While not the only example of it, Acts 8.37 is probably the most notable case of textual omission by modern translations. Most notable because its presence or omission could dramatically alter the meaning of the text itself.
36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” 37, 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.” 38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.
Most modern translations (including these widely used New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, New American Bible, New International Version, and the Common English Bible) omit verse 37 from the reading, leaving only a footnote on the bottom of the page to indicate their reasoning and what the verse states.
You can see why this verse would be the one to spark the discussion of textual omission as the absence or inclusion of this one verse dramatically changes the meaning of the ones around it. Without the verse, Philip's actions indicate that there is water and a willing person, there is nothing stopping them from baptizing. With it, he seems to have one stipulation: that one declare their faith.
One of the most contentious issues in Christianity today is the issue of "Who may be baptized?" This especially plays out on the discussion of whether or not the Bible insists on Believer's Baptism (that one must confess belief before being baptized) or whether it insists upon what I'll dub as Sacramental Baptism (baptism as a means of grace to be shared even with infants). Is baptism more about our faith or God's grace? Obviously they are connected, but which one baptism is more about ultimately leads to a theology that embraces believer's baptism or infant baptism.
The textual omission impacts whether or not this story from Acts would seem more to favor one or the other (I don't think it in any way settles the matter for either side).
Now without giving you the full scholarly breakdown of why this is omitted, let me summarize it in a more simple manner: our earliest and "most reliable" manuscripts omit this verse. Therefore groups like the United Bible Society (who produce updated editions of the Greek New Testament, assembled by critical examination of manuscripts and with critical footnotes below) have deemed the verse as so unreliable towards the original text that they have since omitted the verse, being in highest level of agreement it was a later addition to the text. And as shown above most Bible Translations have followed their lead.
Before anyone cries in outrage, we should note this happens all over the Greek text, just rarely with an entire verse, so that one does not notice. But often a word or phrase that appears in some manuscripts are too absent in other ones (especially older ones) and the UBS omits them from the main text, relegating them to the footnotes. A good way to spot this will be by comparing the King James Version, that used a specific Greek text known as the Textus Receptus. Since the KJV worked from that text, it will include some things that other Bible's have omitted because the critical scholarship has deemed it as unreliable based on earlier manuscripts and fragments. One example that comes to mind is Matthew 5.13 the final verse of the Matthean Lord's Prayer. Most Bibles will show Jesus ending the prayer with "Deliver us from the Evil One." But they probably include a footnote which will say that some manuscripts continue on "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." And some like the KJV include it in the text itself.
Such textual omissions show why there are churches that profess no Bible but the King James Bible. They see the other translations as unfaithful because of the critical omissions throughout, which most readers pay little attention too. It is only in the few instances like this where an entire verse has been left out where some will notice when the text jumps from verse 36 to verse 38. That is the way I first learned, when in my college Greek class I was translating John 5 verse by verse. After finishing verse 3 I wrote the "4" on the left margin of my page and went to translate it, only to learn I could not find the verse!
Now that the issue of textual variance and omission has been laid out, the question is what do we do with it? Many Christian denominations have a high view of scripture and some doctrinal understanding of inspiration or divine authority in its regards, but few take any clear stand in regards to the variances.
It seems to me there are two questions to be dealt with: authorship and variant authority.
Authorship: is it only God's word if it was written by the original author?
Variant Authority: What is the best approach with the variant texts to decide which variant shall be taken as authoritative?
The second question is linked to the first to some degree but not exclusively. That is, if only the original author is authoritative then you have to solve each variant because one simply cannot be, and without deciding which you believe to be original, you cannot decide which to be authoritative. That is a similar manner to the USB's efforts: get as close to the original (or "autograph") copy. On one hand that makes sense. After all, authorship was one of the grounds by which the church determined if a book ought be canonized.
On the other hand that is also problematic. If ONLY the autograph was God's word and variances are not, then we actually have no means of trusting ANY of the text since we have no way of ever knowing what the autograph copy contained. We could discover the autograph and not even know it! And a variance could have been introduced so early, every manuscript we have has been contaminated. Thus if it must be original, even if we have overwhelming evidence something is original it may simply be because we have lost the evidence that it is not original. We also must indicate why only the original includes God's message, as the canon itself indicates the God works a single story and message through multiple authors. It also causes serious issue for books where the vast majority of textual critics believe the book to be the composite of multiple authors (such as debates around whether Isaiah was the work of 1, 2, 3, or more prophets) or books where the claimed authorship is called into question (such as whether or not letters such as Ephesians and 2 Timothy were written by Paul) or books where we really have little or no internal evidence as to the author being who tradition has claimed the book to be authored by (like Matthew). The text needing to be written by the person to be inspired by God does raise issues.
Of course that is not to say the opposite isn't true as well. If we assume that we don't need it to be the original author, we must ask ourselves if it is appropriate to edit scripture today? Was Jefferson's edits of cutting out the supernatural to make a more deistic Bible an authoritative variance? My guess is most Christians will say no. But we must then somehow explain at what point is variance divinely inspired and when is it heresy? As I already mentioned the canonization process did not look to redactors but the original authors when considering texts. We also must wonder what the authority of the text was prior to the redaction. If the variance was divinely inspired, was that original section not (this is particularly important in regards to omission of the section, such as if the redactors cut 8.37 like I suspect might have happened).
These questions of whether the authority is tied to the author, or if the redactors share it is important either way in leading us to the question of how do we best handle these variances when speaking of the authority of scripture (particularly as God-breathed)?
It seems to me there are several ways one could go about doing this including (although I'm sure not limited to):
1. Choose your own variance. You could decide that the overall preservation of the texts ultimately mean the variants are of little concern and each person is free to embrace, teach from, and be shaped by whatever variant they choose. Thus making no issue at all from the variances. Let God use whichever form he so chooses to speak to you.
2. Pick the Best Manuscript. For each book of the Bible, choose a manuscript that you see as most reliable and therefore authoritative. Work from that and leave all variances from it in the footnotes. Just as most churches today settle on a translation that they think most appropriate for worship, we should do the same with our source material. Pick what is best, reliable and appropriate.
3. Get Critical for Jesus. Examine every variance with the best critical scholarship available to determine which is most likely the original. Every one is handled then on a case-by-case basis. We may never know for sure, but we have a responsibility to make the best possible guess.
4. Be Welcoming and Include it all. Never cut or relegate to the footnotes, keep as much in the text as possible, only having to omit things where the variance is not whether something is present or absent, but where two different words are present. Better to have things God did not intend in scripture than to leave out his word.
5. Get Jeffersonian and Cut it All. If there is any real or consistent variance of a text, it is unreliable. Remove it what is in dispute to the footnotes since it cannot be taken with the same certainty the other texts provide. While you may cut out authentic stuff, the inability to know means we are best to err on the side of leaving it out so the text does not lead one astray.
You can see how complex the issue is. In many ways was often do a combination of 3 and 1. Our translations do 3, and we let our preachers do 1 (they may not say the differences don't matter, but by allowing the preacher to even follow the variant form not taken by the translator we are embracing that view to some extent, especially since in those moments the pastors rarely insist on their form or denounce the translator's but only give a preference or another view), which is an interesting balance as they are rather different approaches. #3 works to be as precise as possible, #1 works to be as useful as possible.
But others are used as well. KJV basically does #2. The HCSB is a cross between #3 & #4. The Amplified Bible does basically #4. I'm not sure of any that follow the route of #5.
My personal feelings are that I like the sound of #2 and #4 but really the practice of #3, although I have become more into a mix of #3 & #4 recently. That is, I appreciate and think we ought to do extensive scholastic research to determine the most appropriate text, but where we are less certain and the debate is far more open I think we should err on the side of inclusion.
I don't think the autograph is the only divinely inspired work. Some redaction may equally be a part of God's speaking as was the continued voice of scripture over the centuries across various authors. I am more inclined to believe this on the grounds of included additional words/phrases/stories than excluding or rewording texts (hence my inclination towards inclusion). God added to his voice through new scriptures over time, he didn't remove its voice. Thus a case can be made for redaction as "added inspiration". But that is different from correction and thus we still have a responsibility towards critical scholarship.
As part of the process and the scriptures I think there are also important principles to come into play in determining if a variance can be seen as an appropriate addition to the divine scriptures:
1. How wide-spread and accepted did the variances seem to be? Do we have external evidence of the church embracing the variance? How many manuscripts did include it? How long did the church accept it without question? The reception of a book was part of what also helped determine if it should be canonized. The same principle should apply towards what variance is "canonized" among us. Did God prosper this variant far and above the alternatives? This is done to a degree, but not in determining the value of the text. When scholars ask these questions it wasn't about whether it was a godly message but rather they ask because wide usage often gives credence to it being closer to the original, but not always. Especially in the cases where many of the oldest manuscripts do not attest to the text, then the wide-spread acceptance no longer holds weight over the ancient texts.
2. How does its message match or challenge the teachings of scripture? This especially becomes for me cause for inclusion of many of the variances. So many footnotes will indicate a variant that reflects the biblical truth. This also explains the reasoning for the variation. The scribe makes an addition to clarify or declare a biblical truth (particularly in a place where they may have felt it unclear). This was also part of the discussion of canonization; that the apostolic teachings were reflected. This is the one place where I think scholarship fails in their decisions around inclusion of texts. They regard practical concerns, but weigh the value of the autograph over the message itself. It is not that this is not taken into account, but it usually is only in determining the redactor's motives so that they may better discern which was more likely the result of redaction and which was more likely the original.
These two principles would go a long way though for us. They would reveal I believe what variance has and will best serve the church and relay God's message for us. Furthermore, they allow us to still ultimately honor the original material (since both were used in regards to the judgment of the texts as a whole) and message. They also keep us from fretting about reliability in the sense of needing to be original and only accept the original text while also giving boundaries and limitations to assure us that we do not have free reign to edit the scriptures as we wish. In some ways, this is the #1 that preachers do to the translator's #3. But instead of it being done on an individual level or from congregation to congregation, sermon to sermon this process should receive the same scholastic devotion as other textual critical work receives when assembling a translation. I cannot and should not say it doesn't come into play (especially by our translators since they will make such calls sometimes that differ from each other for reasons likely other than just textual critical belief in the autograph version). But I'd like to see more of it.
Let me come full circle now back to our Acts text that started this conversation and say a few things about that. While many early and reliable manuscripts omit it, we also know it was in use in the church early from outside sources of church fathers who quote it. I personally think it is original to Acts and not a later addition. My reason is twofold: while the story could still be read and flow fine without it, the story reads much more naturally with its inclusion since it actually answers the question, whereas without such it would only imply an answer by Philip's actions. The second reason is I don't see it as likely that it was added because it still remained very primitive in its form.
Some might argue that the Ethiopian's confession that Jesus was "the Son of God" points to a more developed creedal formulation from the initial "Jesus is Lord" (Rom 10.9, Phil 2.11). But Lukan material is not foreign to the confession of Jesus as God's Son (Luke 1.35, 3.38, 22.70, Acts 9.20). Philip's stipulation of belief leading to performing a baptism is consistent to other encounters in Acts (8.12, 16.30-33). Because of these facts it hardly seems out of place in the text.
Although it is possible this verse could have been added because the absence of an answer on Philip's part seemed out of place. Perhaps some found the lack of verbal confession problematic. But more likely as the second-third-fourth generation church would have become more practiced in infant baptism (which we also have attested of by early church fathers) they would seem less inclined to need to include a verbal confession, perhaps even leading to a redaction of omission. The case could be made either way.
The flow of the story, the early external evidence, and the greater consistency the inclusion of the verse creates with other conversions in Acts (although one could argue that the omitted form in which Philip is implying water and a willing spirit is enough is similar to Peter's words in 10.47-48, but that still included a manifestation of the Spirit), all that along with seeing just as good a reason for redactor omission compared to addition all makes me consider it likely original to the text. Although resting there now does not necessarily settle the matter for me. It doesn't account for example why there appears to be two variant strands of verse 37 among the manuscripts that do include it (my sight reading of the Greek may be a little off, but the two variants come to something like And Philip said to him "If you believe with your whole heart you may" and he replied "I believe in Christ the Son of God" or And he said to him "If you believe with your whole heart you may" and he answered "I believe the Son of God is Jesus Christ"). I could imagine that perhaps a scribe, asked to copy a manuscript that omitted the verse, sought to reinsert it from memory (assuming somehow this scribe was aware of the verse by some other means than the manuscript before him). But then I ask am I simply wanting to think that way because it supports my theory for inclusion? But whether settled or not, I currently see good reason to reinsert the verse into the text even if most of our Bible translators and the UBS disagree (of course their overwhelming expertise pointing the other way may say more about this than I am currently aware). And as I said above, even if it is not original, should that stop us from including it if it has an internal consistency and fits appropriately in the story?
Now before people think I am claiming the Bible insists on believer's baptism to the exclusion of baptism of infants because of which way I have leaned in this argument, I have one last contribution to the discussion of authority and disputes that arise around textual variances. This textual variance is a hot-topic one particularly if one feels infant baptism or believer's baptism hinges on this story. And any variance upon which a teaching hinges will instantly become a greater issue and dilemma for the church's discernment.
My feeling on the matter is this: no single variance can make or break a doctrine. That is, no doctrine should ever hinge on a single verse. Doctrine (teaching) of which we stake our faith and faith practices are informed by the wider voice of scripture. Here the Reformation principle that scripture interprets scripture becomes ever important. I know this text with the omission makes a better case for infant baptism and vice versa for believer's baptism. But my belief in the sacramental practice of infant baptism does not hinge on this story. And the Ethiopian confessing Christ does not change the wider voice that tells us to baptize all nations, that saw baptism in place of circumcision, that included Jesus welcoming infants, that insisted one be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God, that constantly used baptism in the passive voice, that witnessed whole households baptized at the faith of the parent, that concluded the Pentecost sermon with an invitation to repentance and baptism that explicitly stated "for the promise is for you and your children". My point is, especially in places of variance where perhaps we have more concern to doubt what the text says, we should seek the wider voice of scripture so that no variance would lead us astray. I'll also say that even in churches that have held to infant baptism, we have still long called for the baptism to be for faith, and have looked to faithful people to raise the child in the faith it was baptized into. We have also held that those who can confess the faith for themselves are asked to at baptism. For this story in Acts to expect an adult to confess the faith is not contrary to our practice.
Similar to how we should test the variances with the apostolic teaching as a part of discerning which one we think ought be employed, in the end we must let the wider voice continue to speak no matter what is employed. That is, while this verse (or lack thereof) may lead us down one path or another, no single verse - from John 3.16 to Acts 8.37 - stands as the entire path itself. The point of the principle of scripture alone interprets scripture was to prevent outside interpretation/manipulation from twisting the meaning of a single text. And that lets us face the challenge of the variance. It's no guarantee we will get it right (plenty of churches after all have wrongfully excluded many from the great gift of baptism because they were infants), but it makes sure we don't let the variance become an excuse to discard the message or simply do what we want with the Bible. Every part must stand in service to the rest.
Kinda like each member of the body of Christ...
