Acts 8:37

[Jerry1988]

Acts 8:37 (New King James Version)

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.”


Hello everyone , I was reading the MacArthur Study Bible earlier and one of the study notes on the bottom of the page said the following.."8:37 This verse is not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts".

What is it suggesting exactly?

Thanks everyone

 

[Aino]

What exactly do you need to know about it?

 

[Jerry1988]

Well, that note says that verse isnt found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts..is it talking about original writeings that the Bible has been translated from? How did that verse get in the Bible if it isnt found in such manuscripts? Im not trying to suggest it doesnt belong or anything since the bible is gods word, I just was curious as to how it got there if it isnt in what they translated the bible from..or is it even referring to the manuscripts the bible was translated from?..hope that helps

 

[Big Country]

You basically have the right idea.

The original copy of these writings doesn't exist (as far as I know). All we have are reprints from different eras and locations. These reprints are referred to as manuscripts. Some manuscripts are more complete than others, some are more reliable than others (for various reasons), and some are more consistent than others. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example of a set of Old Testament manuscripts.

MacArthur is pointing out that the text of Acts 8:37 does appear is the oldest and most reliable of "Acts" manuscripts. He includes it in the Bible on account that some manuscripts do include it. He makes the notation so that you are aware that there's some question regarding whether it belongs or not. You'll find this elsewhere in his commentary as well.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Older manuscripts are labeled "reliable" simply because of their age as there is no objective way to determine which of the more than 5,300 existing New Testament manuscripts and/or fragments of manuscripts are more reliable than others. For all we know, none of them are verbatim duplicates of the originals as there are no originals in existence with which to compare them.

C.L.I.F.F.
/

 

[epistemaniac]

You basically have the right idea.

The original copy of these writings doesn't exist (as far as I know). All we have are reprints from different eras and locations. These reprints are referred to as manuscripts. Some manuscripts are more complete than others, some are more reliable than others (for various reasons), and some are more consistent than others. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example of a set of Old Testament manuscripts.

MacArthur is pointing out that the text of Acts 8:37 does appear is the oldest and most reliable of "Acts" manuscripts. He includes it in the Bible on account that some manuscripts do include it. He makes the notation so that you are aware that there's some question regarding whether it belongs or not. You'll find this elsewhere in his commentary as well.

one small correction here... "he", that is MacArthur, did not decide to include it in the bible... the translation committee involved in putting together the New King James Version did that... and they worked with a family of manuscripts called the Textus Receptus, which means "the Received text"... the same set of manuscripts used for the King James Version.... some of the manuscripts in this family have this verse, but the manuscripts that do have it are later, relatively speaking, than many of the other manuscripts...


see Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament for more on this issue...

"As is well known, the answer to the eunuch’s question (v. 37) is wanting in authoritative manuscripts. The insertion may have been due to the creeping into the text of a marginal note. A recent and most original commentator on the Acts (Blass) considers that this, like other remarkable readings found in one set of manuscripts, was written by Luke in a draft of the book, which he afterwards revised and somewhat abbreviated into the form which most of the manuscripts present. However that may be, the required conditions in the doubtful verse are those which the practice of the rest of the Acts shows to have been required. Faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God was the qualification for the baptisms there recorded.(Expositons of Holy Scripture: Gospels and Acts)​

"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.” (nkjv) Most of the earlier Greek manuscripts do not include this verse, so it is likely an intrusion into the text. It is a full and complete statement of belief: “believe with all your heart believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” It may have come from the church’s early baptismal liturgy and been put in because there is no mention of the eunuch’s conversion prior to baptism. It is easiest to assume that the official’s conversion was clearly verbalized to Philip, whether in the above words or not. Otherwise, the baptism never would have taken place. (Life Application Bible Commentary: Acts)

"Confession​

[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.”] And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him. (8:37–38)​

The oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain verse 37, which should be omitted from the text. Still, something like that confession must have occurred. Coming to the water, the eunuch ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him. As noted in the discussion of Acts 2:38 in chapter 6, baptism is the public confession of faith expected of all believers. The eunuch not only confessed his faith personally to Philip but openly in front of his entire entourage. That both he and Philip went down into the water indicates that his baptism was by immersion. So does the word baptizo, which means “to dip” or “to immerse.” (MacArthur's New Testament Commentary: Acts 1-12)​

blessings,
ken

 

[Big Country]

one small correction here...

Appreciate the correction. As iron sharpens iron...

 

[epistemaniac]

Appreciate the correction. As iron sharpens iron...

you are welcome, appreciate the attitude may I be so gracious when corrected....

I especially enjoy it when iron sharpens iron and no sparks fly off, causing out of control wild fires....

blessings,
ken

 

[Johnnz]

There are literally thousands of manuscripts from NT times and shortly after. There are some variations amongst them. Good commentaries and reference bibles draw our attention to where this may be important.

John
NZ

 

[texastig]

Acts 8:37 (New King James Version)

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.”


Hello everyone , I was reading the MacArthur Study Bible earlier and one of the study notes on the bottom of the page said the following.."8:37 This verse is not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts".

What is it suggesting exactly?

Thanks everyone

MacArthur is wrong. Oldest doesn't mean the best. Also, the most reliable manuscripts are the majority text because there are more of them than than the minority. Reliable texts aren't the minority text. The minority text leaves out Lucifer but the majority don't.

Thanks,
TT

 

[epistemaniac]

MacArthur is wrong. Oldest doesn't mean the best. Also, the most reliable manuscripts are the majority text because there are more of them than than the minority. Reliable texts aren't the minority text. The minority text leaves out Lucifer but the majority don't.

Thanks,
TT

on what basis or on what authority do you decide that the presence of the word "Lucifer" in a text or manuscript makes that manuscript right or wrong?

just curious...

just because there are more of a certain manuscript doesn't make them necessarily correct either, truth is never determined by counting noses... it could be that a certain manuscript, when copied, contained a scribal gloss, and then that manuscript was copied more often than the manuscript that rightly did not originally contain the gloss... hence we would have more copies of the erroneous manuscript than the correct reading...

the point of going to the oldest manuscripts is that the closer you get back to the originals, the more likelihood there is of getting back to before there was a chance for a gloss to appear...

does "oldest" manuscript guarantee "best"?... no... but neither does "more" manuscripts....

blessings,
ken

 

[texastig]

on what basis or on what authority do you decide that the presence of the word "Lucifer" in a text or manuscript makes that manuscript right or wrong?

just curious...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that satan(lucifer) wants to get his name out of the Bible.

just because there are more of a certain manuscript doesn't make them necessarily correct either, truth is never determined by counting noses... it could be that a certain manuscript, when copied, contained a scribal gloss, and then that manuscript was copied more often than the manuscript that rightly did not originally contain the gloss... hence we would have more copies of the erroneous manuscript than the correct reading...

Noses are far from the manuscripts.
Here's info on the Textus Receptus (Majority Text):
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence.

Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc.

Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.

Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, his miracles, his bodily resurrection and literal return.

the point of going to the oldest manuscripts is that the closer you get back to the originals, the more likelihood there is of getting back to before there was a chance for a gloss to appear...

does "oldest" manuscript guarantee "best"?... no... but neither does "more" manuscripts....

Do you know the process of how the Torah was written?

Thanks,
TT

 

[Jerry1988]

Thanks for the answers everyone, your all very helpful! Its good to know if I need help with something there are people always here to lend a hand