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

Fasting in Acts 10:30

Expand Messages
  • David Palmer
    Can anyone demonstrate by sound TC theory how or whether fasting was excised from or added to Acts 10:30? Here is a chart of the Acts 10:30 manuscripts.
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 19 8:34 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Can anyone demonstrate by sound TC theory how or whether "fasting" was excised from or added to Acts 10:30?


    • jonathancborland
      Dear David, First, what s the linguistic justification for translating the APO ... MECRI ... construction in Acts 10:30 as anything other than a *duration* of
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 20 1:29 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear David,

        First, what's the linguistic justification for translating the APO ... MECRI ... construction in Acts 10:30 as anything other than a *duration* of four days in time (see BDAG)? Anything like "four days ago" seems to me to represent merely unsubstantiated linguistic gymnastics.

        Sincerely,

        Jonathan C. Borland



        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer <kanakawatut@...> wrote:
        >
        > Can anyone demonstrate by sound TC theory how or whether "fasting" was excised from or added to Acts 10:30?
        >
        > Here is a chart of the Acts 10:30 manuscripts.
        >
        > David Robert Palmer
        > http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
        >
      • David Palmer
        I notice several interesting things: 1. Praying, PROSEUCOMENOS, is lacking in L and 1828 2. MS 2492 has three days like Codex D 3. Some had difficulty
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 20 7:10 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I notice several interesting things:
          1. "Praying," PROSEUCOMENOS, is lacking in L and 1828
          2. MS 2492 has "three days" like Codex D
          3. Some had difficulty understanding the phrase MECRI TAUTHS THS hWRAS...THN ENATHN, and tinkered with it, like D and E, 614, 1611
          4. The Byzantine texts show tendency to expand in order to explain?  See two verses later, 10:32, where the phrase hOS PARAGENOMENOS LALHSEI SOI is present in Byzantine, absent in Alexandrian.
           
          David Robert Palmer
          http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/

          From: David Palmer <kanakawatut@...>
          To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:34 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Fasting in Acts 10:30

           
          Can anyone demonstrate by sound TC theory how or whether "fasting" was excised from or added to Acts 10:30?


          David Robert Palmer
          http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation//


        • Daniel Buck
          I m sorry I can t offer an expert opinion, just more questions: 1)TETARTHS HMERAS. In all the transcriptions I could find, 4th was spelled out. Or 3rd was.
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 20 8:39 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm sorry I can't offer an expert opinion, just more questions:

            1)TETARTHS HMERAS. In all the transcriptions I could find, '4th' was spelled out. Or '3rd' was. Doesn't seem like anything other than an intentional corruption, based on how long the scribe thought it would take for a round trip to Joppa.  Question: Is there any way this could mean "Last Wednesday' (or 'Tuesday')?

            2. If NHSTEUWN was added, wouldn't it be more likely at the ultimate position, after PROSEUCOMENOS?

             
            Daniel Buck

            Dear David,

            First, what's the linguistic justification for translating the APO ... MECRI ... construction in Acts 10:30 as anything other than a *duration* of four days in time (see BDAG)? Anything like "four days ago" seems to me to represent merely unsubstantiated linguistic gymnastics.

            Sincerely,

            Jonathan C. Borland

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer <kanakawatut@...> wrote:
            >> Can anyone demonstrate by sound TC theory how or whether "fasting" was excised from or added to Acts 10:30?<<
          • David Palmer
            I think you have a valid point Jonathan.  But all the big guys translated it that way.   Jonathan Borland wrote:
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 26 6:33 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              I think you have a valid point Jonathan.  But all the big guys translated it that way.
               
              Jonathan Borland wrote:
              << First, what's the linguistic justification for translating the APO ... MECRI ... construction in Acts 10:30 as anything other than a *duration* of four days in time (see BDAG)? Anything like "four days ago" seems to me to represent merely unsubstantiated linguistic gymnastics. >>


            • David Palmer
              So Jonathan, let s see how both texts read when translating the phrase your way: SBL: Ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας μέχρι ταύτης τῆς
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 27 5:49 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                So Jonathan, let's see how both texts read when translating the phrase your way:

                SBL: Ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας μέχρι ταύτης τῆς ὥρας ἤμην τὴν ἐνάτην προσευχόμενος ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ἔστη ἐνώπιόν μου ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ
                APO TETARTHS hHMERAS MECRI TAUTHS THS hWRAS HMHN THN ENATHN PROSEUCOMENOS EN TWi OIKWi MOU, KAI IDOU ANHR EST ENWPION MOU EN ESQJTI LAMPRAi
                From four days ago until this hour, the ninth, I have been praying in my house.  And behold and man in bright clothes stood before me.

                In this version we have Cornelius praying for four days right up to 3 pm when he is talking to Peter.  Then when he describes the man in bright clothes, we don't know when that was -which day?  which hour?

                Byz: Ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας μέχρι ταύτης τῆς ὥρας ἤμην nhsteu;wn, καὶ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν προσευχόμενος ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ἔστη ἐνώπιόν μου ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ
                APO TETARTHS hHMERAS MECRI TAUTHS THS hWRAS HMHN NHSTEUWN, KAI THN ENATHN hWRAN PROSEUCOMENOS EN TWi OIKWi MOU, KAI IDOU ANHR EST ENWPION MOU EN ESQJTI LAMPRAi
                From four days ago until this hour I have been fasting, and at the ninth hour I was praying in my house, and behold a man in bright clothes stood before me.

                The problem with this version is, Cornelius was praying at the ninth hour, but on what day?  Today with Peter before him?  It is still confusing.

                But this is why I originally said that the whole phrase is unclear, and that is why scribes and translators have fiddled with it.  You say that rendering it "four days ago" is gymnastics, but we have to do SOMETHING with it to make sense.


                Jonathan Borland wrote:
                << First, what's the linguistic justification for translating the APO ... MECRI ... construction in Acts 10:30 as anything other than a *duration* of four days in time (see BDAG)? Anything like "four days ago" seems to me to represent merely unsubstantiated linguistic gymnastics. >>
                 
              • jonathancborland
                Dear David, I m not sure whether TAUTHS WRAS in Acts 10:30 means this hour as in the present hour when Peter arrived or that hour as in the hour that the
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 27 8:18 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear David,

                  I'm not sure whether TAUTHS WRAS in Acts 10:30 means "this hour" as in the present hour when Peter arrived or "that hour" as in the hour that the angel appeared. If the former, then an apparent factual error is present, since the angel appeared only three days earlier (cf. 10:3, 9, 23, 24). If the latter, then Cornelius was praying (NA27) or fasting (Byz) for four days prior to the angel's appearance.

                  Textually, as I'm a Byzantine-priorist, there are several considerations in favor of the reading of most manuscripts:

                  (1) Why would a scribe add fasting here but not in the narrative of 10:3? Is there not more reason for a scribe to harmonize the text by removing fasting than to disharmonize it by adding it? The non-conformity of the Byzantine reading stands in its favor.

                  (2) Transcriptionally, NHSTEUWN KAI (and also THN) easily could have dropped out of some manuscripts due to transcriptional error after HMHN (HN…HN). Later WRAN dropped out because it appeared superfluous.

                  (3) There is the possibility that NHSTEUWN was omitted for anti-ascetic purposes to take away proof texts for fasting from the asceticism pushed by those of Valentinus, Saturninus, Marcion, Tatian, and later the super ascetic Gnostic and Manichaean cults. Cf. also Matt 17:21, Mark 9:29, 1 Cor 7:5.

                  I see no reason to abandon the authority and superior weight (on internal grounds) of most manuscripts here.

                  There is no reason for confusion as to when the angel appeared. The narrative makes it clear that it was only three days earlier. Also, you never answered my question as to the linguistic grounds of translating APO...MECRI... as anything other than a duration of time.

                  Finally, as I prefer consideration number 3 above, it was probably this instance of someone fasting for four days to get a special messenger from the Lord that was enough for some orthodox corruptor to snuff out this proof-text for fasting and wrangle such "abominable asceticism" from the hands of the cults. The so-called orthodox were a powerful little bunch but never could overturn the tsunamic multiplication of manuscripts that swept over the populated world.

                  Sincerely,

                  Jonathan C. Borland
                  A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 
                • Daniel Buck
                  How could Luke have written, I ve been fasting since Wednesday, when at the ninth hour I was praying in my house, and there appeared a man in bright clothes
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 27 10:34 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    How could Luke have written, "I've been fasting since Wednesday, when at the ninth hour I was praying in my house, and there appeared a man in bright clothes standing in front of me?"
                     
                    Daniel Buck

                    From: David Palmer <kanakawatut@...>

                     
                    So Jonathan, let's see how both texts read when translating the phrase your way:

                    SBL: Ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας μέχρι ταύτης τῆς ὥρας ἤμην τὴν ἐνάτην προσευχόμενος ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ἔστη ἐνώπιόν μου ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ
                    APO TETARTHS hHMERAS MECRI TAUTHS THS hWRAS HMHN THN ENATHN PROSEUCOMENOS EN TWi OIKWi MOU, KAI IDOU ANHR EST ENWPION MOU EN ESQJTI LAMPRAi
                    From four days ago until this hour, the ninth, I have been praying in my house.  And behold and man in bright clothes stood before me.

                    In this version we have Cornelius praying for four days right up to 3 pm when he is talking to Peter.  Then when he describes the man in bright clothes, we don't know when that was -which day?  which hour?

                    Byz: Ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας μέχρι ταύτης τῆς ὥρας ἤμην nhsteu;wn, καὶ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν προσευχόμενος ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ἔστη ἐνώπιόν μου ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ
                    APO TETARTHS hHMERAS MECRI TAUTHS THS hWRAS HMHN NHSTEUWN, KAI THN ENATHN hWRAN PROSEUCOMENOS EN TWi OIKWi MOU, KAI IDOU ANHR EST ENWPION MOU EN ESQJTI LAMPRAi
                    From four days ago until this hour I have been fasting, and at the ninth hour I was praying in my house, and behold a man in bright clothes stood before me.

                    The problem with this version is, Cornelius was praying at the ninth hour, but on what day?  Today with Peter before him?  It is still confusing.

                    But this is why I originally said that the whole phrase is unclear, and that is why scribes and translators have fiddled with it.  You say that rendering it "four days ago" is gymnastics, but we have to do SOMETHING with it to make sense.


                    Jonathan Borland wrote:
                    << First, what's the linguistic justification for translating the APO ... MECRI ... construction in Acts 10:30 as anything other than a *duration* of four days in time (see BDAG)? Anything like "four days ago" seems to me to represent merely unsubstantiated linguistic gymnastics. >>
                     
                  • wengurobo
                    David, I was perplexed by the lines in your chart showing a correction in P50. At least to the casual reader
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 1, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment

                      David,

                      I was perplexed by the lines in your chart  showing a correction in P50. At least to the casual reader it looks as though the original hand reads HMHNTKAIENNATHN and a later scribe corrected by inserting NHSTEUWN, perhaps in the margin or between the lines.

                      On checking the Münster apparatus for Acts 10:30 I see that the correction is labelled not P50C but P50C*, indicating that the correction was made by the original hand. (However, on the page entitled P50: Acts 10:30-31 the impression is given that the T after HMHN is immediately followed by KAI, with a popup at the T that says "Alteration to the text of the first hand by later hand(s)".

                      A clear enough image is available both in the editio princeps and in the Wikipedia article  (though wrongly labelled in the latter). Line 17 of the right hand column shows that after HMHN the scribe wrote a T but then superimposed a N and continued by writing NHSTEUWN.

                      It's worth noting, then, that it is the original scribe of P50, an Egyptian papyrus dated 4th to 5th century, that includes NHSTEUWN, and that the presentation on the Münster site leaves room for improvement.

                      Tony Pope

                       

                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer <kanakawatut@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Can anyone demonstrate by sound TC theory how or whether "fasting" was excised from or added to Acts 10:30?
                      >
                      > Here is a chart of the Acts 10:30 manuscripts.
                      >
                      > David Robert Palmer
                      > http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                      >

                    • philip maertens
                      Dear David, At the moment I do not have the opportunity to pursue you inquiry further. But I just noticed that in Mc 9, 29 there exists also some variation in
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 6, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear David,
                         

                        At the moment I do not have the opportunity to pursue you inquiry further. But I just noticed that in Mc 9, 29 there exists also some variation in the manuscript tradition involving the couple praying / fasting. Interestingly, among the witnesses containing the reading “and fasting” – which BTW is not retained here by the NA27 – are A and C, who do not read the word in Acts 10, 30. In other words, it would be difficult, so it seems to me, to try to elaborate a theory for the alternations in Acts 10 without taking in account other variation units implying the same pair.

                        As the case of A and C suggest, the presence or absence of the two words together could be linked maybe to the context: exorcism in the case of Marc 9; regular prayer (?) in the case of Acts 10. So maybe a good place to start would be a study on fasting and prayer in antiquity.

                        Hope that these reflexions written on the run may be helpful. Otherwise, just delete the message J

                         

                        Greetings from the Algarve, Portugal

                         
                         
                        On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, wengurobo <wengurobo@...> wrote:
                         

                        David,

                        I was perplexed by the lines in your chart  showing a correction in P50. At least to the casual reader it looks as though the original hand reads HMHNTKAIENNATHN and a later scribe corrected by inserting NHSTEUWN, perhaps in the margin or between the lines.

                        On checking the Münster apparatus for Acts 10:30 I see that the correction is labelled not P50C but P50C*, indicating that the correction was made by the original hand. (However, on the page entitled P50: Acts 10:30-31 the impression is given that the T after HMHN is immediately followed by KAI, with a popup at the T that says "Alteration to the text of the first hand by later hand(s)".

                        A clear enough image is available both in the editio princeps and in the Wikipedia article  (though wrongly labelled in the latter). Line 17 of the right hand column shows that after HMHN the scribe wrote a T but then superimposed a N and continued by writing NHSTEUWN.

                        It's worth noting, then, that it is the original scribe of P50, an Egyptian papyrus dated 4th to 5th century, that includes NHSTEUWN, and that the presentation on the Münster site leaves room for improvement.

                        Tony Pope

                         

                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer <kanakawatut@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Can anyone demonstrate by sound TC theory how or whether "fasting" was excised from or added to Acts 10:30?
                        >
                        > Here is a chart of the Acts 10:30 manuscripts.
                        >
                        > David Robert Palmer
                        > http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                        >


                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.