Acts 8:37

[aReformedPatriot]

Acts 8:37 is excluded from the ESV, anyone know why?

My NASB footnotes tell me that it was not in the earliest manuscripts. Does this verse have any impact on theology?

baptist/anabaptist thought only please.

 

[daveleau]

In attempts to restore Scripture to the form found in the autographs, translators will often leave out what they believe to be inputs or expounding by Scribes. Many theologians believe that Scribes through the ages have added items to try to explain certain passages a little better. This could be one of those instances, which are often described as being absent in earlier texts. The end of John 7 and beginning of John 8 is an interesting item in this regard as it is believed that these were left out of many manuscripts because people could (mis)use the verse to support prostitution and/or adultery.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

The verse has to do with baptism. In the previous verse the eunuch and Phillip come upon a certain water, the eunuch then asks Phillip if there is any reason he may not be baptized. In the ommited verse Phillip answers and says, "if you believe with your whole heart you may" and then the eunuch is baptised. It would seem to show that only believers may be baptized, thus ruling out paedobaptism.

The fact that an early scribe may add something "to try and explain certain things better" could indicate that this is an early thought on the matter, could it not? (I am also not advocating that this verse was added by a scribe, either.)

 

[daveleau]

Yes, this is another instance where it could have been left out on purpose, as in the John example.

 

[Ave Maria]

That verse is in the NIV:

(NIV) Acts 8:38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

If you ask me, it has very little if any impact on theology. The only impact I can see that it might have is to imply that baptism was usually by immersion in the early church.

 

[rural_preacher]

That verse is in the NIV:

(NIV) Acts 8:38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

If you ask me, it has very little if any impact on theology. The only impact I can see that it might have is to imply that baptism was usually by immersion in the early church.

Verse 37 is the statement that is in question. The NIV omits it from the main text and includes it only as a footnote because of its questionable origin.

I think it appears to be an attempt to lend support for baptismal regeneration. However, I am not saying that was the intent of the translators...only what I think appears to be.

--

 

[SumTinWong]

The Net Bible says this:
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 {Ì45,74 Í 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 a confession of faith. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

From Albert Barnes:
This verse is missing in a very large number of manuscripts (Mill), and has been rejected by many of the ablest critics. It is also omitted in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions. It is not easy to conceive why it has been omitted in almost all the Greek mss. unless it is spurious. If it was not in the original copy of the Acts , it was probably inserted by some early transcriber, and was deemed so important to the connection, to show that the eunuch was not admitted hastily to baptism, that it was afterward retained. It contains, however, an important truth, elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures, that “faith” is necessary to a proper profession of religion.

And Adam Clarke:
This whole verse is omitted by ABCG, several others of the first authority, Erpen’s edit. of the Arabic, the Syriac, the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, and some of the Slavonic: almost all the critics declare against it as spurious. Griesbach has left it out of the text; and Professor White in his Crisews says, “Hic versus certissime delendus,” this verse, most assuredly, should be blotted out. It is found in E, several others of minor importance, and in the Vulgate and Arabic. In those MSS. where it is extant it exists in a variety of forms, though the sense is the same.

 

[ZiSunka]

The question of infant baptism and baptism of unbelievers came up early in the young Church, and this verse was probably added to clarify what baptism is all about, at least according to my prof at Bible college a few years ago. It seems that people got the idea that salvation was in baptism and not through faith, and there were many writings and discussions on the subject, and it was decided by one faction of the church that baptism IS the point at which salvation occurs and the vehicle by which one can be saved even if they don't have faith yet, thus belief was unnecessary as long as a proper baptism was performed, and the other faction said, no baptism is a sign of belief and not a vehicle for confering salvation, therefore unless you believe sincerely (with your whole heart), it is pointless. I wish I could remember the names of the debaters and the documents associated with them, but it's too many years ago and all my books are packed up in my other house right now.