Fasting in the KJV only?

There is a textual variant in the underlying Greek texts. The majority of the evidence points to the inclusion of the words "fasting" in the verses in question. But, because it is missing from part of Aleph, and B, it is dropped, as only Aleph and B are really given any weight in the critical text, no matter how much other evidence there is.

 

In 2 Cor 6:5 and 11:27, the word is translated as "hunger" speaking of the trials that Paul was suffering. Thus, it is there. The verse in question is 1 Cor 7:5 [inadvertant error].

From Metzger: "The shorter text [without "fasting"] is decisively supported by all the early and best witnesses (p11, 46; aleph, A B C D G P Psi, 33, 81, 104, 1739, itala, vulgate, coptic, armenian, and others)" (p. 488). He says that the inclusion of fasting is an "interpolation, introduced in the interest of asceticism." The evidence seems to cleary mitigate against its inclusion. In fact, it is so clear that the committee gives it an {A} rating, meaning that there is virtually no doubt among it members.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

The verse in question is 1 Cor 7:5, not 2 Cor 7:5, and the mss evidence is as follows:

"Fasting" omited: p11vid, part of Aleph, A, B, C, D, G, P, Ψ, 33, 81, 104, 181, 629, 630, 1739, 1877, 1881, 1962.

"Fasting" included: The rest of Aleph, K, 88, 326, 436, 614, 1241, 1984, 1985, 2127, 2492, 2495, all of the Byzantine mss (600+), all Lectionaries, and, with a slight variant, 330, and 451.

As can clearly be seen, the evidence for the inclusion of the word "fasting" is overwhelming when all of the mss evidence is weighed.

As I said before, if Aleph and B agree (even in part as in this case) all the rest of the MSS evidence is ignored.

 

My reference to 2 Cor 7:5 was a purely scribal error on my part. I have corrected the original.

You have posted what I already did except you included the evidence for your side. I did not include it because it wasn't necessary. Your statements may[/n] have been used to infer that only Aleph and B had the shorter reading when in fact such was not the case. Therefore, I posted the evidence that far more than Aleph and B have the shorter reading as well as the evidence that there is significant scholarly opinion that is opposed to its inclusion.

FTR, the agreement of Aleph and B do not always determine the reading of the eclectic text. You mentioned this before and were shown places from the eclectic text that show your assertion to be wrong.

The fact still stands that the clear textual weight (not number) is against the inclusion. The overwhelming number of manuscripts include it; the overwhelming weight of evidence appears to exclude it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I did not include it because it wasn't necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seldom seem to think the overwhelming evidence agaist your favored position is necessary. That is the problem. All the evidence is necessary to come to an informed and rational conclusion. That has been my point all along. The CT advocates, such as you, ignore any evidence that mitigates against your foundational presumption no matter how overwhelming it may be!

 

In 2 Cor 6:5 for the Greek word nesteia then, there is not a question of which
manuscripts are right. So can we then conclude that this word is best translated
hunger by the context of what Paul was saying? And couldn’t this be just as true of 2 Cor 11:27? This would then leave no doubt that Paul was not performing a fast as a religious duty.

As far 1 Cor 7:5 then is concerned if fasting should be there, it would be the only place in the epistles in which it does occur. And then it would be difficult to build a case for fasting from this passage, unless it is there. Thomas Cassidy, could you explain what the Greek word is for this passage? My interlinear does not show a word, and Strongs says that the word was added by the translators for better English readability. I would like to see more discussion on the evidence for and against it being there.

Question for you Pastor Larry, and Thomas Cassidy... How about Matthew 17:21 and
Mark 9:29.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
You seldom seem to think the overwhelming evidence agaist your favored position is necessary. That is the problem. All the evidence is necessary to come to an informed and rational conclusion. That has been my point all along. The CT advocates, such as you, ignore any evidence that mitigates against your foundational presumption no matter how overwhelming it may be!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misunderstand why I did not think it was necessary. There was no doubt as to the evidence for its inclusion. Therefore, it was unnecessary to give it. Your statements regarding Aleph and B could have been interpreted to doubt the evidence for its exclusion. Therefore, presenting that evidence was necessary. Therefore, it is clearly not a case of ignoring evidence; it is a case of clarifying a statement of yours that could have been misunderstood. The evidence for its inclusion is not overwhelming; it is the number that may be overwhelming. Most textual critics, even in the TR camp, do not believe in simply counting the manuscripts. That is why there is a textual debate. (I know Thomas knows this; I write it for the sake of others who may not).

As for Matthew 17:21, there is no good reason for it to be omitted if it were original. It seems to be an assimilation from Mark 9:29

As for Mark 9:29, again it appears the evidence mitigates against its inclusion but I have not studied it in full. The number of mss that include it are substantial but the weight of those who exclude seems also substantial. In both cases, the committee gives it a reading of {A}. They were convinced.

 

That's all right, Lorelei, neither does Larry!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
That's all right, Lorelei, neither does Larry! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



What we are talking about above is the textual evidence for the different translations. The numbers and letters represent the Greek manuscripts and other ancient versions (such as Latin, Coptic, Armenian, etc) which have been found that contain portions of the NT. It is typical to list the evidence for both positions, that is, for the inclusion of "fasting" and the exclusion of "fasting."

I listed part of the evidence that does not have "fasting" in it to demonstrate that some of the original language manuscripts and ancient versions do not have "fasting" in the verse. Thomas listed part of the evidence that does have "fasting" in the verse. The discussion that he and I briefly touched on is which evidence is the best, or the most likely to be what Paul actually wrote.

I believe it most likely that Paul did not originally write "fasting" but that later copyists included it because of the influence of "asceticism" which taught that denying basic bodily desires (such as sex and fasting) is a way to greater godliness. In the context of 1 Cor 7 Paul is discussing sexual relations in marriage; he is not discussing food habits. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Paul would have included food habits in a context where he is discussing sexual relations.

On the other side, Thomas sides with the evidence that says Paul did write "fasting" because the majority of manuscripts have it. Essentially, his argument is that since most of the manuscripts have "fasting," it is the correct reading. My answer to that is that 100 copies of an error does not make it correct. Thomas may wish to comment more specifically on why he believes his reading is correct.

Obviously we are dealing with probabilities and neither side can be conclusively proven. That is why I believe this to be an area where we can differ with each other in grace.

Hope that helps a little bit.

 

Well ... in layman's terms?? On the manuscripts themselves, I don't know of a layman type of book that is good. All the ones I am familiar with are more advanced that you might not enjoy.

Central Baptist Theological Seminary has a new one out (actually a rewrite of an old one) entitled "Only One Bible?" I think. It is very good I hear and even Thomas thinks it is good though he disagrees with the position. James White's book, "The King James Only Controversy" will explain some of these issues. I have read this one and it is very good, IMO, though Thomas doesn't like it. Most of the stuff dealing with manuscript evidence is pretty complex unless Thomas knows of something I don't. These two books will give a pretty overview and will talk about the manuscript evidence in general terms.

There is also a relatively new book that I can't remember the title of. It is about how we got our English Bible. I will try to find the name of it and let you know.

Maybe Thomas would have another recommendation.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

Would you be talking about the book, Essential Guide to Bible Versions by Philip W. Comfort? I read this book, its pretty good also. He does explain the difference in manuscripts also, in layman's terms, in the first half of the book. I too am one who needs to understand this on layman's terms!!


Chet

 

"From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man" is written in layman's language. It can be bought at CBD or Amazon.

 

The problem with "Mind of God" is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater, going so far as to deny preservation of the scriptures, and assigning their transmission to the same processes are any secular literature.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The problem with "Mind of God" is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater, going so far as to deny preservation of the scriptures, and assigning their transmission to the same processes are any secular literature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you give the section(s) you are referring to? I would like to re-read them. I do not remember these ideas being promoted.

 

My mistake. I was thinking of the original book which later became "One Bible." "Mind" has it own set of problems. Which I will enumerate if you care to hear them.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
My mistake. I was thinking of the original book which later became "One Bible." "Mind" has it own set of problems. Which I will enumerate if you care to hear them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are your objections to this book different to the ones you normally voice here? I would be particularly interested if you think there are factual errors in the book (vs. opinion/conclusion errors).