Acts 15:41

  • Thread starter Thread starter sergiodavila18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sergiodavila18

Guest
I read somewhere that Acts 15:41 is rendered differently in various Bibles. The longer rendition, from the Douay-Rheims version, reads,

“And [Peter] went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches, commanding them to keep the precepts of the apostles and the ancients.”

The shorter rendition can be observed in the New American Bible which reads,

“[Peter] traveled through Syria and Cilicia, bringing strength to the churches.”

Allegedly, the latter portion of this verse was removed by non-Catholics who did not want to grant Peter any kind of special authority. But if this is true, then why does a Catholic version (the New American Bible) render it the same as any other Protestant Bible does?

Most importantly, what is the story behind this verse and the various renditions?
 
I wasn’t able to find an answer to your question but here’s what I did find…

In the 1941 Confraternity Bible, a revision of the Douay-Challoner Bible, the second part of Acts 15:41 appears enclosed in square brackets: “But Paul chose Silas and set out, the brethren commending him to the grace of the Lord; and he travelled through Syria and Cilicia, and strengthened the churches [and commanded them to keep the precepts of the apostles and presbyters].” Another passage (Matthew 23:14) similarly enclosed in square brackets has a footnote that says it is omitted by the better Greek and some Vulgate manuscripts. Perhaps the same reason applies in the case of Acts 15:41. This would explain why the second part of the verse is omitted in later Catholic Bibles.

In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1953, on page 1036, concerning Acts 15:41, its says without further explanation:
41. St Paul revisits the scene of his earlier labours, 9:30. The second half of the verse is to be omitted. Probably Silas and Judas had already published the Decree in Cilicia.
 
Well, Todd, I was really hoping that the claim I read was true (that non-Catholics removed the latter part of Acts 15:41 to suppress the Catholic position).

However, it seems, according to your research, that this part of the verse was legitimately removed.

I thank you for your help; it did indeed help.
 
sergiodavila18 said:
I read somewhere that Acts 15:41 is rendered differently in various Bibles. The longer rendition, from the Douay-Rheims version, reads,

“And [Peter] went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches, commanding them to keep the precepts of the apostles and the ancients.”
Click to expand...

In the Vulgate & the Greek, the subject of the sentence beginning Acts 15.40 & ending in Acts 15.41, is Paul, not Peter.​

The shorter rendition can be observed in the New American Bible which reads,

“[Peter] traveled through Syria and Cilicia, bringing strength to the churches.”

Allegedly, the latter portion of this verse was removed by non-Catholics who did not want to grant Peter any kind of special authority. But if this is true, then why does a Catholic version (the New American Bible) render it the same as any other Protestant Bible does?

Most importantly, what is the story behind this verse and the various renditions?
Click to expand...

It’s not true - the only explanation of that sort of fiction is that its alleger knew nothing about textual criticism.​

The word order of English does not make this clear, but the added text comes directly after the last word in the text of the verse. Here is the additional text:
  • paradidous tas entolas tōn presbuterōn
    That is the reading witnessed to by
  • D (= Codex Bezae) [which has a number of striking readings]; it is of the 5th/6th century
  • the Vulgates of 1590 & 1592
  • marginal readings in the Syriac version made by Thomas of Harkel in 616
    As for the Vulgate witnesses to the longer reading, the Stuttgart Vulgate of 1969 lists:
  • Codex Fuldensis (dated 547)
  • Codex Sangallensis (8th century)
  • the Vulgate text of Alcuin (8th/9th century)
  • the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 (as above)
    A text which means
  • handing on the commandments of the elders
    is not likely to have been left out for anti-Petrine reasons, as:
  • It mentions things which can be found elsewhere in the NT; & those verses are not missing from the text
  • If the intention was to diminish the authority of Peter, it is strange that so indefinite a verse was chosen, in a part of the NT which has nothing to do with Peter
  • the long text of Acts 15.41 speaks of “the elders” in the plural - not of Peter alone
  • Acts 15.41 belongs to a passage which is about the travels of Paul and Barnabas - it is not about Peter’s actions at all.
    The long reading of the verse is unlikely to be authentic because of
  • the late date of the attestation of the reading
  • the fewness of the witnesses to it
  • the lack of widespread attestation
  • the quality of the witnesses
  • IOW, if a reading is (for example):
  • witnessed by early witnesses
  • the reading of many of them
  • read in a wide variety of them
  • read in witnesses of high quality
    it is likelier to be a genuine part of the text than not. None of these is a water-tight test - for textual criticism is as much an art as a science - but these, & other considerations, support one another: there are some very good introductions to the subject, which explain all this much more fully.
As for the appearance of the same reading in Catholic & Protestant Bibles: translators try to find what the text was & how best to translate it - they are not trying to score points off each other’s versions. As textual criticism is practiced by Catholics & Protestants alike, Christians of different persuasions who are impressed by the same arguments for the same readings are going to establish much the same text.

Hope that helps 🙂
 
Hi Michael,

Good presentation.

So… one less “liberal” plot to worry about.

Verbum
 
The full version of the verse is found in the 1590, 92, 93, and 98 versions of the Sixtine and Clementine editions, not merely in the 92 and 93 editions.

In my opinion, Bible translators lack the authority to remove any verse or portion of a verse found in the Vulgate, which Trent taught was sacred and canonical in all its parts.
 
Hi Ron,

Here is the text of Trent on the Vulgate :
Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.
Click to expand...
catholic-forum.com/saints/trent04.htm

It says :

1)The Vulgate is authentic above all other Latin versions
  1. The Vulgate enjoys authenticity in public discussions
This is nothing like what you assumed. Indeed, if you were correct, the Church would be first to have sinned, with the publication of the Nova Vulgata, which corrects the original Vulgate.

Verbum
 
Ron_Conte said:
The full version of the verse is found in the 1590, 92, 93, and 98 versions of the Sixtine and Clementine editions, not merely in the 92 and 93 editions.
Click to expand...

I had no information about the two last - thanks for the addition 🙂​

In my opinion, Bible translators lack the authority to remove any verse or portion of a verse found in the Vulgate, which Trent taught was sacred and canonical in all its parts.## There’s an ambiguity here, which if IIRC is sorted out in Divino Afflante - “found in the Vulgate” can mean:
  • found de facto in copies or editions
  • belonging to the authentic text of the Vulgate
    No particular edition or copy is specified by the Council Fathers as being the authentic text - they were referring to the Vulgate version in general; the task of establishing an authentic text was left to those competent in such matters.
Here’s another ambiguity: authentic can mean:
  • authentic in a legal sense
  • authentic in textual sense
    I’ll get back to you on this - my computer seems to have a Trojan 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top