Why does the ASV and WEB translations have "Lord" instead of "God" in Acts 20:28?

[ViaCrucis]

I noticed this just now. When I referenced Acts of the Apostles 20:28 in another post and hovered over it it shows "church of the Lord" rather than "church of God". I was curious so I looked at a whole slew of translations, and only the American Standard Version and Word English Bible have this variation. Every single other translation has "God", not "Lord".

So doing some digging I looked at a comparison of critical Greek editions, and sure enough almost all of them contain θεοῦ. The only exceptions to this are 1904 Greek Orthodox Text and 2005 Byzantine Majority Text which contain the phrase κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ. Only one text has only κυρίου, and that is the 1872 Tischendorf text.

I suppose the simple answer here would be that the ASV and WEB are using the Tischendorf text(question mark?). But I suppose the question is why? Does the Tischendorf text rely on certain older variant readings? My ability to look at old manuscripts is quite limited to what I can find online. So out of curiosity I checked out what Codex Sinaiticus has, and sure enough, it uses θεοῦ here.

So anyone super knowledgeable about this stuff that could help fill in the gaps that I can't seem to find anything about?

Edited to add: Apologies for the obvious grammatical error in the thread's title. My fingers and brain don't always work together well when typing quickly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dqhall]

I noticed this just now. When I referenced Acts of the Apostles 20:28 in another post and hovered over it it shows "church of the Lord" rather than "church of God". I was curious so I looked at a whole slew of translations, and only the American Standard Version and Word English Bible have this variation. Every single other translation has "God", not "Lord".

So doing some digging I looked at a comparison of critical Greek editions, and sure enough almost all of them contain θεοῦ. The only exceptions to this are 1904 Greek Orthodox Text and 2005 Byzantine Majority Text which contain the phrase κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ. Only one text has only κυρίου, and that is the 1872 Tischendorf text.

I suppose the simple answer here would be that the ASV and WEB are using the Tischendorf text(question mark?). But I suppose the question is why? Does the Tischendorf text rely on certain older variant readings? My ability to look at old manuscripts is quite limited to what I can find online. So out of curiosity I checked out what Codex Sinaiticus has, and sure enough, it uses θεοῦ here.

So anyone super knowledgeable about this stuff that could help fill in the gaps that I can't seem to find anything about?

Edited to add: Apologies for the obvious grammatical error in the thread's title. My fingers and brain don't always work together well when typing quickly.

-CryptoLutheran

Some of the Jews thought the name of God (YHWH) is so Holy it should not be spoken. They substituted Adonai or Adoni meaning Lord in its place.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some of the Jews thought the name of God (YHWH) is so Holy it should not be spoken. They substituted Adonai or Adoni meaning Lord in its place.

Right, that's why the Tetragrammaton is rendered as Kurios "Lord" in the Septuagint. But in Acts 20:28 the Greek in almost all examples has Theou "God". This isn't about the Tetragrammaton. I'm asking why the American Standard Version and Word English Bible translations use "Lord" instead of "God" as every other translation does.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChetSinger]

If it's helpful, the translators of the NET, which reads "God", include a long footnote explaining their choice:

The reading “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ, tou qeou) is found in א B 614 1175 1505 al vg sy; other witnesses have “of the Lord” (τοῦ κυρίου, tou kuriou) here (so Ě74 A C* D E Ψ 33 1739 al co), while the majority of the later minuscule mss conflate these two into “of the Lord and God” (τοῦ κυρίου καὶ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, tou kuriou kai [tou] qeou). Although the evidence is evenly balanced between the first two readings, τοῦ θεοῦ is decidedly superior on internal grounds. The final prepositional phrase of this verse, διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου (dia tou {aimato" tou idiou), could be rendered “through his own blood” or “through the blood of his own.” In the latter translation, the object that “own” modifies must be supplied (see tn below for discussion). But this would not be entirely clear to scribes; those who supposed that ἰδίου modified αἵματος would be prone to alter “God” to “Lord” to avoid the inference that God had blood. In a similar way, later scribes would be prone to conflate the two titles, thereby affirming the deity (with the construction τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ following the Granville Sharp rule and referring to a single person [see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290]) and substitutionary atonement of Christ. For these reasons, τοῦ θεοῦ best explains the rise of the other readings and should be considered authentic.​

 

[ViaCrucis]

If it's helpful, the translators of the NET, which reads "God", include a long footnote explaining their choice:

The reading “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ, tou qeou) is found in א B 614 1175 1505 al vg sy; other witnesses have “of the Lord” (τοῦ κυρίου, tou kuriou) here (so Ě74 A C* D E Ψ 33 1739 al co), while the majority of the later minuscule mss conflate these two into “of the Lord and God” (τοῦ κυρίου καὶ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, tou kuriou kai [tou] qeou). Although the evidence is evenly balanced between the first two readings, τοῦ θεοῦ is decidedly superior on internal grounds. The final prepositional phrase of this verse, διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου (dia tou {aimato" tou idiou), could be rendered “through his own blood” or “through the blood of his own.” In the latter translation, the object that “own” modifies must be supplied (see tn below for discussion). But this would not be entirely clear to scribes; those who supposed that ἰδίου modified αἵματος would be prone to alter “God” to “Lord” to avoid the inference that God had blood. In a similar way, later scribes would be prone to conflate the two titles, thereby affirming the deity (with the construction τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ following the Granville Sharp rule and referring to a single person [see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290]) and substitutionary atonement of Christ. For these reasons, τοῦ θεοῦ best explains the rise of the other readings and should be considered authentic.​

Excellent. Thank you for this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[returntosender]

I noticed this just now. When I referenced Acts of the Apostles 20:28 in another post and hovered over it it shows "church of the Lord" rather than "church of God". I was curious so I looked at a whole slew of translations, and only the American Standard Version and Word English Bible have this variation. Every single other translation has "God", not "Lord".

So doing some digging I looked at a comparison of critical Greek editions, and sure enough almost all of them contain θεοῦ. The only exceptions to this are 1904 Greek Orthodox Text and 2005 Byzantine Majority Text which contain the phrase κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ. Only one text has only κυρίου, and that is the 1872 Tischendorf text.

I suppose the simple answer here would be that the ASV and WEB are using the Tischendorf text(question mark?). But I suppose the question is why? Does the Tischendorf text rely on certain older variant readings? My ability to look at old manuscripts is quite limited to what I can find online. So out of curiosity I checked out what Codex Sinaiticus has, and sure enough, it uses θεοῦ here.

So anyone super knowledgeable about this stuff that could help fill in the gaps that I can't seem to find anything about?

Edited to add: Apologies for the obvious grammatical error in the thread's title. My fingers and brain don't always work together well when typing quickly.

-CryptoLutheran

I've always thought it is God in the old and lord in the new because it is Jesus in the new.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

And what about those of us that do not recognize the Masoretic texts as correct but rather the Septuagint?

αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὅτε ἐγένετο, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

And although some church fathers quoted from the Gospel of the Hebrews, it is NOT canonical. It and other non-canonical writings, such as Didache or Shepherd of Hermas, can be viewed as commentaries, but cannot be depended on for doctrine, especially if canonical books support an opposing doctrine.

 

[ViaCrucis]

PS: Moderators, could you move this to Controversial Christian Theology or a more appropriate forum please?

As the OP of this thread, I received the answer to my original question a long time ago. At this point I'd be okay with the mods just closing down this thread entirely.

-CryptoLutheran