Featured Col 2:18 and asceticism

As soon as you answer my question, how much do you know about textual families, I'll be able to answer yours. If you don't answer mine, how do you expect yours to get answerd? It's not that we can't answer you, it's that textual criticism is extremely complex, and it's hard to discuss with laymen. And of course when we do try to find out what you know, you say we're condescending. Makes it hard to discuss the subject with you.

But I will make a comment on your point that fasting is found 40 places in the NT. The Greek verb nesteuo, "to fast," is found only 16 times, but that is in only 8 passsages. Some of those times it is found several times in one verse, such as 5 times in Mark 2:18-20, or twice in Matt. 9:14-15 so that is 7 times in only two passages, and so forth. The noun nesteia occurs in only 8 verses (in the Byzantine that is). Another word, an adjective asitos meaning "without food" (not purposeful fasting) occurs only in Acts 27:33. So there are only 16 passages that concern the subject of this thread.

This is the kind of research you have to do just to start with textual criticism, and yet you've apparently simply looked at a quick word search with your software without analyzing the occurances. So you get "stuck fast" in Acts 27:41, etc.

So, I'll ask again, how much do you know about text families in textual criticism?

 

At the risk of being called a 'derailer' I post this because it seems so fitting here.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.

-Alexander Pope

 

I think it's an appropriate quote. :saint:

 

As far as these four might be interpreted to make fasting prescriptive, there are better ones if that is your game.

Point one is sound, point two is sound and the premise seems unsound based on the arguments thus far IMHO.

As far as not being able to answer, the internet has tables which list the witnesses and give dates for each. Since no answer is forthcoming,
might one assume the early witnesses support the view of many modern translators, i.e. the four were corrupted by addition not omission. Just saying.

 

A friend has kindly corrected me on the figures here. Nesteuo is actually found 21 times in the NT. My software was telling me how many verses it was found in, and I mistook that for how many times. Also, it occurs 3 times in Matt. 9:14-15, not two. The other times it occurs in multiples are: 4 times in Matt, 6:16-18, 3 times in Luke 5:33-35, and 2 times in Acts 13:2-3.

 

Hey Jonathan, I asked for the dates of the earliest witnesses listed in the NET footnotes, but you offered others not listed.

Hey JOJ, Here are the places I was referring to if you are unable to find them,

Matthew 4:2, 6:16*, 6:17, 6:18, 9:14, 9:15 and 17:21
Mark 2:18*, 2:19*, and 2:20 and 9:29
Luke 2:37, 5:33, 5:34, 5:35, 8:15 and 18:12
John 20:4
Acts 10:30, 13:2, 13:3, 14:23, 16:24, and 27:9
1 Corinthians 7:5 and 15:2
Philippians 2:16
Colossians 2:19
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Titus 1:9
Revelation 2:13, 2:25 and 3:11​

Thus the reason I said 40 or so, or about 40, was because I had not studied each occurrence, but I did look at the ones in the books where the collusion was claimed. "Fast" is mentioned twice in each of the verses with an asterisk (*).

 

This is careless work, Van. I don't have time to check it all since I have a funeral today, but a quick look shows that all four of your Hebrews verses are "hold fast" and not fasting in the sense of going without food.

 

Hi JOJ, I am still waiting for you to post the ages of the earliest witness listed in the NET footnote. But you are right a person who does no work cannot be charged with sloppy work.

 

Matthew 4:2, 6:16*, 6:17, 6:18, 9:14, 9:15 and 17:21
Mark 2:18*, 2:19*, and 2:20 and 9:29
Luke 2:37, 5:33, 5:34, 5:35, and 18:12
Acts 10:30, 13:2, 13:3, 14:23, and 27:9
1 Corinthians 7:5


After reviewing each verse I find 25 references to fasting, so the question remains, why remove 4 and leave 21?

Now the two earliest witnesses for the omission of Matthew 17:21 date in the 4th Century, but the earliest witnesses listed in the footnote of the NET that included the verse date from the 5th century. Therefore it looks like someone added the verse.

 

I have no idea what NET footnote you are talking about. I just read the whole thread and you have not yet asked me to discuss any footnote. Early on you did mention a NET footnote, but did not say what passage it footnoted. Was it Col. 2:18? I see nothing in the footnotes there about mss. And why do you want me to post the ages of the earliest witnesses? What will that accomplish for you?

I'm entirely able to give ages of witnesses, having good reference books such as both editions of Metzger's textual commentary, UBS and Nestle's Greek NTs, etc. But I really don't know what you want. Please enlighten me. What are you asking from me?

 

Dear friends, until you at least address my objections and answer my questions, your case for the removal of fasting in four of 25 places, which goes against the modern translation consensus, remains underwhelming.

 

I think Jon has done a splendid job, and I don't think you have answered his points at all.

And are you going to answer my previous post or not? You demanded I respond to something. Are you going to tell me what that something was, because I can't figure it out. I assure you, if I knew what you wanted me to respond to that I would. Please reply.

Edited in: Okay, I'm assuming you want me to respond to your post #21, in which you mention several NET footnotes. But that post was not directed to me so I did not answer it. Plus, I didn't see your point, and I certainly don't understand why you want me to give the ages of the mss involved. (Is your point in #21 that Daniel Wallace said it, so it absolutely must be correct?)

I've already made it plain that I'm Byzantine priority. I hate to say this, because you're going to once again say that I'm condescending rolleyes, but do you understand the Byzantine priority position? If you did, you would already know what I think of the NET footnotes.

 

I put the PDF on my Kindle Fire and took it to the crematorium after the funeral I had today, then found some time to read it while waiting.

Excellent job! I think your research is great. You've influenced me strongly towards your position. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that any time a text was purposefully altered it could not have been by anyone orthodox, as witness the mess Marcion made. But you've given solid reasons for your position.