BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I am teaching Acts 8: 26-40 this weekend. In case anybody asks, Howcum the Ethiopian had been castrated? I heard a preacher try to explain that, years ago, but I cant recall what he said. Some of you who went to seminary, surely have heard some speculation about this. I have looked this story up in 7 bibles, so far, and most have a footnote about why verse 37 is omitted, or they use verse 37 with an explanation that it isnt in earliest manuscripts. I find it interesting that the New Oxford annotated Bible skips from verse 36 to verse 38 without giving any explanation.

To skip a verse without explanation sounds irresponsible to me.

It is likely that the man from Ethiopia was a Jew by birth, and he was a least a Jewish proselyte. If he was a foreigner in the Queen's court, that might explain was he was castrated. At least we can see that was an action that was taken in a few cases in the Old Testament. 2 Kings 20:18, Isaiah 39:7, Jeremiah 38:7 and Daniel chapter 1 at least suggest this. Castration of servants would be a way to subdue the, and removing sexuality might be an important motivation for servants who would oversee of the king's harem (Esther 2:3, 4:4).

But I don't think this apparent interpolation addresses the reason for the man's castration. One possibility that comes to mind is that eunuchs are less likely to sequester funds surreptitiously to enrich their offspring.

Since posting this, I have read a commentary (or footnote) that hints that the man could have been BORN with mutilated/deformed genitals. That had not occurred to me before. This can happen. https://www.gotquestions.org/hermaphrodites.html

They certainly did not want any questions about royal succession.

Verse 37 is not in any extant early MSS including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and papyri. One source said the earliest MSS is 6th century. Later addition as an attempt to expand on the eunuch's baptism. In a small group I'd attempt to explain the omission at some length. In a sermon just a sentence or two.

My Greek NT gives the omission of the verse an "A" meaning "virtually certain". I don't think that there's much new on it in regard to external evidence and it's rather obvious why later writers sought to insert the verse. That the TR includes it means that there are a good many apologists for its inclusion, evidence is secondary.

Interesting question...been a while since I looked into it.

Haruo, my confidence would have to be with the critical text and the scholars that weigh the MSS evidence. Seems to me that indirect references from early authors, some of which are not explicit, would be weighed less than inclusion in actual MSS. Even the omitted verse itself has quite a number of variations in extant, later MSS. The explanation that later copyist so felt a need to expand on the eunuch's baptism seems quite plausible. Besides, very early on there were many apocryphal texts and pseudepigrapha circulating and I think I recall that Irenaeus would use some of these.

That said, it's tough to explain to a congregation how a verse in the KJV would be left out of newer translations.

Actually, I've been waiting years just to toss out some big words and impress folks here.

This has been an interesting examination of the texts, and or its omissions. Thornton is more of a scholar than I imagined him to be. I don't see how you manage these investigations while adhering to the rubric of inerrancy, as WA Criswell solved all the riddles 75 years ago if you believe the fundamentalist leadership who took over the whole shebang.

Still this is interesting. I like Haruo's imagination, which in the end is more that 80 percent of what passes for Scriptural originalism in any southern baptist pulpit on any given Sunday. To believe otherwise is to dismiss the hold Rick Burgess has over the laity in Alabama or to say 80 percent of Alabama Baptists are idiots and I don't think the latter is true.

But they are making a ruckus this last weekend on the facebook wall of Yellowhammer News about the monuments coming down in New Orleans

Rvaughn, I got rid of a lot of my commentaries and I had a few Greek text ones on Acts, one of my favorite books to preach, so I m short on some of the research. A mention by one of the Fathers of a text is by definition indirect. There are a few places where copyists, including some early ones, added a word or phrase because they thought some passage needed clarification or expansion. The question shouldn't be why a verse in one of the Fathers isn't included but why one that is absent from the important MSS is included and the burden should be on the former.

In this case I don't think that one should ignore the KJV apologists, those who are compelled to a certain conclusion in spite of evidence, when searching for answers.

I appreciate one of Stephen's more intelligible posts above. Inerrancy has always allowed for textual complications and uncertainties. I may be the only one here whose eyes have rested on the uncial script of the great Sinaiticus, as well as the Syriac Sinaitic. Such doesn't make me a scholar...but perhaps a travel braggart.

William, you said that "indirect references from early authors, some of which are not explicit, would be weighed less than inclusion in actual MSS." I think that is the case. That doesn't mean they have no weight at all. You also state that "mention by one of the Fathers of a text is by definition indirect." Well, I suppose that is according which definition/connotation of indirect you are using. I think most understand and agree that manuscripts are primary sources and that quotes by church fathers are secondary sources. But that was not my point. I am using country preacher language rather than scholarly lingo, because I am one and not the other. Nevertheless, Cyprian did make a reference (the act of mentioning something) which was direct. In a straightforward way he attributed the record of Philip's words to the Acts of the Apostles.

The most obvious conclusion from that "direct indirect reference" is that Cyprian had or had access to a copy of the Acts of the Apostles that contained this reading. That is not the only conclusion, but seems most likely to me. Not sure that there has been any general denial of this. Other possibilities might be that the copy of the Acts that Cyprian had access to had this added but it wasn't originally there in Luke's writing; that Cyprian misquoted or mis-remembered or misrepresented what the Acts said; that this writing of Cyprian had those words added to it later. Perhaps others I haven't thought of. My idea is that Cyprian, Irenaeus, Augustine and others who mention this text were working from copies that had those words. The difficulty with this conclusion, of course, is, if so, why did it then disappear from the majority of extant manuscripts?

I don't own A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger, but some comments I found online suggest that he discusses Irenaeus quoting part of the Eunuch's confession of faith. Anyone have access to this?

But I do hope to meet and possibly get the autograph of Logan Chapman, an 2017 Easley HS grad who took my Gaffney Indians out of the State playoffs this year. If not straight to MLB draft, Logan will go to the Carolina Gamecocks whose 70s Coach Bobby Richardson's political career I brickwalled with a single question in the remains of the Bernanke Pharmacy downton Gaffney in 76.

I repeat Dr.Thornton's erudition is evident in this exchange. I challenge him to read Adam Nicholson's God's Secretaries re the KJV by the end of the Summer. And I remain steadfast Molly Worthen has the high ground wih Cecil Sherman in these matters of text and fidelity.

Re baseball this is one time Dr. thornton may want to follow my facebook exchanges.

Everyone could worship the true god, but not everyone could do so equally close up.