Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Acts 2:41

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... used the ... for a while. ... Though, you must realize, this is an unhistorical recounting; theological historiography at its best intended to idealize the
    Message 1 of 4 , May 1, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      At 12:09 AM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
      >In Acts 2:40 Peter says:
      >"Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (KJV) (especially if Peter
      used the
      >KJV!)

      :)

      >
      >This was a kind of invitation brought forth by Peter after he had preached
      for a while.
      >The response of the people was enormous!
      >

      Though, you must realize, this is an unhistorical recounting; theological
      historiography at its best intended to idealize the early period of the Church.

      >Verse 41a states: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"
      (KJV). The
      >adv. *gladly* (ASMENWS) is omitted in p74 Aleph A B C 81. 1175. 1739, and
      therefore also
      >in N/A26-27. It is retained by E Psi Byz and the two Syriac (p & h). (This
      is according
      >to N/A26).
      >

      The addition of an adjective is much more likely than the deletion of an
      adjective.
      (Proof? Simply the fact that scribes like to add for the sake of clarity.
      I.e., in the story of Jesus' arrest we do not know the name of the victim
      whose ear is hacked off by Peter until the Gospel of John. We don't know
      which ear it was in Mark- but we do in Matthew! Simply because scribes add
      stuff!!!!!)

      >My Norwegian Bible runs something like this: "They who now received his
      word with joy,
      >were baptized".
      >

      Your Bible must be based on later mss. (I would be curious to know the
      textual base of your translation. Was it Luther? Or TR?

      >It seems to me that the expression "gladly" or "with joy" (or "readily")
      could be
      >regarded as "the more difficult reading" in this context. The Byz reading
      clearly *may*
      >be interpreted (by some scribe) to be "harder" because it suggests (to him)
      that one has
      >to receive the word *gladly* or *with joy* in order to be baptized, while
      he knows from
      >other NT passages that receiving _alone_ is sufficient for being allowed
      baptism. If he
      >chose to follow a text that omits ASMENWS the supposed theological problem
      is eliminated
      >(in his mind). Of course, I know that the scribe´s understanding of the
      word ASMENWS
      >comes into play here. (That part I have not investigated).

      No- it is not quite so complex as all that. The scribe simply added gladly
      because thats how one should receive the message!

      >
      >I´m not saying, of course, that this is a necessary conclusion. But it
      seems at least
      >*possible*. Can this possibility be ruled out??
      >

      Yes.
      The external evidence alone is telling and conclusive. The internal
      evidence is in harmony with the external- so that "lectio brevier" wins the day.

      >Any comments about this one?
      >

      See above.

      >--
      >- Mr. Helge Evensen
      >

      Jim

      +++++++++++++++++++++++
      Jim West, ThD
      Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
      jwest@...
    • Jim West
      Helge, ... later *copying* activity?? There is clearly a great deal of difference between these two activities. For instance, we do not usually find among the
      Message 2 of 4 , May 2, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        Helge,
        At 08:36 PM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote:

        >
        >Is it really proper to compare the writing-process of the four Gospels with
        later *copying* activity?? There is clearly a great deal of difference
        between these two activities. For instance, we do not usually find among the
        MS copies changes/deviations that can compare with the "deviations" between
        the parallel accounts of the four Gospels (I mean in the places where there
        are no variants between extant copies)! Textual deviations between extant
        >copies are clearly of a different nature, even though we may find a few
        single instances that may seem comparable!

        I think it is proper to compare the two. Both are, after all, the activity
        of scribes- either composing, redacting, or copying. That the scribes
        redacted the evangelists seems beyond question.

        >>
        >> >My Norwegian Bible runs something like this: "They who now received his
        >> word with joy,
        >> >were baptized".
        >> >
        >>
        >> Your Bible must be based on later mss. (I would be curious to know the
        >> textual base of your translation. Was it Luther? Or TR?
        >
        >The particular translation I am using is based on the TR. It is a new
        translation published
        >in 1995. This is the first complete current Norwegian translation based on
        the TR since the Norwegian Bible Society departed from it in a revised
        edition of 1904. Norwegian translations *before* that time were all based on
        the TR. The above mentioned translation is not from the Norwegian Bible
        Society, though.
        >
        >>

        Thanks for the info.



        >- Mr. Helge Evensen
        >

        Jim

        +++++++++++++++++++++++
        Jim West, ThD
        Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
        jwest@...
      • Mr. Helge Evensen
        ... [Then maybe Mark is the more original gospel, since it has the shorter and harder reading (and since it is most likely the earliest Gospel); Matthew
        Message 3 of 4 , May 2, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          Jim West wrote:
          >
          > At 12:09 AM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
          > >In Acts 2:40 Peter says:
          > >"Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (KJV) (especially if Peter
          > used the
          > >KJV!)
          >
          > :)
          >
          > >
          > >This was a kind of invitation brought forth by Peter after he had preached
          > for a while.
          > >The response of the people was enormous!
          > >
          >
          > Though, you must realize, this is an unhistorical recounting; theological
          > historiography at its best intended to idealize the early period of the Church.
          >
          > >Verse 41a states: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"
          > (KJV). The
          > >adv. *gladly* (ASMENWS) is omitted in p74 Aleph A B C 81. 1175. 1739, and
          > therefore also
          > >in N/A26-27. It is retained by E Psi Byz and the two Syriac (p & h). (This
          > is according
          > >to N/A26).
          > >
          >
          > The addition of an adjective is much more likely than the deletion of an
          > adjective.
          > (Proof? Simply the fact that scribes like to add for the sake of clarity.
          > I.e., in the story of Jesus' arrest we do not know the name of the victim
          > whose ear is hacked off by Peter until the Gospel of John. We don't know
          > which ear it was in Mark- but we do in Matthew! Simply because scribes add
          > stuff!!!!!)

          [Then maybe Mark is the "more original" gospel, since it has the "shorter" and "harder"
          reading (and since it is most likely the earliest Gospel); Matthew has the "easier reading"
          compared to Mark (and Matthew is most likely "later" than Mark); and finally: John is the
          "less original" gospel, since it adds "for sake of clarity", and it "smoothes out" the text,
          just like the Byzantine MSS (and it is the "latest" Gospel).......; is that your
          conclusion?]

          Is it really proper to compare the writing-process of the four Gospels with later *copying*
          activity?? There is clearly a great deal of difference between these two activities. For
          instance, we do not usually find among the MS copies changes/deviations that can compare
          with the "deviations" between the parallel accounts of the four Gospels (I mean in the
          places where there are no variants between extant copies)! Textual deviations between extant
          copies are clearly of a different nature, even though we may find a few single instances
          that may seem comparable!

          >
          > >My Norwegian Bible runs something like this: "They who now received his
          > word with joy,
          > >were baptized".
          > >
          >
          > Your Bible must be based on later mss. (I would be curious to know the
          > textual base of your translation. Was it Luther? Or TR?

          The particular translation I am using is based on the TR. It is a new translation published
          in 1995. This is the first complete current Norwegian translation based on the TR since the
          Norwegian Bible Society departed from it in a revised edition of 1904. Norwegian
          translations *before* that time were all based on the TR. The above mentioned translation is
          not from the Norwegian Bible Society, though.

          >
          > >It seems to me that the expression "gladly" or "with joy" (or "readily")
          > could be
          > >regarded as "the more difficult reading" in this context. The Byz reading
          > clearly *may*
          > >be interpreted (by some scribe) to be "harder" because it suggests (to him)
          > that one has
          > >to receive the word *gladly* or *with joy* in order to be baptized, while
          > he knows from
          > >other NT passages that receiving _alone_ is sufficient for being allowed
          > baptism. If he
          > >chose to follow a text that omits ASMENWS the supposed theological problem
          > is eliminated
          > >(in his mind). Of course, I know that the scribe´s understanding of the
          > word ASMENWS
          > >comes into play here. (That part I have not investigated).

          >
          > No- it is not quite so complex as all that. The scribe simply added gladly
          > because thats how one should receive the message!

          Of course that would be a *possible* solution. But it certainly isn´t conclusive. A scribe
          could as well have _omitted_ it because he thought it to be an explanatory interpolation,
          interpolated for the sake of clarity.

          > >
          > >I´m not saying, of course, that this is a necessary conclusion. But it
          > seems at least
          > >*possible*. Can this possibility be ruled out??
          > >
          >
          > Yes.
          > The external evidence alone is telling and conclusive. The internal
          > evidence is in harmony with the external- so that "lectio brevier" wins the day.
          >

          Is this really enough to completely rule out the *possibility*???


          > >Any comments about this one?
          > >
          >
          > See above.

          Yea, I have already done so!

          >
          > >--
          > >- Mr. Helge Evensen
          > >
          >
          > Jim
          >
          > +++++++++++++++++++++++
          > Jim West, ThD
          > Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
          > jwest@...


          --
          - Mr. Helge Evensen
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.