The Narrow Path Ministries

Is acts 8:37 Is it part of Luke's original text?

The experts say that the preponderance of evidence strongly indicates that it is not.

The following translations DO include the verse:

King James, Diaglot, Douay, Geneva Bible, Jubilee Bible, King James 21, New King James, Revised Webster, Tyndale (Rogers Coverdale).
All of these translations seem to be based on the Textus Receptus version of Greek.

The following translations include the verse in parentheses or in italics:
Holman Christian Standard Bible, New American Standard Bible, Young's Literal Translation.

The following translations do NOT include the verse:
American Standard Version, Bible in Basic English, Darby, English Majority Text, English Standard Version, God's Word to the Nations, Living Oracles, Philips, Rotherham, Revised Standard Version, World English Bible, Weymouth, Williams, and Wuest New Testament.

As for Greek Texts, the only one I could find which contains the verse is Textus Receptus. The Byzantine text, Tischendorf, and the Westcott-Hort, Aland-Metzger New Testaments do not. Nor do all three major ancient Greek codices: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus.

There is only one extant manuscript which has been dated prior to 300 A.D., and that is Papyrus 45 dated in the early 200s. It does not include the verse.

However, Irenæus who lived from from 120-202 A.D., seems to have made reference to part of the verse. In his book Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 12, Section 8, after quoting the section from Isaiah, he writes that Philip declared “that this was Jesus, and that the scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did the believing eunuch himself; and immediately, requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.”

What do YOU think?

Paidion,

Seems to me that it doesn't belong.

Do you have the "Living Oracles", with "immerse" instead of "baptize"? Rather rare; you must have quite a collection.

Yes, Living Oracles translates "βαπτιζω" (baptizō) as "immerse" instead of transliterating it as "baptize".

Although first and second century baptism included immersion, it is more than that. There are actually two Greek words in the New Testament for "immerse": "βαπτω" (baptō) and "βαπτιζω" (baptizō). The words are not to be confused.

The clearest example that shows the meaning of "βαπτιζω" is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped‵ ("βαπτω") into boiling water and then ‘baptized‵ ("βαπτιζω") in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

I don't actually have a lot of physical Bible translations. I have the program called "the Online Bible" on my computer. There are many translations available for it. It even has two different translations of the Koran! I also have several versions of the Greek text in the program and they can be displayed inter-linearly.

You can download the basic program free of charge at:

http://onlinebible.net/

Once you are there download the "Basic Starter Pack" at the right hand part of the page.

Homer wrote:Paidion, seems to me that it doesn't belong.

That's what I think also, Homer. But then what do we make of the seeming quote from it by Irenæus, who lived from 120-202 A.D.? If the verse doesn't belong in Acts, and Irenæus was aware of the verse, then it must have been added to the text of Acts at a very early date.

Paidion,

If its not too much trouble, could you post Irenæus' words along with Acts? I'm curious whether it is an actual quote or could be coincidental.

Thanks

Okay. I did post Irenæus' words in the original post, but here they are again:

In his book Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 12, Section 8, after quoting the section from Isaiah, Irenæus wrote:

“[Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did the believing eunuch himself; and immediately, requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.”

Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8:36-37 NKJV)

Paidion,

Thanks! This is the part of the verse that I was most curious about:

And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

It was a bit of a stumbling block to me many years ago; if you can not be baptized without apodictic knowledge then not many would qualify. What do you think?

I do not think that any kind of "belief" is what qualifies one for baptism. Rather I believe that submission to Christ as Lord is the qualification. Then baptism is the final plank of that discipleship which has already begun. It's a bit like signing a contract for work to be done on your house. If you do not sign, you don't get the work done. I think that being baptized is the final step which qualifies one to be a disciple.

When you enter into an agreement to purchase a house, how do you clinch the deal so that it is certain to go through? Is believing that the seller will honour the agreement sufficient? No. Is accepting the agreement sufficient? No. Is making a down payment sufficient? No. IS putting your trust in the seller to honour his word sufficient? No.

The thing that clinches the deal is the “outward formality” of signing the agreement. That and only that will clinch the deal. So it is with baptism. You can believe that Christ will save you. You can accept Him. You can commit your time and money to his service. You can trust Christ to honour His word. But none of these things “clinch the deal”. Only baptism does that. Even non-Christians understand this. In many countries, a person from another religion can attend Christian meetings, believe what they teach, spend time and money in the church, or virtually any other activity except being baptized. If they are baptized, they face the possibility of being killed and the certainty of being ostracized by their family.

The early Christians definitely believed that baptism was not only necessary, but was the moment when a person was regenerated. Outwardly he simply went down into the water. But inwardly, he died to his former nature, and was regenerated.

...he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5

I realize that many do not interpret “the washing of regeneration” as baptism. But in what other sense would regeneration be called a “washing”? Here is a passage from Justin Martyr’s (110 – 165 A.D) First Apology or explanation of the way of Christians to the Roman emperor Augustus Caesar:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when were being made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live
accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name
of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be begotten again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and mayobtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone.

Baptism … now saves you … 1Peter 3:21

Peter is not saying that the ritual of baptism saves, but that true baptism which includes repentance and submission to Christ saves, and provides a clear conscience.

He who believes and is baptized will be saved… Mark 16:16

While it is possible that the above passage was not in the original memoir of Mark, whoever wrote it, did not seem to think believing was sufficient, or he would not have added “and is baptized”.

When did the apostle Paul have his sins washed away? Was it at the time he had the vision of Christ, and was told by Christ what to do? No. By his own account, it was at the time of his baptism. Cornelius had said to him:

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:16

When Peter told the gathered Jews that they had put to death God’s Messiah, and they were cut to the heart, that was a special moment when they were open to evangelism. Did Peter haul out the four spiritual laws, or ask them to accept Christ as their personal Saviour? No, he said:

Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forsaking of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:36-38

Repent and be baptized was the message that John the baptizer had given to his hearers. Repent and be baptized for the forsaking of your sins. Jesus, too, called for repentance, and those who followed Him and entered into the Kingdom, were baptized by His disciples.

Paul also taught in Romans 6, that those who have been baptized into Christ were buried by baptism into death. Our old self was crucified so that we might no longer be enslaved to sin. So again, baptism is the way salvation from sin is clinched.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin. Romans 6:3-7

Again, I realize that some spiritualize the baptism mentioned in this passage. However, I believe the passage speaks of regular baptism.

Paidion,

I am in fully agreement with you. My only caveat would be, as a theologian from Princeton remarked, "God is not bound by the sacraments, we are". So in the incident with Cornelius conversion God gave the Spirit prior to their baptism as a sign to Peter and those with him, but the case is not normative.

John Mark Hicks said in one of his books that the goal of baptism is conversion, so what are we to say of those who have not properly been baptized (infant baptism by sprinkling, for example) yet are obviously converted? Hicks asked a good question.

Yes, Homer, I agree that this is a good question—the question of the "unbaptized Christians". I understand that those in the Salvation Army think that baptism is only something that happens inwardly and spiritually, and thus the outward act is unnecessary. Many members of the Salvation Army appear to be fervent Christians.
Mennonites baptize by affusion, while traditional churches such as the R.C., Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc. baptize by aspersion. Though these are not "proper baptisms", is it possible that God recognizes them, since those who practice them have not been taught immersion? Maybe God gives more leeway, than we would give. I don't know the answer to these questions. Perhaps we must simply leave these matters in God's hands.

At school, I taught the essence of world religions to the grades 7 and 8, and then since Christianty is the most prevalent religion in our area, I invited priests and preachers of various denominations to come to the class and explain the beliefs of their particular denomination. When a Catholic priest came to explain Catholicism, I asked him this question, "Will an unbaptized baby go to hell instead of to heaven?" The priest answered, "Well... in such a case, I think the Lord would understand."