This thread is an outgrowth of particular discussions on the "CT or MT" thread, where John of Japan proposed to Rippon to present a particular passage as a test case, to see whether or not it is a later interpolation (or addition) to the original text. Rippon indicated any of the places in the "The Pre-95 NASB Used TR" thread would do. Since I am interested in the inquiry, I wonder if Matthew 17:21 would be a suitable passage to discuss in detail whether or not it should be considered original. If so, maybe Rippon could post the first argument for the verse's inauthenticity? Here is the basic textual evidence: For omitting the verse: ℵ* B Θ 0281 33 579 788 892* 1604 2680 Lect (l-253); Old Latin (e ff1); Syriac (s c pal); Coptic (sa bo-pt); Ethiopic (1 ms); Georgian (1 A); Eusebius. For including the verse: ℵ2 C D E F G H K L O W X Y Δ Π Σ f1 f13 22 28 118 157 180 205 209 565 597 700 892c 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174; Byz (ca. 1650 mss); Lect (l-184 l-514 l-1074); Old Latin (a aur b c d f ff2 g1 l n q r1); Vulgate; Syriac (p h); Coptic (mae bo-pt); Armenian; Ethiopic; Georgian (B); Slavonic; Diatessaron; Origen; Asterius; Hilary; Basil; Ambrose; Chrysostom; Jerome; Augustine.