Featured Col 2:18 and asceticism

Hi Jonathan, you cited 4 places where you thought it possible "fasting" had been removed at the behest of early church leaders. I questioned why only 4 and leave the approximately 36 other places where fasting is mentioned and in some of those places advocated. Thus the spots for the supposed redaction were poorly chosen.

I already provided the reason why I think those 4 verses had been altered by "adding" fasting, which is that is the way the modern translation scholars, including Daniel B. Wallace, came down of the issue. Dr. Wallace said their was no good reason for the omission, but perhaps he had not considered your view. I did not think what I knew of your view, i.e. contained in your OP, presented a good reason, and made an effort to explain why.

As far as efforts at collusion concerning one topic, i.e. Mary died a virgin, it does not support your view on the topic at hand, all it does is demonstrate people altered the text for what they thought was a good idea at the time. But to say because some verses were corrupted intentionally supports the idea that these verses were corrupted in a certain way is unsound, in my opinion.

On the other hand, you have provided no support for your assertion that these 4 were "more important" to the colluders, than Matthew 6:16-18 and Matthew 9:14-15.

 

Thanks JOJ, you did indeed answer my question specifically on your second try. But you seem to think these four verses were omissions by scribes, rather than at the behest of orthodox leaders.

I think Dr. Wallace has addressed the "shorter versus longer" debate and indicated the longer readings were not always additions, i.e. omissions did occur in the text.

 

First, whether or not a person has a degree in this or that does not make his arguments valid, especially if others also with the same degree hold differing views. The my education is superior to yours, therefore I am right argument is without merit.

Next, most scribes copied most verses correctly.

I do not understand why you say the manuscripts themselves show what was important to certain ones.

Your next argument seems against interest. You point out that 1625 manuscripts that have been corrupted at Matthew 17:21 were not corrupted at Mark 9:29. No, that demonstrates a lack of collusion, and points to scribal harmonization by various scribes.

But at least we agree on one point, I could care less about the qualifications of the proponents of a premise, but rather whether or not the premise has merits in light of all scripture. The only reason I mentioned all the scholars sharing my view was to address the argument that I was unqualified and therefore wrong.

 

Just curious, of the 1635 mss, how many are post 900AD? How many are pre 900AD? I don't know if it is the case here, but just because there is more evidential samples of the same type doesn't necessarily strengthen an arguement.

 

Pitchback

No, I do not get the difference. Again the number of copies of the same corruption does not argue against the corruption. When did these colluding redactors remove Matthew 17:21? Copies made after the redaction do not support the validity of the redacted copies.

Wallace refers to (א* B), as important manuscripts. What is their estimated date.

 

My point is that just because there is more evidential samples of the same type (Byzantine miniscule mss, post 900AD) doesn't necessarily strengthen an arguement. There could be a million of them and I don't see why it would strengthen the arguement. It seemed that you were flexing on Van with this kind of arguement. Positing such an arguement actually discredits the one making the arguement in a debate.

(just fyi, I have no dog in this fight regarding the 'and fasting' issue)

 

I answered it plainly on the first try. But you seem to have wanted more of an answer than your specific question asked. Hardly fair to then gloat and say I hadn't answered it.

Until I read Jon's essay in it's entirety (and I think I know where it is being published) I'll not know what to conclude. I think he has a good theory. But if it was at the behest of leaders, then it was still the scribes who omitted the words in question, since they copied the mss. It just changes the omissions from accidental to on purpose.

Where?

 

Hi JOJ,

1) I did not gloat, I stated a fact. An ambiguous answer is not an answer in this day and age of word games, where something is implied but still deniable.

2) And thanks for admitting your view was not based on agreeing with Jonathon, but simply again agreement with the text type that included the additions.

3) An online available article by Dan Wallace where he discusses the majority text and indicates that many times it chose the shorter text over the longer text which undercuts another of the arguments for adopting the longer text. In other words, these arguments seem to have been constructed after the selections to provide a more objective basis. For example, the number of copies varies with the date one makes a count, and so say at 500 AD, something in the minority, might be in the majority at 1000 AD.

Lets say the redaction, removal, took place before AD 500. Then all those "witnesses" dated after 500 are suspect as fruit of the poisoned tree.

No list of witnesses before 500 AD with and without the four additions has been presented. Odd.

 

Jonathan, I still do not get it. The witnesses have dates written established by the kind of writing. It is general but thought to be accurate within 100 years or so. Each of the documents you mentioned have those dates. Please list the documents with 4th century dates or before with and without the redaction. If none exist for the redaction, then the redaction occurred after the 4 century. Do you understand my question now?

I do understand if I have a witness written or copied in the 5th century, and an exact copy (no difference in the text) written or copied in the 9th century that the text can be dated to at least the 5th century. That was not the question and I think you know it.

 

The premise could be correct, these four verses had all or part redacted because of not wanting to provide proof texts for acetic cults. However, to make that case, other explanations need to be addressed.

1) Why these four when 36 or so other verses or passages provided far better proof texts for fasting?

2) Based on the early witnesses, i.e 4th century or before, which witnesses had the fasting version and which were missing the fasting version.

3) Why not make the opposite argument, that these were "added" to harmonize and support the acetic practice of fasting?

4) Why with all the "added" stuff, including whole verses, why not conclude the same motivation, i.e. copiests attempting to "help" make God's word more clear, apply to these four verses?

5) Are all the supposed "added" verses, i.e. those removed, or bracketed, or footnoted, in modern translations also mistaken if the Byzantine Text type contains them?

 

Oh, no, you didn't gloat, lol.... :BangHead:

Where I come from, saying, "I disagree" when one is asked, "Do you agree?" is not an ambiguous answer. But maybe English is your second language, lol.

I may, and probably will end up agreeing with Jonathan when I read his whole essay. He's a capable textual critic. But scholarship means weighing all the evidence.

Where is the article? Is it the one he did for JETS in June 1994?

You're going to think I'm being condescending again, but I have no idea how much you really know about textual criticism, since you refuse to say what authors you've read on it. So I'll ask, do you understand the difference in text families? That is key to answering your point here.

 

Two in a row folks, neither had sufficient expertize to answer the questions. It is like buying a 50 cent hamburger, taking a bite and then asking where is the beef.

1) Of the forty or so places where "fasting" is found in the NT, early church leaders choose to collude and remove just 4 of them. If this seems odd, it is because you do not have a degree in textual criticism.

2) Neither expert, or anyone else, i.e. Rippon or Deacon, on this board could or were willing read the NET footnotes and discern the dates of the earliest witnesses for both sides of the argument. Consider that carefully.