The general argument when discussing a Bible translation should be based on a single question: what best represents the original manuscripts? Since we do not have a single original manuscript scholars must use the existing ones and piece together what they believe to most accurately represent the originals. It’s not an easy task, which is why the work is done by teams of highly educated professionals.
Below we will discuss the evidence for and against the authenticity of Acts 8:37, which is removed in almost all modern Bibles, with the exception of just a few. The newer translations that do retain the passage, such as the NKJV, NASB, or the HCSB, place brackets around the passage and supply a note declaring that some early manuscripts do not contain the verse.
36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch * said, “Look! Water! aWhat prevents me from being baptized?”
37 [1 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] (Acts 8:36-37 NASB)
NASB Acts 8:37 footnote
It should come as no surprise that since the KJV is based on later manuscript traditions, excepting the Latin, that this verse is a source of debate among Christians.
Evidence for Acts 8:37 Authenticity
The passage, as retained by the KJV and the NKJV, italicized below says,
And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
The KJVO advocates are quick to point this omission out and they usually claim some nefarious scheme by Bible translators to remove the gospel from the Bible. However, those critics usually do not understand how the Bible is translated and transmitted. We have thousands of manuscripts and only some of them disagree with each other. Some of the manuscripts contain verse 37 and some do not.
Of the oldest manuscripts, we have both Greek and Latin sources. The oldest Greek manuscripts do NOT contain verse 37. The Latin manuscripts that contain the verse only date as early as the 6th century, so the passage does not have strong manuscript support in any early witnesses. If it was included in the Latin Vulgate (4th century) then the passage might be able to stand on it’s own, however, it is not in Jerome’s Vulgate, which means no Latin manuscript was known to the church in the 4th century.
That being said, there is a case for including verse 37, even if we do not have it in our oldest and (supposedly) more accurate manuscripts. The early church fathers seem to believe that the Eunuch did at least say “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” Irenaeus comments on Acts 8 with the following statement:
[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.”
This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem), and had been led as a sheep to the slaughter; and all the other statements which the prophets made regarding Him. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies)
Irenaeus lived from 130 CE to 202 CE, which means he wrote, roughly, 100 years after the writing of the book of Acts. His writings predate the known manuscripts. The same manuscripts that omit this verse. Another early church leader, Cyprian (c. 200-258), recounts the story of Philip and the Eunuch to include this missing verse.
In the Acts of the Apostles: “Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If you believe with all your heart, you may.” (Cyprian, Treatise 12, Book 3)
Thus it appears that as early as the 2nd century, there was some tradition or text that was known to contain the verse. Additionally, the Latin, post-Vulgate, also includes this verse. Translated from the Latin it says,
Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’
The Latin tradition combines both versions of Acts 8:37 given by Irenaeus and Cyprian. Thus, neither church father quoted the KJV version, even though both quotes differed from the extant manuscripts. This late Latin reading is the version that we have in the KJV. Other church fathers give similar accounts that include the confession but they are much later than the early manuscripts which show the verse omitted. The only early patristic witnesses to Acts 8:37 are the two mentioned above.
Evidence Against the Authenticity of Acts 8:37
On the other side of the argument, Bruce Metzger provides an equally appealing explanation for why the verse is not in modern Greek textual apparatuses.
Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in ?45, 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. 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. 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.8).
Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which Erasmus chiefly depended for his edition (ms. 2), it stands in the margin of another (ms. 4), from which he inserted it into his text because he “judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes (arbitror omissum librariorum incuria).” (Metzger, B. M., A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament)
Bruce Metzger is regarded by many academics as the god-father of Biblical Greek. While being a long time professor at Princeton he was the person that spearheaded the NRSV translation which is the pew Bible for many denominations. His work is regarded as second-to-none. That being said, we should examine his logic and proofs so that we can understand both sides of this debate.
Bruce states that verse 37 is a Western addition to the text. That refers to an addition that stems from the Western text-type which contains manuscripts dated as old as the 4th and 5th century CE. However, the Western text-type manuscripts date as recently as the Medieval period. The Western church leaders are some of the most famous, including Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. The Western text types are some of the oldest manuscripts but not as old as the Alexandrian text-types or any writings of the ante-Nicaean fathers. However, the Alexandrian text-types are dated as old as the 2nd century CE. The issue with these older Alexandrian manuscripts is that they were altered more frequently than later manuscripts, unlike the Byzantine text-types that underlay the Majority text of the KJV. Nevertheless, this cohesiveness in later manuscripts has less to do with textual traditions and more to do with advancing technology for writing and the fact that literacy rates were quite different between the two time frames.
Often the inconsistencies in the early manuscripts were due to scribal mistakes or footnotes that were added into the actual text during copying. When manuscripts from the early text-types have verses omitted it’s usually assumed that the original did not include the passage because it was more likely for a scribe to add to the text than to remove from it. The typical way that a footnote becomes a textual variant is a 3 step process.
Scribe adds note next to block of text for clarification
Later copyists assume it was accidentally left out so it gets added in line
Even later copyists start copying and multiplying the altered manuscript
To demonstrate this phenomenon, we need not look any further than Acts 8:37 which once used to exist only as a marginal note.
Acts 8:37 as a marginal note in a late Greek manuscript used by Erasmus
It’s a fairly easy thing to do and it can happen by accident. This is how Bruce Metzger is viewing Acts 8:37. It does not appear in the earliest manuscripts (even if the church fathers believed that it was part of the story). It does appear in later manuscripts but with multiple variations. In even later manuscripts the verse is more consistent. The manuscripts where it does NOT appear are listed by Bruce as follows:
Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in ?45, א A B C 33 81 614 vg syrp, copsa, eth
?45 is an early Greek manuscript from the 3rd century (c. 250 CE) that is considered by some as part of the Alexandrian text-type. This is the earliest text-type that we have for the NT manuscripts. It was in an Egyptian style codex that is believed to have been about 220 pages originally, though only 30 exist today. Luckily for us modern day readers a portion of Acts was in those 30 pages. Specifically, Acts 4-17. In this manuscript verse 37 does not exist.
The א [aleph] codex which also does not include vs 37 is a Greek Uncial (written in all CAPS) that dates to about 330-360 CE. It’s only of the largest and most complete biblical manuscripts that has been found in Greek. In addition to missing Acts 8:37, it also omits Acts 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
The A Codex [Codex Alexandrinus] is a 5th century (c. 400-440 CE) Greek codex that is also in Greek Uncials. It also omits Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29. However, it does include writings from early church fathers such as Clement and Athanasius. In addition, it includes a copy of the Septuagint (LXX), the Deuterocanonical books like Maccabees, and a few others that our modern Bibles do not include.
Codex B [Codex Vaticanus] is a 4th century (c. 300-325) codex in Greek Uncials that is considered to be the oldest Greek New Testament. Like it’s Uncial sisters, it also does no include Acts 8:37; 15:34, 24:7; 28:29. Among modern biblical scholars who do textual work, it’s regarded as the most accurate witness to the original Greek manuscripts of the NT. It also is an Alexandrian text-type.
Codex C [Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus] is a 5th century (c. 450 CE) and is unique to manuscripts in that it’s been recycled. The original text was in Greek and contained much of the Bible. It was subsequently “washed” and written over with another text, likely in the 12th century CE. However, with technology that exists today, the original text is not lost forever. Much of it was still decipherable and in good enough condition to apply a dating to the text.
We could go on examine the other manuscripts listed by Metzger but they are much later in date. It should also be pointed out that the Syriac Peshetta, a 2nd century translation, also does not include Acts 8:37. The early Latin manuscripts include variants of this verse but they differ greatly and are dated later than the Greek manuscripts.
The earliest true attestation to verse 8:37 is from Codex E [Codex Laudianus] which is a 6th century (c. 550) manuscript that has parallel readings of both Latin and Greek. It’s likely that the manuscript tradition it followed was the Latin, not the older Greek. The Greek used in the Codex is a mixture of various text-types. A similar manuscript (multi-lingual) exists which includes Acts 8:37 and it goes by the title of Codex D [Codex Claromontanus]. It’s also from the 6th century and is also Latin and Greek, with the Latin being the primary tradition for the copy.
Other witnesses to the existence of Acts 8:37 are from much later manuscripts from the 9th century and beyond. At this point most textual critics would agree that the readings from the older manuscripts would more accurately represent the originals. In this case it’s especially true since there is a visible progression through time that shows this verse “appearing” in manuscripts only as they become later in date and inconsistently copied until the Medieval period. In cases like these it’s easy to assume that the verse was an addition.
Metzger also points out that “τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν” (Jesus the Christ) is not an expression that Luke uses. Meaning it’s out of character for Luke. All the NT writers have phrases and ways of saying things that are unique to their own style. Within Luke’s gospel and in Acts he uses the following titles for Jesus.
Christ the Lord (x2)
the Lord’s Christ
the Christ (x17)
The Christ of God
Christ, a King
Christ, the chosen of God
the Christ, the Son of God!
Jesus Christ (x6)
Lord Jesus Christ (x6)
Jesus Christ of Nazareth (x2)
Jesus as/is the Christ (x2)
Luke’s most common form of the Christ title is simply “the Christ” or “Jesus Christ”. However, the phrase “τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν” does actually appear two other time in Acts (other than in the omitted verse 37). In Acts 5:42 and 18:5 this exact phrase that Metzger describes as non-Lukan appears.
And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ [τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν]. (Acts 5:42)
When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews thatJesus is the Christ [τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν]. (Acts 18:5)
It would appear that while τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν is not a common phrase that Luke uses for Jesus, it does at least appear in two uncontested passages in Acts. Neither one of these verses are considered to be a textual variant nor are they in dispute for authenticity.
Conclusion
I think that the Eunuch quite possibly did make a confession before being baptized. However, I do not think that his confession was originally part of the Greek text. I think it became oral tradition first, then later made it into the texts. Even though the tradition was known and even repeated by early church leaders like Irenaeus, it was not uncommon for the written scriptures and oral tradition to co-mingle. Quite often when the early church fathers re-tell the biblical stories, they tend to mix details in or leave some out. That does not mean that one is wrong and the other is right. It just means that the written record does not always contain every single detail. This is why church tradition (extra-biblical texts) are so important. They might not be scripture but they do provide a witness.
I think that if this verse existed in the original manuscripts then it would have survived. There is no reason why a scribe would remove this verse, especially considering it’s importance to the early church which placed a high level of importance on the sacred church sacraments, like baptism. Nobody would benefit from omitting such a passage. However, as Metzger points out, it would have been much more desirable to add this verse into the text so that this passage would line up with the traditional baptism confession formula. By the time this verse appears in the manuscripts (6th century) the baptismal confession was a well known formula and a requirement for baptism.
It’s also important to remember that we do not have copies of every manuscript that existed. We don’t have originals either. It’s quite possible that a Greek version existed in Irenaeus’ time the did include this confession, but is now lost to history. If archaeology uncovers such a version then I think this debate would need to be reconsidered.
22 thoughts on “Why Is Acts 8:37 Missing From Modern Bibles?”
Was Romans 10:9 written after Paul read Acts 8:36-38 or was Acts 8:37 written after Luke read Romans 10:9? Of course one must make the confession before baptism. Water just makes you wet and cannot cleanse your soul.
Romans wasn’t written until 56 A.D. , the account of ACTS 10:9 would have been about 42 A.D. predating Saul(Paul) being sent by the church to Antioch about 46 A.D. (Acts 13)
I have just finished this article, and found it to be extremely useful as it is both thorough and not too technical for a reader with little or no NT Greek. I have also bookmarked the Dust Off the Bible Web site as what looks to be a valuable resource for other questions that may arise.
That said, I believe I do believe I see an error, and am surprised that no one else has yet remarked on it. About midway through the article, you say, “However, the phrase “τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν” does actually appear two other times in Acts (other than in the omitted verse 37). In Acts 5:42 and 18:5 this exact phrase that Metzger describes as non-Lukan appears.” And yet the phrase quoted from Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament is not “τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,” but “τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν”; i.e., same words, but being in a different order, not the same phrase.
The quotes from Acts 5:42 and 18:5 would be translated “the Christ, Jesus” which makes sense; whereas the quote from Metzger’s Commentary would be translated “the Jesus Christ,” which would be awkward Greek as well as English. Hence, I think that though Metzger, being human, no doubt made some errors, I don’t think his regarding “τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν” as non-Lukan is one of them.
As you know, the editors/translators of those newer versions(NIV, ESV, NASB, ad nauseum) say that their changes/omissions we’re based on newly found ancient manuscripts. What I wonder to myself is why would God leave his TRUE word buried in the ground for thousands of years only to be discovered just recently? That just wouldn’t make any sense. God actually wants His Word to be preserved and known FOR ALL TIME, not kept a secret for any period of time A better explanation for why those newly found ancient manuscripts have those changes/omissions and were buried for thousands of years and weren’t discovered until just recently is that they, more than likely, had errors on them and were discarded/trashed.
As you also probably know is that, until the invention of the printing press, writings/literature had to be copied by hand and errors were made oftentimes. Well, those copies that had errors on them were discarded/trashed. In other words, those ancient manuscripts that were only recently discovered were just trash copies, NOTHING ELSE. I think that is a better explanation as to why those ancient manuscripts that have changes/omissions on them were buried in the ground for thousands of years and were just discovered recently.
For the sake of clarity I will comment on your comment in a series of BOLD sections. Your comments in BOLD and mine in regular.
As you know, the editors/translators of those newer versions(NIV, ESV, NASB, ad nauseum) say that their changes/omissions we’re based on newly found ancient manuscripts. What I wonder to myself is why would God leave his TRUE word buried in the ground for thousands of years only to be discovered just recently? That just wouldn’t make any sense.
When it comes to textual reconstruction the question of “why God would do XYZ” is never considered. This would be tantamount to believing one could read the mind of God and that is simply not possible and it’s useless to pretend it’s possible. So textual critics and researchers based their critical editions based on the textual evidence alone, not on theology.
God actually wants His Word to be preserved and known FOR ALL TIME, not kept a secret for any period of time
I understand that this is your belief but there a few question you should consider. 1st, if the entire corpus of “his word” was meant for full preservation, why did it take 350 years for the church to define the canon and even longer for it to be made known? Furthermore, why was the Bible primarily transmitted in Latin until the reformation? Why would God not have it translated immediately in the tongue of the culture it’s used in? Would that not be more optimal? Also, why did God take so long teaching humanity literacy? The ability for the average person to read has been virtually absent until modern times. That seems to be a major obstacle for those who need to have this “preserved Word”.
A better explanation for why those newly found ancient manuscripts have those changes/omissions and were buried for thousands of years and weren’t discovered until just recently is that they, more than likely, had errors on them and were discarded/trashed. As you also probably know is that, until the invention of the printing press, writings/literature had to be copied by hand and errors were made oftentimes. Well, those copies that had errors on them were discarded/trashed. In other words, those ancient manuscripts that were only recently discovered were just trash copies, NOTHING ELSE. I think that is a better explanation as to why those ancient manuscripts that have changes/omissions on them were buried in the ground for thousands of years and were just discovered recently.
I am aware that this is a popular talking point among people who don’t know anything about textual criticism or transmission but it’s not backed up by any historical precedent nor is there evidence of any kind that early scribed discarded mistaken manuscripts in such a way. This is especially true for ancient manuscripts. writing materials were incredibly expensive and as such scribes had many ways to correct or amend errors. Merely throwing out a valuable manuscript rather than making a correction would have been unheard of until the medieval period. Even in the medieval period manuscripts were thrown out only for mistakes that were not fixable and that were mistakes in writing the sacred name. Moreover, this was only true of the Hebrew scribes. This practice was unknown in any history of NT manuscripts.
I highly recommend reading at least a few introductory books on OT and NT textual criticism before you claim to have a valid opinion on the matter. Most of what you think critical scholars do is probably wrong. If you really take issue with the work of textual critics you can read their critical Hebrew and Greek editions and see exactly why why made the decision that they made. They don’t do anything in the dark. You can even attend the meeting for the SBL and other groups that produce critical editions. There you can make you concerns heard. However, if you they’ve never heard of the “scrapped for a good reason” argument about the manuscript, I am afraid you are sorely mistaken. The talking points you are presenting are old worn out ones that have been dealt with for hundreds of years by scholars a lot smarter than either of us.
In your reply to my post, you stated, “Furthermore, why was the Bible primarily transmitted in Latin until the reformation?” Well, many of the modern languages people primarily speak these days simply didn’t exist back then. Hence, the Bible wasn’t translated into them. For example, modern English didn’t come into existence until the 15th century. As the English language was developing, God, due to His omniscience, knew that modern English was gonna eventually become one of the main languages that was to be spoken in the world. Therefore, God inspired many great translations of the Bible to be done in modern English like the Geneva, Tyndale, and King James versions.
Another thing, me saying that God wants His Word preserved and known FOR ALL TIME is backed up by Matthew 5:18, which says “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Revelation 22:18-19 also backs that up. Those verses say, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.”. One adds to and/or omits from the Word of at their own peril.
In your reply to my post, you stated, “Furthermore, why was the Bible primarily transmitted in Latin until the reformation?” Well, many of the modern languages people primarily speak these days simply didn’t exist back then. Hence, the Bible wasn’t translated into them.
For example, modern English didn’t come into existence until the 15th century. As the English language was developing, God, due to His omniscience, knew that modern English was gonna eventually become one of the main languages that was to be spoken in the world. Therefore, God inspired many great translations of the Bible to be done in modern English like the Geneva, Tyndale, and King James versions.
I am not sure you understand my critique. I am not asking why God didn’t have it translated into modern tongues that didn’t exist. I am asking why he didn’t have it in the ancient tongues such as Germanic Baque, Celtic, Baltic, etc? There were hundreds of languages in the world during all the time the Bible was being written yet the OT/NT texts were only written in the language of the dominant cultures who practiced the religion already.
Another thing, me saying that God wants His Word preserved and known FOR ALL TIME is backed up by Matthew 5:18, which says “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Sometimes reading the passage slower is all you need to see your error. Jesus said nothing about the written text of the “Bible”. He spoke specifically of “the Law” (not the Bible) and the illustration he used “jot and tittle” is just an illustration, not a literal statement. The reason I say this is because bot jots and tittles are features of the Hebrew alphabet that did not exist at the time the law was even written. The Yod and the tittle are late Hebrew developments. Jesus is merely stating that he has no intention of causing the law to pass away, even in the least bit.
Revelation 22:18-19 also backs that up. Those verses say, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.”. One adds to and/or omits from the Word of at their own peril.
Again reading the passage more closely will show the flaw in your point. The passage in Revelation refers specifically to the scroll of Revelation. “This book” is literally referring to the book that John was writing. It was not referring to the Bible which had yet to exist. The OT canon wasn’t even decided yet at that time.
What does “All scripture” mean? In Rom.9:17, the word spoken by Moses to Pharaoh was already called “scripture” before it was written. In Gal.3:8, the word spoken by God to Abraham was already called “scripture” before it was written. Since God is eternal and not bound in time, according to His foreknowledge, all NT writings are already part of “all scripture” before they were written and canonized. The law of the LORD, the testimony of the LORD, the statutes of the LORD, the commandment of the LORD and so on are part of “all scripture”. Deu.4:2, Pro.30:6, Jer.26:2, Mt.5:18 and Rev.22:19 are part of “all scripture”. God is sovereign for the preservation of “all scripture”. However, in 1Tim.6:14, Timothy has given the accountability to keep these preserved words of God. In 2Tim.2:2, this task is committed to “faithful men” and this chain of accountability has never broken. You and I are accountable for keeping the preserved words of God. In 2Timothy, the terms “all scripture” and “the holy scriptures” are associated with “the last days” and “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived”. Apparently, these “evil men” are opponents of “the holy scriptures”. These evil men are the same people described in Eze.13:6-7 and 2Cor.2:17 who “corrupt the word of God” by speaking lies and say, “The LORD says it”, although the LORD had not spoken it. This follows the pattern of Satan’s opposition to the word of God in Genesis chapter 3. This pattern went down through Daniel chapter 10. When the angel has to show Daniel “that which is noted in the scripture of truth”, there were war among principalities. Satan is described as the prince of the Persian empire and later the Prince of the Greek empire. Undoubtedly, he is also the prince of the Roman empire. The same pattern could be applied during the reformation period when God revealed “that which is noted in the scripture of truth” to “faithful men”, Satan used “evil men” to oppose “the holy scriptures” resulting forgery, conspiracy and corruption of history. If your view on modern bibles depends on what had been discovered lately, that view could be changed when there will be another latest discovery. But if your view on the preserved words of God is based on how God providentially preserved “every word that proceeds out of His mouth”, as faithful man, you will be keeping these preserved words of God “until” Christ returns.
Check on YouTube for Walter Veith’s “Battle of the Bibles” for a more detailed explanation of which manuscripts have more weight than others. Do you know there were Bible manuscripts that had so many corrections that they have been doubted as reliable source for inspired Scripture?
I appreciate your suggestion but I am quite familiar with the manuscripts which is why I listed them in the article. Modern textual critics do not adhere to “manuscript lines”. They look at all available manuscripts (including quotes from church fathers and other religious writings) and then make a decision based on the evidence available. There is no single correct family of manuscripts. I highly recommend reading some books on textual criticism by actual textual scholars to receive a far better understanding of how critical editions of the Bible are made.
Infant baptism, it may be argued, was established by the Holy Apostles. Here is a link to an article about this: https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism Concerning the eunuch, who was a castrated adult male, of course the adult must make a confession of faith to be baptised. The adult must want to be baptized. The apostles and early church recognized approval of parents and guardians sufficient for infant baptism.
Perhaps, but that isn’t really the point of the article. I do not personally have a problem with infant baptism, although it seems like it only makes sense if we affirm that baptism is required for “remission of sin”. Of course, some would suggest that if baptism is required to remove sins then why did Jesus have to die? It’s a larger discussion than the scope of this article. Perhaps, I will get around to doing a full on review of the topic in a alter article.
My own researchd revealed that Rome agreed that baptism was NOT necesary to be saved until the early 3rd Century. But at about the same time, they also decided that instead of waiting until a child was old enough to speak for him/herself, they would baptize them as a baby, and declare that “initial salvation,” to be maintained later as an adult (via the Mass, confession, works, etc)
But then Acts 8:37 got in the way of the above plan, because clearly Acts 8:37 makes belief in Jesus’ death on the cross a necessary prerequisite to even being allowed to be bapitzed, and since babies cannot speak for themselves, this verse had to go, so they pulled it, declaring that the pope had the authorty to change scripture, being he was viewed as Christ on Earth by the church at Rome. (Some say there is no such thing as a prerequisite to babtism. OK, so why did John the Baptist reject the unrepentant Jews and not allow them to be baptized?)
There is much information about how early 4th Century Rome had Alexandria produce new Greek texts for Rome, and natually the words in Acts 8:37 were not present, having been pulled a century earlier. This is why for non-Catholics one should not rely on those Greek texts as “oldest and and best mss.” These Greek texts are only “the oldest and best Catholic, Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations mss.” My survey of the entire New Testament reveals that 37% of the nearly 8000 verses fall into this category of Catholic doctrinal accommodations, and 5% have Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodation (using modern verse numbering).
I am a bit confused on why Rome would ask Alexandria to produce new Greek texts since they relied on the Latin. Can you cite any sources for your studies? I would very much like to read them.
This is largely conjecture based upon provable historical fact, so please keep that in mind…
Because Alexandria was deemed a threat to Catholicism and then destroyed… “In 391 CE, as part of his attempt to wipe out paganism, Emperor Theodosius I officially sanctioned the destruction of the Serapeum, or Temple of Serapis at Alexandria. The destruction of the Temple was carried out under Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, and afterwards a Christian church was built on the site. It has been hypothesised that the daughter library of the Museum, located close to the Temple, and the Royal Library were also razed to the ground at this time. However, whilst it is plausible that manuscripts from the Serapeum library may have been destroyed during this purge, there is no evidence that the Royal Library still existed at the end the 4th century. No ancient sources mention the destruction of any library at this time, though 18th century English historian Edward Gibbon mistakenly attributes it to bishop Theophilus.” (see https://www.worldhistory.org/article/207/what-happened-to-the-great-library-at-alexandria/)
it stands to reason that if this is true, that the church of Rome would have wanted to consolidate their hold on scripture using the power and authority of the church. If this is the case, then what better place to have manuscripts written in greek, than in Alexandria, where the learned had gathered for centuries, and were not only familiar with latin, but also with greek? As I said, just conjecture, but interesting to consider.
I think your sentiment is a good one. It doesn’t need to be perfect to be inspired by God. None of his prophets or messengers were perfect but God still used them to deliver His word. Anything entrusted to man will bear our marks of imperfection. Only God is perfect.
Was Romans 10:9 written after Paul read Acts 8:36-38 or was Acts 8:37 written after Luke read Romans 10:9? Of course one must make the confession before baptism. Water just makes you wet and cannot cleanse your soul.
Romans wasn’t written until 56 A.D. , the account of ACTS 10:9 would have been about 42 A.D. predating Saul(Paul) being sent by the church to Antioch about 46 A.D. (Acts 13)
I have just finished this article, and found it to be extremely useful as it is both thorough and not too technical for a reader with little or no NT Greek. I have also bookmarked the Dust Off the Bible Web site as what looks to be a valuable resource for other questions that may arise.
That said, I believe I do believe I see an error, and am surprised that no one else has yet remarked on it. About midway through the article, you say, “However, the phrase “τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν” does actually appear two other times in Acts (other than in the omitted verse 37). In Acts 5:42 and 18:5 this exact phrase that Metzger describes as non-Lukan appears.” And yet the phrase quoted from Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament is not “τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,” but “τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν”; i.e., same words, but being in a different order, not the same phrase.
The quotes from Acts 5:42 and 18:5 would be translated “the Christ, Jesus” which makes sense; whereas the quote from Metzger’s Commentary would be translated “the Jesus Christ,” which would be awkward Greek as well as English. Hence, I think that though Metzger, being human, no doubt made some errors, I don’t think his regarding “τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν” as non-Lukan is one of them.
Refreshing to find a lot of vatican-2 on this site.
As you know, the editors/translators of those newer versions(NIV, ESV, NASB, ad nauseum) say that their changes/omissions we’re based on newly found ancient manuscripts. What I wonder to myself is why would God leave his TRUE word buried in the ground for thousands of years only to be discovered just recently? That just wouldn’t make any sense. God actually wants His Word to be preserved and known FOR ALL TIME, not kept a secret for any period of time A better explanation for why those newly found ancient manuscripts have those changes/omissions and were buried for thousands of years and weren’t discovered until just recently is that they, more than likely, had errors on them and were discarded/trashed.
As you also probably know is that, until the invention of the printing press, writings/literature had to be copied by hand and errors were made oftentimes. Well, those copies that had errors on them were discarded/trashed. In other words, those ancient manuscripts that were only recently discovered were just trash copies, NOTHING ELSE. I think that is a better explanation as to why those ancient manuscripts that have changes/omissions on them were buried in the ground for thousands of years and were just discovered recently.
Lester,
For the sake of clarity I will comment on your comment in a series of BOLD sections. Your comments in BOLD and mine in regular.
As you know, the editors/translators of those newer versions(NIV, ESV, NASB, ad nauseum) say that their changes/omissions we’re based on newly found ancient manuscripts. What I wonder to myself is why would God leave his TRUE word buried in the ground for thousands of years only to be discovered just recently? That just wouldn’t make any sense.
When it comes to textual reconstruction the question of “why God would do XYZ” is never considered. This would be tantamount to believing one could read the mind of God and that is simply not possible and it’s useless to pretend it’s possible. So textual critics and researchers based their critical editions based on the textual evidence alone, not on theology.
God actually wants His Word to be preserved and known FOR ALL TIME, not kept a secret for any period of time
I understand that this is your belief but there a few question you should consider. 1st, if the entire corpus of “his word” was meant for full preservation, why did it take 350 years for the church to define the canon and even longer for it to be made known? Furthermore, why was the Bible primarily transmitted in Latin until the reformation? Why would God not have it translated immediately in the tongue of the culture it’s used in? Would that not be more optimal? Also, why did God take so long teaching humanity literacy? The ability for the average person to read has been virtually absent until modern times. That seems to be a major obstacle for those who need to have this “preserved Word”.
A better explanation for why those newly found ancient manuscripts have those changes/omissions and were buried for thousands of years and weren’t discovered until just recently is that they, more than likely, had errors on them and were discarded/trashed. As you also probably know is that, until the invention of the printing press, writings/literature had to be copied by hand and errors were made oftentimes. Well, those copies that had errors on them were discarded/trashed. In other words, those ancient manuscripts that were only recently discovered were just trash copies, NOTHING ELSE. I think that is a better explanation as to why those ancient manuscripts that have changes/omissions on them were buried in the ground for thousands of years and were just discovered recently.
I am aware that this is a popular talking point among people who don’t know anything about textual criticism or transmission but it’s not backed up by any historical precedent nor is there evidence of any kind that early scribed discarded mistaken manuscripts in such a way. This is especially true for ancient manuscripts. writing materials were incredibly expensive and as such scribes had many ways to correct or amend errors. Merely throwing out a valuable manuscript rather than making a correction would have been unheard of until the medieval period. Even in the medieval period manuscripts were thrown out only for mistakes that were not fixable and that were mistakes in writing the sacred name. Moreover, this was only true of the Hebrew scribes. This practice was unknown in any history of NT manuscripts.
I highly recommend reading at least a few introductory books on OT and NT textual criticism before you claim to have a valid opinion on the matter. Most of what you think critical scholars do is probably wrong. If you really take issue with the work of textual critics you can read their critical Hebrew and Greek editions and see exactly why why made the decision that they made. They don’t do anything in the dark. You can even attend the meeting for the SBL and other groups that produce critical editions. There you can make you concerns heard. However, if you they’ve never heard of the “scrapped for a good reason” argument about the manuscript, I am afraid you are sorely mistaken. The talking points you are presenting are old worn out ones that have been dealt with for hundreds of years by scholars a lot smarter than either of us.
In your reply to my post, you stated, “Furthermore, why was the Bible primarily transmitted in Latin until the reformation?” Well, many of the modern languages people primarily speak these days simply didn’t exist back then. Hence, the Bible wasn’t translated into them. For example, modern English didn’t come into existence until the 15th century. As the English language was developing, God, due to His omniscience, knew that modern English was gonna eventually become one of the main languages that was to be spoken in the world. Therefore, God inspired many great translations of the Bible to be done in modern English like the Geneva, Tyndale, and King James versions.
Another thing, me saying that God wants His Word preserved and known FOR ALL TIME is backed up by Matthew 5:18, which says “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Revelation 22:18-19 also backs that up. Those verses say, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.”. One adds to and/or omits from the Word of at their own peril.
In your reply to my post, you stated, “Furthermore, why was the Bible primarily transmitted in Latin until the reformation?” Well, many of the modern languages people primarily speak these days simply didn’t exist back then. Hence, the Bible wasn’t translated into them.
For example, modern English didn’t come into existence until the 15th century. As the English language was developing, God, due to His omniscience, knew that modern English was gonna eventually become one of the main languages that was to be spoken in the world. Therefore, God inspired many great translations of the Bible to be done in modern English like the Geneva, Tyndale, and King James versions.
I am not sure you understand my critique. I am not asking why God didn’t have it translated into modern tongues that didn’t exist. I am asking why he didn’t have it in the ancient tongues such as Germanic Baque, Celtic, Baltic, etc? There were hundreds of languages in the world during all the time the Bible was being written yet the OT/NT texts were only written in the language of the dominant cultures who practiced the religion already.
Another thing, me saying that God wants His Word preserved and known FOR ALL TIME is backed up by Matthew 5:18, which says “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Sometimes reading the passage slower is all you need to see your error. Jesus said nothing about the written text of the “Bible”. He spoke specifically of “the Law” (not the Bible) and the illustration he used “jot and tittle” is just an illustration, not a literal statement. The reason I say this is because bot jots and tittles are features of the Hebrew alphabet that did not exist at the time the law was even written. The Yod and the tittle are late Hebrew developments. Jesus is merely stating that he has no intention of causing the law to pass away, even in the least bit.
Revelation 22:18-19 also backs that up. Those verses say, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.”. One adds to and/or omits from the Word of at their own peril.
Again reading the passage more closely will show the flaw in your point. The passage in Revelation refers specifically to the scroll of Revelation. “This book” is literally referring to the book that John was writing. It was not referring to the Bible which had yet to exist. The OT canon wasn’t even decided yet at that time.
What does “All scripture” mean? In Rom.9:17, the word spoken by Moses to Pharaoh was already called “scripture” before it was written. In Gal.3:8, the word spoken by God to Abraham was already called “scripture” before it was written. Since God is eternal and not bound in time, according to His foreknowledge, all NT writings are already part of “all scripture” before they were written and canonized. The law of the LORD, the testimony of the LORD, the statutes of the LORD, the commandment of the LORD and so on are part of “all scripture”. Deu.4:2, Pro.30:6, Jer.26:2, Mt.5:18 and Rev.22:19 are part of “all scripture”. God is sovereign for the preservation of “all scripture”. However, in 1Tim.6:14, Timothy has given the accountability to keep these preserved words of God. In 2Tim.2:2, this task is committed to “faithful men” and this chain of accountability has never broken. You and I are accountable for keeping the preserved words of God. In 2Timothy, the terms “all scripture” and “the holy scriptures” are associated with “the last days” and “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived”. Apparently, these “evil men” are opponents of “the holy scriptures”. These evil men are the same people described in Eze.13:6-7 and 2Cor.2:17 who “corrupt the word of God” by speaking lies and say, “The LORD says it”, although the LORD had not spoken it. This follows the pattern of Satan’s opposition to the word of God in Genesis chapter 3. This pattern went down through Daniel chapter 10. When the angel has to show Daniel “that which is noted in the scripture of truth”, there were war among principalities. Satan is described as the prince of the Persian empire and later the Prince of the Greek empire. Undoubtedly, he is also the prince of the Roman empire. The same pattern could be applied during the reformation period when God revealed “that which is noted in the scripture of truth” to “faithful men”, Satan used “evil men” to oppose “the holy scriptures” resulting forgery, conspiracy and corruption of history. If your view on modern bibles depends on what had been discovered lately, that view could be changed when there will be another latest discovery. But if your view on the preserved words of God is based on how God providentially preserved “every word that proceeds out of His mouth”, as faithful man, you will be keeping these preserved words of God “until” Christ returns.
You said a whole lot without addressing the topic at hand.
If as you say they were trashed, why would God want trash to last?
Check on YouTube for Walter Veith’s “Battle of the Bibles” for a more detailed explanation of which manuscripts have more weight than others. Do you know there were Bible manuscripts that had so many corrections that they have been doubted as reliable source for inspired Scripture?
Henry,
I appreciate your suggestion but I am quite familiar with the manuscripts which is why I listed them in the article. Modern textual critics do not adhere to “manuscript lines”. They look at all available manuscripts (including quotes from church fathers and other religious writings) and then make a decision based on the evidence available. There is no single correct family of manuscripts. I highly recommend reading some books on textual criticism by actual textual scholars to receive a far better understanding of how critical editions of the Bible are made.
Cheers,
Admin
Infant baptism, it may be argued, was established by the Holy Apostles. Here is a link to an article about this: https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism Concerning the eunuch, who was a castrated adult male, of course the adult must make a confession of faith to be baptised. The adult must want to be baptized. The apostles and early church recognized approval of parents and guardians sufficient for infant baptism.
Perhaps, but that isn’t really the point of the article. I do not personally have a problem with infant baptism, although it seems like it only makes sense if we affirm that baptism is required for “remission of sin”. Of course, some would suggest that if baptism is required to remove sins then why did Jesus have to die? It’s a larger discussion than the scope of this article. Perhaps, I will get around to doing a full on review of the topic in a alter article.
Polycarp, (trained by John the Apostle, who was pastor of the church of Smyrna), made mention of Acts 8:37.
Maybe the verse was omitted to accommodate and streamline membership into the new State Church of the Roman Empire?
My own researchd revealed that Rome agreed that baptism was NOT necesary to be saved until the early 3rd Century. But at about the same time, they also decided that instead of waiting until a child was old enough to speak for him/herself, they would baptize them as a baby, and declare that “initial salvation,” to be maintained later as an adult (via the Mass, confession, works, etc)
But then Acts 8:37 got in the way of the above plan, because clearly Acts 8:37 makes belief in Jesus’ death on the cross a necessary prerequisite to even being allowed to be bapitzed, and since babies cannot speak for themselves, this verse had to go, so they pulled it, declaring that the pope had the authorty to change scripture, being he was viewed as Christ on Earth by the church at Rome. (Some say there is no such thing as a prerequisite to babtism. OK, so why did John the Baptist reject the unrepentant Jews and not allow them to be baptized?)
There is much information about how early 4th Century Rome had Alexandria produce new Greek texts for Rome, and natually the words in Acts 8:37 were not present, having been pulled a century earlier. This is why for non-Catholics one should not rely on those Greek texts as “oldest and and best mss.” These Greek texts are only “the oldest and best Catholic, Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodations mss.” My survey of the entire New Testament reveals that 37% of the nearly 8000 verses fall into this category of Catholic doctrinal accommodations, and 5% have Arian and Gnostic doctrinal accommodation (using modern verse numbering).
I am a bit confused on why Rome would ask Alexandria to produce new Greek texts since they relied on the Latin. Can you cite any sources for your studies? I would very much like to read them.
This is largely conjecture based upon provable historical fact, so please keep that in mind…
Because Alexandria was deemed a threat to Catholicism and then destroyed… “In 391 CE, as part of his attempt to wipe out paganism, Emperor Theodosius I officially sanctioned the destruction of the Serapeum, or Temple of Serapis at Alexandria. The destruction of the Temple was carried out under Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, and afterwards a Christian church was built on the site. It has been hypothesised that the daughter library of the Museum, located close to the Temple, and the Royal Library were also razed to the ground at this time. However, whilst it is plausible that manuscripts from the Serapeum library may have been destroyed during this purge, there is no evidence that the Royal Library still existed at the end the 4th century. No ancient sources mention the destruction of any library at this time, though 18th century English historian Edward Gibbon mistakenly attributes it to bishop Theophilus.” (see https://www.worldhistory.org/article/207/what-happened-to-the-great-library-at-alexandria/)
it stands to reason that if this is true, that the church of Rome would have wanted to consolidate their hold on scripture using the power and authority of the church. If this is the case, then what better place to have manuscripts written in greek, than in Alexandria, where the learned had gathered for centuries, and were not only familiar with latin, but also with greek? As I said, just conjecture, but interesting to consider.
I take the Bible as it is.They may add on, or take away, the essentials are there for me, and it is good enough!
I think your sentiment is a good one. It doesn’t need to be perfect to be inspired by God. None of his prophets or messengers were perfect but God still used them to deliver His word. Anything entrusted to man will bear our marks of imperfection. Only God is perfect.