Acts 9:5-6

Steven Avery

Administrator
Martin Heide on Erasmus
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...us.html?sc=1676211063645#c8370787066697748071

"Erasmus introduced ... some Latin readings into the Greek text. For example, in Acts 9:5–6 ... this phrase ... is actually found in some later Latin manuscripts and in the printed Latin editions of Erasmus’s time"

And I would think we should point out that this is not just a late Latin reading, it is an ancient text that the LaParola apparatus lists as 7-1 inclusion in the Old Latin line, considered to be from the 2nd century, some versional support and Lucifer Ephraem Ambrose Theophylact in the early church writers from the 4th century. Perhaps Hilary as well.

The textual critics do like to overlook evidence that supports Textus Receptus readings that are not supported or weakly supported in the extant Greek manuscripts.

Jan Krans writes some helpful background on p. 58-61 of Beyond What is Written with the normal spin and similarly omitting early evidences for the text.

Thanks!
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Will Kinney
https://www.facebook.com/willjkinney/posts/10153525122948841

LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=51&rif2=9:5

Jan Krans
http://www.archive.org/stream/Beyon...fTheNew/BeyondWhatIsWritten#page/n67/mode/2up

Michaelis
https://books.google.com/books?id=vVAHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA496

Conybeare

Thomas Holland

Will Kinney
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
So our fuller list of evidences that have text in Acts 9:4 or 9:5-6, the key section in part or in full, includes from the ECW:

Lucifer Ephraem Ambrose Theophylact Hilary Chrysostom and Petilianus Jerome Augustine, and Lucifer. Plus the early Peshitta is support with the early Old Latin and some Vulgate and more.

Quite a substantial support.

So it is not accurate to try to give the impression that this a text that is only in play from later Latin Vulgate manuscripts, it has abundant early attestation.

The details can be complex, especially with the two spots where the variant is located, and some references that are not the full text, and some commentary from ECW writers.

In fact, Schaff has Didymus involved in the apologetics of Acts 9 and Acts 22.

" St. Hil. omits the clause durum est, etc. but has, tremens et pavens, etc.—“The voice of Paul:” Didymus in Cat. gives this as Chrysostom’s solution of the seeming contradiction between this statement and that of St. Paul in xxii. 9. “In the first narrative, they heard Paul’s voice, saying, Who art thou, Lord? But saw no man save Paul: in the second, they saw the light, but did not hear the voice of the Lord.”

As for Edward Freer Hills, quoted by Bill Brown, he is helpful (e.g. E and 431) but he did not place in any of the ECW (early church writer) support, which is wide and deep.

Also his text "In his notes Erasmus indicates that he took this reading from Acts 26:14 and inserted it here." does not look very accurate, again see Jan Krans, who has a good section on this question.

Thanks! Interesting studies :).
 
Top