Acts 8:37
 
Acts 8:37
(KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(1611 KJV) And Philip said, If thou beleeuest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered, and said, I beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God.
(1587) Geneva Bible) And Philippe said vnto him, If thou beleeuest with all thine heart, thou mayest. Then he answered, and saide, I beleeue that that Iesus Christ is that Sonne of God.
(1526 Tyndale) Philip sayde vnto him: Yf thou beleve with all thyne hert thou mayst. He answered and sayde: I beleve that Iesus Christe is the sonne of God.
 
Counterfeit Versions
(CEB) Omitted
(CEV) Omitted
(ERV) Omitted
(HCSB) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
(THE MESSAGE) Omitted
(NCV) [Philip answered, "If you believe with all your heart, you can." The officer said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
(NLV) (Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The man said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”)
(NLT) Omitted
(NIV) Omitted
(ESV) Omitted
(RSV) Omitted
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) - Omitted
(NAB-Roman Catholic) - Omitted - “Look, there is some water right there. What is to keep me from being baptized?” (This verse is half of verse 36)
(NASB) [And 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."] (NASB adds footnote stating “Early mss do not contain this verse”
(NKJV) 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." (NKJV adds the following center footnote (“8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition”)
 
Textus Receptus - Traditional Text
εἰπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Εἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τὴς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἷπε, Πιστεύω τὸν ὑιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐιναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
 
Hort-Westcott - Critical Text
Omitted
Corrupted Manuscripts
Byzantine Text (450-1450 A.D.)
Aleph 01 - Sinaiticus - Fourth century
A 02 - Alexandrinus - Fifth century
B 03 - Vaticanus - Fourth century
C 04 - Ephraemi Rescriptus - Fifth century
L 020 - Ninth century
P 025 - Ninth century
Psi 044 - Eight/Ninth/ century
33 (Minuscule) - Ninth Century
P 45 - Third Century
P 74 - Seventh Century
 
Manuscripts which agree with the Textus Receptus for this verse
Stephanus (1550 A.D.)
E 08 - Sixth century
 
Published Critical Greek Texts with Corruptions
Omit entire verse
Greisbach, Johann - 1805
Lachmann, Karl - 1842
Tischendorf, Constantine - 1869
Tregelles, Samuel - 1857
Alford, Henry - 1849 revised in 1871
Wordsworth, Christopher - 1856 revised in 1870
Westcott and Hort - 1881
Weiss, Bernhard - 1894
Nestle - 1927 as revised in seventeenth edition in 1941
Nestle-Aland - 1979 - Twenty Sixth Edition
Nestle-Aland - 1993 - Twenty Seventh Edition
United Bible Societies - 1983 - Fourth Edition
Von Soden, Freiherr - 1902
Hodges and Farstad - Majority Text 1982 as corrected in 1985
Affected Teaching
Acts 8:37 is another verse which met its doom in the 2nd century. It is omitted in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It is also omitted in the NIV, ESV, RSV, NWT, and NAB. The NASB and the NKJV are more subtle in the way they attack this verse. The NASB places brackets around the verse and then states without any qualifying evidence that “Early manuscripts do not contain this verse.” This statement is very vague and really means nothing since all manuscripts are early. What is the definition of early? 1st century, 2nd century, 5th century? The NKJV (New King James Version) is also very subtle in its attack. The center column of the NKJV is Satan’s playground and on this verse it states, “NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.” The NU Text they are referring to is the Nestle Aland Text (N) and the United Bible Societies Text (U). Both of which are heavily based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So the NKJV claiming to be a revision of the King James, is another false version which, according to Dr. D.A. Waite in his research, which I have in my possession, departs from the Textus Receptus in 2,000+ places. Now the second half of their claim. What Western texts? What is the Latin tradition? Is it referring to Jerome’s corrupt Latin Vulgate of the 4th century, is it the Old Latin Vulgate c. 90-150 A.D., or is it Roman Catholic tradition?
 
There are 5255 extant manuscripts and unless one studies the manuscript issue, they will never know that statements such as “Oldest and Best” or “Early Manuscripts” refer to the two corrupted manuscripts of the 4th century, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In fact, the modern translations are based on only 45 manuscripts which are less than 1% of all manuscripts. This means that the modern versions have completely and intentionally disregarded over 99% of the manuscripts. Zane Hodges authored a text in a book called “The Majority Text” which is also a misnomer. He only used 414 manuscripts which is only 8% of the extant manuscripts. How could that be considered the majority? Christians must begin to question these things, it is necessary that they do.
 
Acts 8:37 is another testimony that Jesus is the Son of God. By the Ethiopian Eunuch using the word “is” (present tense in Greek) instead of “was” he was stating a fact that Jesus is alive. His resurrection was doubted by many but here the Scripture is stating that He is alive plus it is another scriptural testimony of Jesus being the Son of God, a title of Divinity. This is why the Gnostics would have ripped it out of the text, simply because they did not believe that God, being good, could dwell in a sinful, corrupted human body. They did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God only a good human being, plus that He only became Christ at His birth without pre-existence. This verse is in the Old Latin Vulgate of 90-150 A.D. which was a direct copy from the original autographs.

Back