Featured Col 2:18 and asceticism

Matthew 17:21 Net Footnote supporting omission of verse:
tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.


Mark 9:29 NET footnote supporting the omission of "and fasting."
48tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (Ì45vid א2 A C D L W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nhsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (א* B), as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.

Note here we see that some believe fasting was inserted because of the early church emphasis on fasting. Thus the opposite of the asserted premise.

Acts 10:30 seems to offer at least a basis for the possibility of alteration, i.e. the omission of the word translated fasting in the KJV. However, if it actually says for four days until this hour I was keeping the 9th hour prayer, then there is no apparent "fiddling."

1 Corinthians 7:5 Net Footnote supporting the omission of "fasting and":

Most later witnesses (א2 Ï sy) add “fasting and” (τῇ νηστείᾳ καί, th nhsteia kai) before “prayer.” But such an addition is motivated by ascetic concerns; further, its lack in Ì11vid,46 א* A B C D F G P Ψ 33 1739 1881 2464 al latt co argues decisively against its authenticity.

Note that the last footnote makes a completely opposite argument, the addition of and fasting was based on ascetic concerns.

 

Strange all the ubiquitous external evidence said to be far in favor of the removal rather than the addition did not reach the level of even refutation in the NET footnotes.

And stranger also that all these independent groups controlling the content of the modern translations weighed the differing witnesses and favored the idea that fasting had been added.

 

Again, the NET footnote said the most important witnesses omit "and fasting." But we are not just talking about your view as opposed to Daniel B. Wallace, for the NIV, ESV, NASB, and HCSB omit the phrase or put it in brackets indicating its authenticity is under a cloud.

It seems more likely that "and fasting" was added, because to conclude only these important witnesses were redacted, but all these others were not seems far fetched.

 

This is not meant to be disrespectful to Jonathan: this is a scholarly dispute - I have opinions but no expertise.

Here's my opinion:
It’s obvious that there is a difference between the two Greek texts.

The first question is: Was the change made with premeditation by transcriptionists in order to effect a change in behavior? There’s probably no real way to find out.
Secondly, If it was, was it effective? Did it effect a change in the ancient readers?


Next, currently, do we find that users of the Critical text are more or less prone to asceticism than users of the Majority text? I don’t think so.

The opening post is an explanation of the textual changes that are found in the different families of text which counter a self-declared apostate, [Burt Erhman].

It provides an alternative explanation for the differences between the manuscript families becomes an historical exercise attempting to reconstruct the rational behind ancient textual practices…

It’s interesting to be sure,
… but not a critical concern to believers then or now.

Rob

 

I believe it was you, Jonathan, who said I sounded like Bart Ehrman, not the other way around. I said my view was the view of Daniel B. Wallace, i.e. as presented in the NET footnotes.

And your effort to focus on Mark 9:29, rather than the cumulative evidence for addition when all four texts are studied, appears contrived.

Anyway, Rob is correct, much ado about speculation deemed errant by many if not most the translation scholars responsible for our modern translations.

 

Oppps, I was the one who called you Bart, (anti-Bart sounded strange)
....both of you propose that there was "orthodox corruption" - just in different locales and with different end results.

...I meant it humorously.... it didn't come across very well I guess.

Jonathan, your research is comprehensive.
But with all historical reconstruction it comes down to probabllities and not certain proofs
You've certainly given me pause and caused me to further examine my beliefs about the way the biblical text may have evolved into what we have today.

Rob

 

[If]people demanding ascetic fasting were troubling the early church, it would not be surprising if in some places orthodox leaders took steps to remove proof texts for these ascetic "cults," such as all of Matt 17:21, and the fasting words in Mark 9:29, Acts 10:30, 1 Cor 7:5.

The above is the premise of the thread. First, why would 99.7% of the existing witnesses to Mark 9:29 add "and fasting" and only three important witness exclude "and fasting" Here is the answer provided in post #21:

But what about the idea of early leaders "removing" and fasting in these few witness, being more sound that folks early on adding it and then the corrupted text being copied? It is not. Why remove it here, but leave far superior proof texts for fasting throughout the NT?

1) Why was Matthew 6:16 not redacted?

2) How about redacting Mark 2:29 but not Mark 2:18, 19 and 20? These verses make a strong case for fasting and explain why sometimes fasting might not happen.

3) Luke 2:37 was not redacted. The concept that 99.7% of witnesses in one verse overrule the idea of harmonization by scribes is like arguing the exception to prove the rule.

Basically, fasting is found throughout the NT, and to conclude early leaders removed it in 4 places but left it in about three dozen places boggles the mind.

To my mind, the premise is obviously mistaken and there modern translation choice strengthens my confidence in the accuracy of our NT witnesses.

 

Are you aware that the NT was not in one volume for hundreds of years? The mss of the various books circulated as individual scrolls in various areas of the ancient world. So it is perfectly reasonable that one verse in one mss was messed with, but not other verses in other books of the Bible, which the redactor may have not even been aware existed. It's not like the preacher said to everyone in 215 AD, "Turn in your Bibles to Matt. 6." :smilewinkgrin:

Seems to me if you are going to do textual criticism, you need to learn some very basic facts about mss and their treatment in the ancient world.

 

Yet another post from JOJ devoid of content, just condescending assumptions as to my knowledge.

JOJ seems to think Mark 2:18, 19 and 20 were in some other manuscript or scroll from Mark 2:29.

When a supposed redactor worked over Matthew 17:21, were they unaware of Matthew 6:16 and 17,and 18, and 9:14 and 9:15? Not likely.

It seems to me JOJ is simply putting up a smoke screen to cloud the issue.

If the supposed redactors knew about the four, are we then supposed to consider that they were ignorant of the 3 dozen or so other mentions of fasting. Give me a break. The whole premise seems to me to be flawed. So does Daniel B. Wallace. But perhaps JOJ thinks Dr. Wallace needs to learn some very basic facts about mss and their treatment in the ancient world. Give me a break.

 

Yet another post from Van, assuming expertise in an area he knows little about, textual criticism. Frankly, I call what you do putting on airs. Call that condescending if you like, I don't care.

Jon has a Th.M. in textual criticism from a school with a high level of scholarship, mentored by a leading scholar in textual criticism. What is your training in Greek or textual criticism?

Um, excuse me, but the thread is about Col. 2:18. Jon's thesis is entirely valid about this passage without any reference to the verses in Mark or Matthew. That's what I was saying by pointing out that the NT circulated in individual books in the early centuries.

I have high respect for Daniel Wallace, and use his grammar often. But I hink he would allow me to disagree with him in textual criticism. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Hi JOJ, the only one putting on airs is you. The thread is not about the mistranslation of humbleness of mind as ascetic practices. It is about supposed leaders redacting reference to fasting in four places.

You offered an ill conceived idea that they, the fictional redactors, might not have known about other books, but I pointed out the verses in the supposedly redacted books that were not redacted.

You suggest you disagree with Daniel B. Wallace on textual criticism, which says nothing. Do you disagree with his conclusions concerning the four verses in question, i.e that they represent additions not removals. I suspect you will not answer that question.

 

Well yeah, certainly I disagree with Daniel Wallace here. He is an eclectic and I'm Byzantine priority. Why in the world would I agree with him here? And why would you think I couldn't answer your question?

Now answer mine: what books have you read about textual criticism? Have you read Metzger? Black? Burgon? Robinson? If you say you have read any of these guys, I'd be happy to admit you might have some knowledge about textual criticism. But "I suspect you will not answer that question."

And why would referenes to Christ's historical teaching about John's disciples fasting be redacted? Redaction in those passages would have negated the sense of the passage, so redaction would have been foolish there.

 

Pitchback

Your answer was to not answer. LOL, I called it! Folks, JOJ wants to change the subject to my character and qualifications.

To repeat the question: Do you [JOJ] disagree with his [Daniel B. Wallace] conclusions concerning the four verses in question, i.e that they represent additions not removals.

 

Well then, I have no idea what you would call an answer. Here is what I said:

How that is me not answering, I certainly don't know. Let me try again to disagree, this time with your exact words: "Yes, I [JoJ] disagree with his [Daniel B. Wallace] conclusions concerning the four verses in question, i. e. that they represent additions, not removals."

What else do you want me to say to prove I disagree? Are you asking me to refute Wallace, verse by verse? You didn't say so, but if that is what you want, then say so and I will gladly do so when I have time.

Wallace is an eclectic. That means he follows pretty much the Westcott-Hort line, in practice if not in word. The eclectics have a canon of textual criticism, delineated by Greisbach, that "the shorter reading is better." (This actually produces a presupposition for the Alexandrian text type.) Therefore in the great majority of cases they will choose the shorter reading, as Wallace did in these cases.

On the other hand, my position is Byzantine priority. I believe it has been well proven that scribes were much more likely to omit a word or phrase than to add it. Therefore I believe that shorter is not better. In this I disagree emphatically with Daniel Wallace and the other eclectics, therefore I believe that in the cases in question on this thread, the longer reading is better.

One who disproved this canon of "the shorter reading is better" is Ernest Colwell in his research. Again, in his Ph. D. dissertation, "Scribal Habits Among Manuscripts of the Apocalypse," Dr. Maurice Robinson proved that scribes were much more likely to omit words and phrases than to add them.

So once again, I disagree with Daniel Wallace because he is following the "shorter is better" canon, which has been disproved.

Is there any other way I can answer your question?