by Rvaughn » Mon May 22, 2017 8:51 am
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?