A Case for the Inclusion of Acts 8:37


        Scholars involved in textual criticism agree that the Byzantine text-type represents the “majority text” of extant Greek manuscripts. Textual critic Daniel Wallace states that there are over 5,700 Greek manuscripts in existence[1] and that between 80-90%[2] of them support the Byzantine tradition. Kurt and Barbara Aland, in their book on textual criticism, put text-types in five categories: usually distinctly Alexandrian, Alexandrian with foreign influence, mixed text-types including Caesarean, Western, and Byzantine. In their chart, they list approximately 60 manuscripts that are primarily Alexandrian (includes some non-Alexandrian),[3] which is approximately 1% of extant manuscripts. Textual scholars today typically agree that there are only about 30 core Alexandrian manuscripts. The World History Encyclopedia published an article commenting on text-types stating, “The Alexandrian text is shorter and less polished than those of other types. Of nearly 6,000 surviving manuscripts, about 30 or so are of the Alexandrian type, which tends to be the most concise.”[4] The number would increase slightly if combined with the second category of Alexandrian manuscripts that have other influences. Since there are so few of this text-type, it is often called the “minority text.” Although the Byzantine manuscripts represent the majority of the manuscripts, many textual scholars echo Metzger, Westcott, and Hort’s claims that the minority text manuscripts are the oldest and most reliable texts, and therefore are closer to the readings of the original autographs of the New Testament.[5] Majority text scholars believe the Byzantine manuscripts are better representatives of the originals. Metzger acknowledges this position by stating that between the sixth and the fifteenth centuries that “…the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the authoritative form of text and was the one most widely circulated and accepted.”[6] Yet, there are anomalies to the general norm of Byzantine manuscripts representing the majority of texts, as some do convey a minority reading in specific passages of scripture. Acts 8:37 is one example of this. While Acts 8:37 is absent from most extant Greek manuscripts, theological controversies may have contributed to its exclusion from some manuscripts in the third to fifth centuries; yet testimony for its authenticity can be found in ancient translations and in the writings of the church fathers.

The Paradox of Acts 8:37 - A Numerical Minority in the Majority Text

        The controversy regarding the Greek texts spills over in the context of people desiring to have an accurate English translation derived from the best manuscripts. The King James Version (KJV) and most Reformation-era English translations are based upon the Greek Textus Receptus which are printed editions of the New Testament acquired from the Byzantine text-type. Modern versions, such as the English Standard Version and the New International Version, are based upon the Critical Text (CT), printed editions of the New Testament predicated upon the Alexandrian text-type. Advocates who claim the KJV and its underlying Textus Receptus are superior because they are founded upon the majority text face a conundrum, as Acts 8:37 is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.

        Mark Minnick, who has an M.A. in Bible from Bob Jones University, points out that Acts 8:37 has “very little manuscript support,” and that the primary manuscript that Erasmus relied upon for his printed edition of the New Testament did not include the verse, so he utilized a variant found in the margin of another manuscript.[7] Minnick highlights that it has no place in the “majority text” because it is not found in most of the manuscripts, and that the NA27 Critical Text does not contain the verse because it is not found in many of the oldest manuscripts.[8] Metzger mentions that Erasmus explained that the reason he included the verse was because he “judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes.”[9] While a majority reading most often likely indicates an original reading, textual critics like Erasmus have shown that a minority reading may sometimes be more authentic.

        Clive Govier recognized that there was limited manuscript support in his PhD dissertation but is convinced the verse is authentic. He states “…although Acts 8:37 is not numerically supported, the evidence from a wide geographic area over many centuries attests to its genuineness.”[10] The Alexandrian text-type traces its lineage primary to a single province, Alexandria, Egypt. In contrast, the Byzantine text-type has a broader geographical range across multiple countries and was the prevailing text over several centuries. Although Acts 8:37 is not found in all manuscripts of this text-type, there is more manuscript evidence for the inclusion of Acts 8:37 than there is for the Alexandrian minority text itself. The Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), who have a team of textual criticism scholars, take notice and wrote, “It may be argued that the favourable evidence is slender, but it is interesting to note how modern textual critics have sometimes based their theories on far less evidence.”[11] Critical Text scholars base their support on only around 30 Alexandrian manuscripts. James Snapp Jr. cites data from Text und Textwert that presents even more manuscript evidence for the inclusion of Acts 8:37 than that. He reports that, among the Greek manuscripts of Acts, 64 include 8:37, while 417 omit it, and an additional 78 manuscripts are too damaged or incomplete to determine their original reading.[12] When commenting on variants, this is where some scholars, intentional or not, can be misleading when writing about the evidence.

        A textual critic would be technically correct to state that there are 142 (64+78) manuscripts of Acts that did not include 8:37. However, it would be misleading to state that as the quantity of evidence against its inclusion. With 78 of those manuscripts being damaged or missing pages, it is unknown whether the verse was originally present or not. Metzger for example mentions that it is not found in P45.[13] Yet, the manuscript has damage between parts of 8:34 to the beginning of 8:38. Granted, scholars have measured the missing text, and they conclude that it wouldn’t have enough space to include verse 37 if it contained the other verses. Still, the fact is that no one knows for sure what was written there or if any scribal corrections were made in that section. The status of verse 37’s presence is less certain in other early manuscripts, as J. Scott Porter, who wrote Principles of Textual Criticism, stated “The Codices D and F are both mutilated here, so that we cannot have the benefit of their testimony.”[14] Codex D (also called Bezæ) does not even contain Acts 8:29b–10:14. Those desiring to research a verse’s status can go to The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts website, https://manuscripts.csntm.org, to search images of multitudes of manuscripts. Though Porter doesn’t believe the verse is genuine, he acknowledges that there are Greek authorities retaining it such as “E, 13, 100, 105, 106, and six other MSS. cited by name, with many not named.”[15] It can still be perplexing why 417 copies of Acts is missing the verse though. Could it be that it was a controversial verse that had theological connotations in the early centuries?

Theological Controversies and Textual Corruption

        First off, admittedly, there are scholars such as Metzger that are convinced that there is no reason why a scribe would remove 8:37 from the passage if it were original.[16] Metzger speculates that the inclusion of the verse may have started as a reading in the margin to introduce as a formula for baptism ceremonies, and then inserted into the actual text over the feeling that Philip must have obtained a statement of faith, and that someone thought it was crucial to be in the narrative.[17] Metzger presented no actual evidence; instead, theorization appears to occur based upon the earliest Greek manuscript available is dated to the 6th century (Codex E).[18] Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger in their academic work on Acts counter this theory:

        Commentators who examine this verse generally suppose that Philip's response to the eunuch and the subsequent declaration of faith were inserted into the primitive text by later scribes in order to bring the text into line with Christian liturgical practice… There are two principal objections to this view: 1. The verse is found in witnesses as early as the latter half of the second century CE, but the earliest evidence for baptismal confessions of faith dates from after the fourth century…2. The contents of the eunuch's statement of faith differ from the baptismal or credal formulas found either in the New Testament or in the early Church Fathers where the focus is on declaring Jesus as Lord…The focus of the eunuch's declaration is the identity of the Son of God.[19]

        It is apparent on these complex textual issues, there is significant debate. Metzger and others also claim that verse 37 is a Western Text addition.[20] Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger, in a peer reviewed journal, object to this, “Despite the weight of evidence against the reading, the witnesses that include it are a mixed collection without the usual profile of the WT readings.”[21] Looking at both sides of the debate, they were convinced that the weight of evidence was heavier for the inclusion of the verse.

        Is it possible that the western churches helped preserve an original reading instead of making an interpolation? Robert Dabney, a distinguished theologian and professor in the 1800’s, makes that case. He was disturbed by the revisions made in the Revised Version of 1881, and that it was based upon the Alexandrian texts, commenting that codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus omitted the confession of faith of the eunuch as a requirement for baptism.[22]

        Paul Wegner in his guide on textual criticism, quoted Origen (185–254 A.D.) complaining that “…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.”[23] This historically reveals that there were controversies over what were correct manuscripts even in the first few centuries after Christ.

        Dabney was persuaded that it was Origen himself that was corrupting the scriptures, stating “There appears a strong probability, then, that ‘the learned Origen’ is least of all entitled to that authority which the recent critics claim for him as a witness to the state of the genuine readings; but that, if the whole truth could be recovered, he would be found the original corrupter of the text.”[24] Dabney claims that controversies from Origen’s day infected the churches in the east even to the fourth and fifth centuries. He asserts that the western churches were spared from his negative influence, as the secular clergy typically condemned his mysticism, asceticism, and overall influence. “Secular clergy” was simply a term describing actual pastors of churches, as opposed to the superstitious and elusive monks in the monasteries. Dabney praises the Byzantine council for finally fixing his name to the list of heretics. In regards to the recent codices that textual scholars were beginning to embrace, he says “they were obviously copied for monastic libraries, and not for liturgical use in churches. We conclude that there is so much the more probability they embody the Origenist corruptions.”[25] Textual scholar John Burgon, who opposed the Alexandrian texts being used for the Revised Version, agreed, stating “…codices B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant.”[26] Theological controversies would be a plausible motive to alter, add, and omit passages of scripture.

        Porter believed verse 37 to be spurious based on its rejection by textual critics Griesbach and Scholz. He accredited the “most important theological controversy” regarding baptism being required for entrance into the fellowship of the church as being a reason people cling to the verse.[27] Joseph Alexander in his commentary of the book of Acts seeks to present both sides of the controversy. That it’s possible that some would add the verse to guard from casual admission to the church, yet, he finds it more plausible that it was original, and eventually omitted as it conflicted with the widespread practice of delaying baptism by the late third century,[28] due to people waiting till their deathbed because they believed that baptism would wash away their sin. It’s also theoretically possible that it would have been removed to justify infant baptism, as the scripture required faith before baptism. George Vance Smith, loved the Revised Version because it altered enough doctrine that it would fit more in line with his Unitarian beliefs instead of historical Christianity. He wrote:

        Since the publication of the revised New Testament, it has been frequently said that the changes of translation which the work contains are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view. In other words, that the great doctrines of popular theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the revision...Any such statement appears to be in the most substantial sense contrary to the facts of the case[29]…It is little then to be wondered at, that the doctrinal results of the Revision should be either lightly estimated, or altogether denied.[30]

        It is not only possible, but also probable that theological controversies within the early centuries of church history influenced textual changes. With Acts 8:37 being missing from known extant Greek manuscripts from the first five centuries, one must dig deeper.

Uncovering Ancient Readings from Older Translations

        Secondly, the earliest Greek manuscript that Acts 8:37 is found in is Codex E, also called Codex Laudianus 35. It is dated towards the end of the sixth century and is unique in that it contains Acts in both Latin and Greek.[31] Although there are not that many Greek manuscripts before the sixth century (the estimate is about 150), is there any evidence of the reading of Acts 8:37 in those earlier centuries? Pickering, a majority text scholar says that the age of any given manuscript is not of utmost importance, as every manuscript contains a text that is older than itself.[32] The presence of Acts 8:37 is likely not the result of spontaneous creation by a scribe, but rather derived from earlier manuscripts. Cottrel Carson wrote in a peer reviewed journal that “…there is a strong case for verse 37's being part of a tradition earlier than that found in the fourth-century manuscripts.”[33] Another strategy of textual criticism is to look at the variant readings in manuscripts from another language, as they are a translation of older copies of manuscripts.

        It has been affirmed that verse 37 is found in the Italic (Old Latin), the Latin Vulgate, the Sclavonic, Armenian Versions, the Arabic in the Polyglott, and in the Philoxenian Syriac version.[34] John Gill, who wrote an exhaustive commentary of the New Testament, added that the Complutensian manuscript had it, and agreed with Bezæ that the verse “ought by no means to be expunged, since it contains so clear a confession of faith required of persons to be baptized, which was used in the truly apostolic times.”[35] The Trinitarian Bible Society cites 56 authorities that include the verse. These are from various sources which include Greek manuscripts, lectionaries, quotations, and multiple language translations (a few which are from the fifth century).[36] This is essential information to the puzzle as these manuscripts are translated and copied from even older manuscripts. New manuscripts are continuing to be discovered and others are waiting to be digitally catalogued. These will inevitably provide more manuscript evidence. Another thing that may be valuable to look at is to read the writings and sermons of pastors in the first few centuries.

Tracing Scripture Through the Church Fathers

        Lastly, Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman make a starting and interesting claim about patristic quotations, writings from those who were leaders of early century churches. They write, “Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”[37] The writings of the church fathers are a treasure-trove of historic scripture readings. Govier, writes that majority text scholars are confident that the “presence of Byzantine readings in the writings of Church Fathers before the fourth century is evidence that the Majority text reached back to the second century, that is, to the earliest period of manuscript history.”[38] In regards to Acts 8:37, Porter mentions the following Church Fathers as quoting it: Irenæus, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and Bede.[39] Other Church Fathers that the Trinitarian Bible Society affirm as quoting the verse are Pacian, Ambrose, Armbrosiaster, Ecunonius, and Theophylact.[40] These include a mixture of Western and Greek Church Fathers.

        Augustine of Hippo (354–430 A.D.) in one of his sermons, directly quoted verse 37, stating, “The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, “See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God..”[41] Pontius of Carthage (220–270 A.D.) recognized the verse when he mentioned that the eunuch had believed, “For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart.”[42] Cyprian (200-258 A.D.), writing before the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus was even written, said “In the Acts of the Apostles: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”[43]

        In Tertullian’s (155–220 A.D.) letter “On Baptism,” he alludes to the scripture the Ethiopian was reading as falling in line with his faith and that since faith is no longer lingering, he was able to get baptized right away.[44] While this early date points to a reading of verse 37, an even more ancient version exists as a direct quotation in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons (130–202 A.D.). Carson, in his journal article on reexamining the text of Acts 8:37, summarizes that Irenaeus’ quotation carries noteworthy weight for three reasons. First, because his writing in the second century is dated significantly earlier than the sources in the fourth century that omit verse 37. Secondly, Irenaeus’s literalness in citing the biblical text is so precise, that much of the New Testament can be reconstructed using his quotations. Thirdly, his polemical criticism of those who misuse scripture ensured that he himself would strive to never be careless of his own use of the scriptures.[45] Irenaeus wrote “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.’”[46] Direct quotations from the Church Fathers make a solid case for verse 37 being the oldest witness to the original reading.

The Enduring Case for Acts 8:37

        While Acts 8:37 is a minority reading in the surviving Greek manuscripts, it is part of the Byzantine tradition that represents the majority text the most consistently. A few controversies over the doctrine of baptism prevailed in the early church, increasing the likelihood of certain persuasions to remove baptism related passages that contradicted their doctrine. The reading in verse 37 is shown to be genuine by testimony of translations of ancient manuscripts that are as old as the Alexandrian text-type. It is further authenticated by the many citations by various church fathers that lived in the second to fourth centuries. If scholars are going to be consistent with the “oldest reading is best,” then the patristic quotations of scripture of Acts 8:37 serve as the most reliable textual evidence representing the original autographs of the New Testament. As John Burgon boldly proclaimed “…call it the ‘Received,’ or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions.”[47] Additionally, textual analysis indicates that a question was posed regarding baptism that naturally necessitates a response, which is only fulfilled with the inclusion of verse 37.

Footnotes

  1. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edition, (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 52. ↑

  2. Daniel B. Wallace, “The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 2, (June 1994): 205-206, 209n142. ↑

  3. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 159-162. ↑

  4. Peter Kauffner, "New Testament Text-Types,” World History Encyclopedia, April 11, 2022. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1974/new-testament-text-types. ↑

  5. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th revised edition), (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), xix. ↑

  6. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, xxi ↑

  7. Mark Minnick, “How Much Difference do the Differences Make?” In God’s Word in Our
    Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us,     edited by James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 236. ↑

  8. Minnick, “How Much Difference,” 236. ↑

  9. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 316. ↑

  10. Clive E. Govier, "The Majority Text Debate: A Study in New Testament Text-Critical Method." (PhD diss., Edith Cowan University, 1996), 246. ↑

  11. Trinitarian Bible Society, “Why Acts 8.37 is in the Bible,” article no. 32, Last updated December 12, 2023. https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/Acts8verse37. ↑

  12. James Snapp Jr., “Acts 8:37 – Sorting out the Evidence,” (April 2014), 14,
    https://www.scribd.com/document/597855631/Acts-8-37-Evidence-and-Analysis. ↑

  13. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 315. ↑

  14. J. Scott Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, (London: Simms and M’Intyre, 1848), 473. ↑

  15. Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, 472. ↑

  16. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 315. ↑

  17. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 315. ↑

  18. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 315. ↑

  19. Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition Volume II, JSNTSup, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006), 162 ↑

  20. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 315. ↑

  21. Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, “The Variant Readings of the Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (XIII),” Filología Neotestamentaria 15 (2002), 131. ↑

  22. Robert L. Dabney, Discussions by Robert Lewis Dabney: Theological and Evangelical, edited by C. R. Vaughan, vol. 1 (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890), 372. ↑

  23. Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods & Results (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 208. ↑

  24. Dabney, Discussions, 386. ↑

  25. Dabney, Discussions, 386. ↑

  26. John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised: A Refutation of Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory, (London: John Murray, 1883), 376. ↑

  27. Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, 472. ↑

  28. Joseph Addison Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles Explained, vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner, 1857), 349–350. ↑

  29. George V. Smith, George V. Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, (London: British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1881), 45. ↑

  30. Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised, 48. ↑

  31. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 74. ↑

  32. Daniel Davey, “The Value of the Copies of Scripture.” In God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us, edited by James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 203. ↑

  33. Cottrel R. Carson, “Acts 8:37: A Textual Reexamination,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 51 no. 1-2, (1997), 75. ↑

  34. Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, 472. ↑

  35. John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 2, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 221. ↑

  36. Trinitarian Bible Society, “Why Acts 8.37.” ↑

  37. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 126. ↑

  38. Govier, "The Majority Text Debate,” 59. ↑

  39. Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, 472. ↑

  40. Trinitarian Bible Society, “Why Acts 8.37.” ↑

  41. Augustine of Hippo, “Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament,” in Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, edited by Philip Schaff, translated by R. G. MacMullen, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 419. ↑

  42. Pontius of Carthage, “The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 268. ↑

  43. Cyprian of Carthage, “Three Books of Testimonies against the Jews,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 545. ↑

  44. Tertullian, “On Baptism,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 678. ↑

  45. Carson, “Acts 8:37 Reexamination,” 65. ↑

  46. Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 433. ↑

  47. Burgon, The Revision Revised, 269. ↑

Bibliography

Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Acts of the Apostles Explained, vol. 1. New York: Charles Scribner, 1857.

Augustine of Hippo. “Sermon XLIX.” In Saint Augustine: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of
the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, edited by Philip Schaff, translated by R. G.
MacMullen, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888, 415–420.

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised: A Refutation of Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory. London: John Murray, 1883.

Carson, Cottrel R. “Acts 8:37: A Textual Reexamination.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 51 no. 1-2, (1997): 57–78.

Cyprian of Carthage. “Treatise XII: Three Books of Testimonies against the Jews, Book Three.” In Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886, 528–557.

Dabney, Robert L. Discussions by Robert Lewis Dabney: Theological and Evangelical. Edited by C. R. Vaughan. vol. 1. Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890. Originally published in “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the Greek New Testament.” Southern Presbyterian Review 22, no. 1, (April 1871): 191-234.

Gill, John. An Exposition of the New Testament. vol. 2. The Baptist Commentary Series. London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809.

Govier, Clive E. "The Majority Text Debate: A Study in New Testament Text-Critical Method." PhD dissertation. Edith Cowan University, 1996.

Irenaeus of Lyons. “Irenæus against Heresies.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885, 426–439.

Kauffner, Peter. "New Testament Text-Types." World History Encyclopedia, April 11, 2022.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1974/new-testament-text-types.

Davey, Daniel K. “The Value of the Copies of Scripture.” In God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us, edited by James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003).

Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th edition. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

______. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition. London: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Minnick, Mark. “How Much Difference do the Differences Make?” In God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us. Edited by James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, 229–277. Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 200.

Pontius of Carthage. “The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr.” In Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886, 267–274.

Porter, J. Scott. Principles of Textual Criticism. London: Simms and M’Intyre, 1848.

Rius-Camps, Josep, and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger. The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition Volume II. JSNTSup. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006.

______. “The Variant Readings of the Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (XIII),” Filología Neotestamentaria 15 (2002): 111–132.

Smith, George V. Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological

Doctrine Briefly Reviewed. London: British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1881.

Snapp, James Jr. “Acts 8:37 – Sorting out the Evidence.” (April 2014).
https://www.scribd.com/document/597855631/Acts-8-37-Evidence-and-Analysis.

Trinitarian Bible Society. “Why Acts 8.37 is in the Bible,” article no. 32. Last updated
December 12, 2023. https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/Acts8verse37

Wallace, Daniel B. “The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 2. (June 1994): 185–215.

Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods &
Results. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts