In the King James Version Acts 8:37 reads, "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." This verse is not found in most modern translations, e.g. ASV-1901,
RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV-2011. Some translations include the passage in a
footnote with the explanation that it is likely an interpolation, that is, an insertion in or
addition to the original text. People often assume that the omission of a passage found
in the King James Version is an instance of subtracting from the word of God. How
can omitting a passage that was not in the original text be equal to subtracting from
the word of God? Omitting Acts 8:37 from the English text is not equivalent to saying
there is no need for a confession prior to being immersed. Other passages teach that
one must confess that Jesus is the Son of God. (Rom. 10:10; 1 Tim. 6:12) The issue is
whether the textual evidence is for or against the inclusion of Acts 8:37 as a part of
God's word.
The passage doesn't appear till the 6th century in the manuscripts. It is not found
in p45, a 3rd century manuscript, or in p74, a seventh century manuscript. It is not in
Sanaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or Ephraemi Rescriptus, a 5th century manuscript.
It is not found in the ancient versions, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic. The ancient patristic
writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyrprian, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, and Augustine
add the reading with a little variation. The Byzantine text omits the reading. Erasmus
included the passage in his critical editions because he concluded that it had
inadvertently been omitted from the textual tradition. As a result of his inclusion, it
became a part of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.
R. Daly
Copyright 2012
all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said , I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God." This verse is not found in most modern translations, e.g. ASV-1901,
RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV-2011. Some translations include the passage in a
footnote with the explanation that it is likely an interpolation, that is, an insertion in or
addition to the original text. People often assume that the omission of a passage found
in the King James Version is an instance of subtracting from the word of God. How
can omitting a passage that was not in the original text be equal to subtracting from
the word of God? Omitting Acts 8:37 from the English text is not equivalent to saying
there is no need for a confession prior to being immersed. Other passages teach that
one must confess that Jesus is the Son of God. (Rom. 10:10; 1 Tim. 6:12) The issue is
whether the textual evidence is for or against the inclusion of Acts 8:37 as a part of
God's word.
The passage doesn't appear till the 6th century in the manuscripts. It is not found
in p45, a 3rd century manuscript, or in p74, a seventh century manuscript. It is not in
Sanaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or Ephraemi Rescriptus, a 5th century manuscript.
It is not found in the ancient versions, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic. The ancient patristic
writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyrprian, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, and Augustine
add the reading with a little variation. The Byzantine text omits the reading. Erasmus
included the passage in his critical editions because he concluded that it had
inadvertently been omitted from the textual tradition. As a result of his inclusion, it
became a part of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.
R. Daly
Copyright 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment