. 75). As to the NA and UBS Greek NTs, he says “there is not sufficient evidence to justify the certainty with which these two texts reject verse 37. At the very least, verse 37 should be moved from the textual apparatus into the text, perhaps with brackets” (p. 76).”
EVIDENCE FOR ACTS 8:37 BEING AUTHENTIC:
Now, consider the evidence for it being authentic and not added (for those of the other persuasion feel free to provide observations and explanations.)
1.) This verse is included in E (6th Century), 4, 36, 88, 97, 103, 104, 242, 257, 307, 322, 323, 385, 429, 453, 464, 467, 629, 630, 913, 945, 1522, 1739, 1765, 1877, 1891, and others amounting to around 60 or 10%-15% of extant Greek manuscripts.
Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, p. 345
In full transparency Codex E [Codex Laudianus] has parallel readings of both Latin and Greek, so an objection could be made that it was simply following the Latin. (It’s interesting that a phrase reading “it’s ok” is in the margin at this point.) Even when that concession, it’s still attested to in the 500’s and a witness in both Greek and Latin holds weight. Codex E is the sixth oldest record we have of the book of Acts. http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/icv/page.php... .
It is also the reading found in the Old Latin manuscripts that predate anything we have in Greek, including the Old Latin texts of ar, c, e, gig, h, l, m, ph, and r.
Even the notes in critical text editions tell us that this verse existed in the Old Latin copies, some Coptic versions, the Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic, the Syriac Peshitta and Armenian early Bible versions. It is also found in the Vulgate Clementine.
Dr. Jeff Riddle summarizes the textual evidence for inclusion by also noting other manuscripts, “Inclusion of v. 37 is supported by the following Greek mss.: E (Codex Laudianus), 36, 323, 453, 945, 1739, 1891, 2818 and others. Among the versions, it is also included in the Old Latin, the Clementine Vulgate, some Harklean Syriac mss., and the Mesokemic [Middle] Egyptian.”
2.) Early church fathers who witness to it being a part of inspired Scripture are Irenaeus (178 AD), Cyprian (258 AD), Chromatius,Tertullian (220 AD), Ambrosiaster (384 AD), Pacian, Ambrose (397 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370’s-395), Augustine (430 AD), Fulgentius of Ruspe (507-533)m Theophylact and Venerable Bede of England in 735.
For example, Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) supports the inclusion of verse 36-37 when he says, "In the Acts of the Apostles Treatise 12:3: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Phillip, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian 12.3 )
Irenaeus (115-202 AD), Against Heresies 3.12: "Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.”
Augustine (354-430 AD), Sermon 49: "The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water.”
Tertullian (early 200’s, Latin) is listed in the apparatus in UBS-2 but not in UBS-4 as his quotation is inconclusive. He writes of “a faith inspiring passage and faith makes no delay.” This quotation is vague in my opinion and hard to prove that it directly relates to verse 37, but apparently at some point the UBS thought it did.
The strongest quotation I would include would be Cyrprian in the 200’s affirmed by Pontius the Deacon (258 AD).
Scrivener affirmed the quotations, “Irenaeus, who wrote in Gaul in the second century, recognised it without hesitation, as did Cyprian in the third century, Jerome and Augustine in the fourth.” - Six Lectures, 1875, p. 73.
James Snapp lays out an attestation of Cyrprian’s quote: “Pontius, who had been a close acquaintance of Cyprian, utilizes Acts 8:37 in the course of a parenthetical remark in the third paragraph: ‘For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart,” page 268, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, 1886, Roberts & Donaldson.
De Rebaptismate, an anonymous Latin composition written in the 250’s, in response to Cyprian, does not feature a specific quotation of Acts 8:37 in its fourth chapter, but it does mention the Ethiopian eunuch’s faith: “Just as the Ethiopian eunuch, when he was returning from Jerusalem and was reading the prophet Isaiah, and was perplexed, received assistance from the Spirit, and heard the truth from Philip the deacon, believed, and was baptized.” From Florilegium Patristicum, Fasciculus XI, Gerardus Rauschen, Tertulliani De Baptismo et Ps-Cypriani De Rebaptismate Recensio Nova, 1916
The Ambrose of Milan quotation is also especially compelling (bishop from 374 to 397.) Ambrose’s name was in the UBS-2 apparatus as a witness for the inclusion of Acts 8:37. , We must believe, therefore, so that we can be born. For so says Philip, “If you believe . . . you may.” http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/pacian_5_baptism.htm .
Ambrosiaster (sometime in 366-384) in composition Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, 91:6, as he addresses the heresy of Photinus and discusses the uniqueness of Jesus as the Son of God, he writes:
“But say, Photinus, why belief is put in the true Son of God, if he is not true. What need is
there for a person to believe in the Son of God, if this one is [merely] like the rest of the saints
who are worthy to be called the children of God? Inasmuch as it is said, “I believe that Christ is the Son of God,” He is necessarily greater than the others; otherwise, would it not thus imply that
something is believed about him that is also descriptive of the rest? For there are many who are
designated the children of God, because of their sanctity, but when a person believes upon the only
true Son of God, isn’t he saying that He is unique?”
Gregory of Nyssa (active 370’s-395) in the composition De Baptismo, says of the Ethiopian Eunuch “For he prudently supposed that every place is alike to the Lord, and that all water is suitable to be used for baptism, if only he has been found to have faith,"
Chromatius of Aquilea (active 388-407), in Sermo 2.7 wrote, “This eunuch, since he is a dove, is chosen, but Simon the magician, since he is a raven, is rejected; for the former believed with his
whole heart and whole faith, but the latter drew near, doubting in his mind and all full of faith.: Cited on page 98 of Arator on the Acts of the Apostles – A Baptismal Commentary, by Richard Hillier, © Richard Hillier 1994, Oxford University Press. William A. Strange, in The Problem of the Text of Acts, located Chromatius’ use of Acts 8:37 in CChr.SL 9A, page 11, lines 124-127. essness.”
Hilary of Poiters (c. 360) in Homilies on the Psalms
“Now, Ethiopia precedes in its confession of faith through the eunuch of Candace; for while he demanded for himself the grace of baptism, saying 'See, there is water, who will prevent my being baptized?' he so anticipated with his hand that very sacrament of baptism in the desire of his impatient longing, that, desirous of his own salvation, he exacted from a deacon the ministering of an apostolic duty. (Hillary, Tract in Ps. 67.33)
Augustine of Hippo (active 391-430) in his Sermons on Selected Lessons of the Gospels, wrote:
“The eunuch believed on Christ, and said, when they came unto a certain water, “See, water, who does hinder me to be baptized?” Philip said to him, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ?” He answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water.”
“There [that is, in Acts] again, “and the eunuch said in reply, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Speculum is on pages 307-308 of Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum,
Fulgentius of Ruspe (active 507-533) used Acts 8:37 in his composition De Veritate Praedestinationis et Gratiae Dei ad Joannem et Venerium sometime after 523: “The act of saving grace was thus accomplished, as this enlightened eunuch, having believed that Christ is the Son of God, coming to the sacred pool, received not only the effective washing he had asked for, but he also departed filled with the Holy Spirit.” Another utilization of Acts 8:37 by Fulgentius is in Epistle XII, Ad Ferrandum 14 (CChr. SL 91, page 390, lines 282ff.
The Venerable Bede (active 690-735, wrote in Latin) “At this point, there is another rendering, and the Greek exemplar has some more verses, where it is written, “Behold, water, who will forbid me to be baptized?”: Philip said to him, “If you believe with all your heart, you shall be saved.” He answered and said, “I believe in Christ, the Son of God.” And he commanded the chariot to stop,” and so forth.”
James Snapp in his unpublished “Evidences and Analysis” has gone a tremendous job collating and summarizing other evidence:
“We now turn to a more generalized survey of evidence. Text und Textwert supplies the following data:
78 Greek manuscripts of Acts are not extant for this part of the text.
417 Greek manuscripts do not include Acts 8:37.
Sixty-four Greek manuscripts include Acts 8:37.38
Those 64 Greek manuscripts are listed here, with notes about some of them:
E – Codex Laudianus, 08, described above.
88c – 1100’s. Notable because it has I Cor. 14:34-35 after 14:40, and has the CJ added in the margin.
94 – c. 1200. (8:39 – as in 1739.) 103 – 1100’s. (8:39 – as in 1739.)
180 – 1273. 221mg – 900’s (for main text). 296 – 1500’s. Entire NT.
307 – 900’s. (8:39 as in 1739.) Closely related to 453. Related to 1739.
322 – 1400’s. (8:39 as in 1739.) A member of family 1739.
323 – 1100’s. (8:39 as in 1739.) A member of family 1739.
385 – 1407. (8:39 as in 1739.)
429 – c. 1300. Has the CJ added secondarily. A member of family 1739.
452c – 1100’s? 453 – 1300’s? (8:39 as in 1739.)
455 – 1300’s. 464 – 1000’s. (attached to Gospels-MS 252 when pristine.)
467 – 1400’s. (8:39 as in 1739.) 522 – 1515. Related to 1739.
606 – 1000’s. 607 – 1000’s. 610 – 1100’s. Related to 453.
628c – 1300’s. Greek and Latin in parallel columns.
629 – 1300’s. Codex Ottobonianus. Includes the CJ. Described by Waltz as “apparently the only “Western” minuscule.”39 (#298 in the Ottobianus collection in the Vatican Library)
630 – c. 1300. Unusual mixture. 636 – 1400’s. Has the CJ in the margin.
641 – 1000’s. Text accompanied by the commentary of Oecumenius.
876 – 1100’s. At CSNTM.40 913 – 1300’s.
945 – 1000’s. A member of family 1739. 1104 1501 1509
1609 1610 1642 1678 – Closely related to 453. Related to 1739.
1704 – Related to 1739. 1735
1739 – 900’s. Athos Laura MS 184. (8:39: – The Holy Spirit fell on the eunuch and the angel of the Lord snatched away Philip.) Written by Ephraim the Scribe, who replicated his exemplars, which were probably from the library at Caesarea, and probably made no later than the late 400’s.
1751 1765 (1300’s) 1780 1830 1832 1851
1853 1869 1877c 1883 1884
1891 – (900’s) A member of family 1739. 1892c 1903
2200 – Related to 1739. 2298 – (1000’s) Related to 1739. 2473
2488 2494 2544c 2619 2737 2805
2816c – used by Erasmus, formerly called MS #4. 2818 – Closely related to 453, formerly #36.
It seems safe to say that Acts 8:37 is read in about 15% of the extant Greek manuscripts of Acts 8. It also seems safe to say that the inclusion of Acts 8:37 is a distinctive feature of the text of family 1739.
In “The Problem of the Text of Acts”, Dr. William Strange presents a detailed list of Latin witnesses for Acts 8:37. William A. Strange, The Problem of the Text of Acts, © Cambridge University Press, 1992. (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 71.) Dr. Strange is currently the Archdeacon of Cardigan, in Wales. http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Society.../dp/0521413842 . These witnesses echo Latin ancestors which contained translations that were made before the production of the Vulgate (that is, before the late 300’s). Old Latin manuscripts that support the inclusion of Acts 8:37 are:
6 = Codex Colbertinus (OL c) – 1200’s
50 = the Latin column of Codex Laudianus (OL e) – 550
51 = Codex Gigas, a.k.a. Codex Holmiensis (OL gig)42 – c. 1250
54 = Codex Perpinianus (OL p) – 1150
56 = Liber Comicus (OL t) – c. 85043
57 = Codex Schlettstadtensis, a lectionary (OL r) – 700’s or 800’s
58 = Codex Wernigerodensis (OL w) – 1400’s44
59 = Codex Demidovianus (OL dem) – 1250
61 = Book of Armagh (OL D*) – 800’s (contains the Alexandrian reading of Mt. 27:49)
62 = Bible de Rosas, a.k.a. Biblia Sancta Petri Rodensis (OL r R*) – 1000’s, a four-volume Bible
63 = Codex Philadelphiensis (OL ph) – 1150
67 = Codex Legionensis, a.k.a. the Léon Palimpsest (OL l) – 600’s
Dr. Strange has also listed the following Vulgate-copies as support for the inclusion of Acts 8:37:
Vgam = Codex Amiatinus (Vg A*) – 600’s
VgMM = Missale Mixtum – 1000 (?)
Vgtol = Codex Toletanus (Vg T*) – 900’s
Vgvalic = Codex Valicellanus (Vg V*) – 800’s
Vg231a = Codex Sarisburiensis, a.k.a. Salisburgensis, (231a, W*) – 1200’s
Vg243 = Brit. Lib. Add. MS 11852 (Vg U*) – c. 900
Vg493 = Bodleian 3418 (Vg O*) – 700’s
Vg1266 = Codex Theodulfianus (Vg Θ) – 800’s
Vg1396 = Bamberg Bibl. Mun. A.I.5 (Vg B*) – late 700’s or early 800’s (by students of Alcuin)
Vggk629 = MS 629, the Latin column in Codex Ottobonianus
Armenian version (produced in the 400’s, initially from a Syriac base-text in 411, but then thoroughly conformed, after 430, to a Greek base-text from Constantinople), the Georgian version (translated (mainly) from the Armenian version(s), later in the 400’s), One Ethiopic manuscript (the exact history of the origin and development of the Ethiopic version is debated, but the Garima Gospels, the earliest Ethiopic manuscript of any New Testament text, has been carbon-dated to no later than the mid-600’s),
The Dutch version (1200’s), The High German version (Codex Teplensis) (1300’s), and the Provençal/Catalan version (1100’s) (represented by Paris MS #8086; which has a mixture of Old Latin and Vulgate readings like Codex Wernigerodensis).
In addition, the Harklean Syriac contains Acts 8:37, accompanied by an asterisk.
Some general observations:
The inclusion of Acts 8:37 is supported by early (Roman-Empire-era) patristic writers in a wide variety of locales.
The inclusion of Acts 8:37 is supported by three patristic writers (Irenaeus and Cyprian and Pontius) whose manuscripts of Acts 8 were older than any manuscript of Acts 8 currently extant in any language.
Acts 8:37 is well-supported not only by “Western” witnesses but also by family-1739. Besides being included in 1739, Acts 8:37 has support from group-members 322, 323, 429, 453, 522, 630, 945, 1704, 1891 and 2200.
Acts 8:37 was the dominant reading in Old Latin versions of Acts, both African and European.
The support of copG67 makes it difficult to sustain the theory that Acts 8:37 originated as a Latin interpolation which infiltrated non-Latin texts.
If B¨ is contemporary with B, this would increase the already impressive range of early support for the inclusion of Acts 8:37. “ James Snapp “Evidence and Analysis”
The Trinitarian Bible Society has also summarized the evidence well in their paper: https://cdn.ymaws.com/.../156A9AA2.../Notes-on-Acts-8-37.pdf
Conclusion:
While it true that Acts 8:37 is not in the oldest nor majority of manuscripts it’s in 10-15% of manuscripts that contain this section of Acts and has early and widespread patristic support.
It should be included with a footnote explaining its inclusion.
I wouldn’t recommend this being used as an example of an error incorporated into the NA-28 and it would be dishonest to present the evidence as being majority when it’s decidedly minority with patristic support.
Either way, the doctrine is accurate and as many have said it was at the very least spoken. Baptism follows belief.
This was not written to attack modern translations or a particular text type. It was given as an answer to why it’s included in the TR texts.
If this verse is added, it's still accurate.
If this verse was removed, it removed one of the strongest verses demonstrating believers baptism.
You may dismiss as some sort of confirmation bias or crony journalism or realize that perhaps you were not given all of the information.
Let the reader decide. I remain convinced thhat Acts 8:37 is authentic and words breathed out by the Spirit of God.