Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Jake.. I think there are a few quotes that have various questions that can arise. After all the main quotes are posted we will try to see how that lies, especially to see if it gives support to two different texts, which is in fact an apparatus division. (Note thought that Irenaeus as a partial quote reference is generally paired with Cyprian's more full quote, we can get into the reasonableness of that later as well.) Then the study can lead into the textual issue that if there were two different readings, one shorter than the other omitting a phrase, can that be seen as better evidence for omission or inclusion in the original variant? That part is a textual paradigm issue, here and now we are more simply looking at the quotes.

Overall, your point is well taken, the timing of that discussion can be better after we have all the reference quotes available posted. The point right now is not an apologetic, or even seeing if there may be a textual variant, but simply discerning who references "Acts 8:37" in a general sense and see what they actually say first and if they are in the apparatus or commentaries. (You will rarely find early church writer discussions that actually includes full quotes from multiple sources, this is a great lack in the scholarly circles.) The only reason I didn't take the time to respond the first time was because you threw in an extraneous comment that made it sound to me like you weren't asking an earnest question. Now I realize you were simply trying to ask a good question.

Now, if you want a mini-apologetic note, we have seven writers with nine references so far from 180 AD to 400 AD who all give evidence of an Acts 8:37 faith-confession verse. And no evidence of its omission from their texts (granted omission evidences can be hard to come by, but 7 pro is a large number for any variant in that period). That in itself should be interesting for those who are most concerned about early references. Plus we have the actual quotes, and more references are en route.

Now I don't expect any of that to be very important to those who are not Bible believers, understandably. However it is interesting at the very least from a scholarship level, to see all the information that is helpful and generally unavailable. In a sense it is almost easier to post the info here (than on a Christian forum) because most are not Bible believers, and less apt to get caught up in all sorts of doctrinal byways and commentary highways and what it says in their Holman or whatever. And a lot of the response should be right to point, like that of Jake's.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jakejonesiv

Hi Steve,

You have a reasonable case based on Cyprian that Acts 8:37 existed some centuries before Codex Laudianus. My only concern is that Cyprian's Treatises are heavily interpolated in several sections. I haven't studied that section of Cyprian (Treatises I:1:43), but unless someone indicates this is an interpolation, I am disposed to hear more of your argument.

The reason for suppressing the text, the emerging catholic doctrine of infant baptism where the infant is not yet capable of believing anything, also makes sense. The catholics often changed scriptures to support their own doctrines.

Best,
Jake