A Response To Michael Sandoval On Acts 20:28
By Bro. Nathan
Recently, i came across sa isang video ng isang INC about sa Acts 20:28 (na isa sa kanilang proof text para sa name game nila) with Michael Sandoval, isang sa mga (i should call for now) Top INC ministers na dinedefend ang reading ng translation ni Dr. Lamsa sa Acts 20:28 as "church of Christ" and not "church of God". ang kanilang defense is merely eisegetical dahil jinujustify nila ang isang reading because of their own beliefs. Sandoval quoting Lamsa's commentary reads (na kanilang ineditorialize ang "iglesia" sa text) reads :
“The Eastern text reads: "the Church Of Christ which he has purchased with his blood. Jewish Christians could not have used the term “God”, because in their eyes God is spirit, and spirit has no flesh and blood. It was Jesus of Nazareth who shed his blood on the cross for us, and not God.”(George M. Lamsa, New Testament Commentary, pp. 149 - 150)
And of course throughout the video ay assertions na si Jesus Christ ang nagtubos ng dugo sa Acts 20:28 therefore church of Christ daw which is maissue sa textual criticism at context unless you accept that Jesus is the God that took flesh and blood to atone (Jn. 1:14; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:7-9). changing the text or the meaning of the text because of your own thoughts ay eisegesis. at to defend yung sarili mong claims regarding sa isang textual variant, you should know the basics ng textual criticism at ng context. first ay jinujustify ng claimers ng reading na ito na pinaniniwalaan daw ng Jewish Christians na God is spirit therefore wala daw flesh and blood. and they will use Jn. 4:24 as a proof text for that but will fail dahil ang context ng buong Jn. 4 ay about worship (v. 20-24; cf. Phil. 3:3)—na kung saan ang Greek word na πνεύμα (pneuma-spirit) is used as a qualitative nominative predicate (πνευμα ό Θεός) na kung saan wala itong dealings with composition. God in Latter Day Saint theology have flesh and bones but not with blood. but Jesus as God's agent ay magtatake ng blood thus making the redemption sa Acts 20:28! The roles of the Godhead in the atonement is also ignored sa video.
And back sa textual variant sa Acts 20:28 ay wala tayong sapat na evidence throughout manuscripts including ang reliable manuscripts ng Peshittta for "church of Christ" (as Incs would editorialize with capital "I" para magmukhang proper noun). we should know the history behind sa Lamsa Translation. ang ginamit na manuscripts ni Dr. Lamsa ay mga Nestorian manuscripts which are undreliable. sa manuscripts ng Peshittta na kung saan may mas reliable readings reads "church of God" (edta h eloha). For the Peshitta, it reads :
ܒ݁ܢܰܦ݂ܫܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܘܰܒ݂ܟ݂ܽܠܳܗ ܡܰܪܥܺܝܬ݂ܳܐ ܗܳܝ ܕ݁ܰܐܩܺܝܡܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܒ݁ܳܗ ܪܽܘܚܳܐ ܕ݁ܩܽܘܕ݂ܫܳܐ ܐܶܦ݁ܺܣܩܳܘܦ݁ܶܐ ܕ݁ܬ݂ܶܪܥܽܘܢ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܶܗ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܗܳܝ ܕ݁ܰܩܢܳܗ ܒ݁ܰܕ݂ܡܶܗ
Ang Peshitta reads the phrase ܠܥܕܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ( ‘edta d’eloha) which is rightfully translated as "church of God" at hindi "church of Christ" (edta d' messhia). The text has been changed (cf James Murdock Note on his translation of Acts 20:28 pg. 258 1858 Ed.) which means na Isa itong ibang version ng Peshitta but the reading is doubtful based sa readings ng ilang manuscripts ng Peshitta. Ang kanyang ginamit na manuscript ay from the 10th century samantalang ang ibang manuscripts date earlier. So ang reading ng Lamsa mula sa Nestorian Peshitta manuscripts itself ay doubtful. for Greek text naman ay we got nothing. sa critical apparatus ng Nestle-Aland 28 with the NA28 reading "church of God", the manuscript supports for the NA28 text is the following txt א B 614. 1175. 1505 vg (vulgate) sy (Syriac mss) boms; Cyr ⸆ εαυτω 𝔓41vid D; Irlat ⸂ιδιου αιματος L 323. 614. 1241. 1505 𝔪. So as we can see here ay na sa ilang oldest manuscripts kagaya ng Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B) and from two non-greek editions which is ang Vulgate (vg) at Syriac Peshittta (sy) with other witnesses reads "church of God" as the best reading.
So this is not a proof text para sa kanilang name game, nor sa churches na nagsusupport ng "church of God" as the name (because hindi nga ito used as name sa context diba). And next time Bro. Sandoval, huwag kana magpanggap na hindi sinasadya ang ad hominem attacks kay Bro. Eli Soriano.
Like and support our Facebook page : fb.com/ldswarriors2000
Visit our blog : ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com
