Col 2:18 and asceticism

[Van]

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The few witnesses that support the omission of the fasting passages are primarily Alexandrian but also sometimes Western. In Egypt is where the battle against the super ascetic cults was worst, and where we see other orthodox corruptions in an effort to battle proof texts that these pseudo-Christian cults used. Paul himself battled super ascetic cults. For other support, just look up some info on the heretics Valentinus, Saturninus, Marcion, the Gnostic and especially the super-ascetic Manichaean versions, and you will see what I mean. Also, there is the ubiquitous external evidence that puts the issue far in favor of the fasting references being removed early on for orthodox reasons (even in the first century) than added far later in order to submit to the demands of secluded hermits here and there. I'm documenting some of this in an academic paper, BTW.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

 

[Van]

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

Hey Van,

Not strange at all for all who understand the underlying principles which govern their decisions. And also funny (but not surprising for those who know) how most versions do not have "and fasting" in Mark 9:29 even though it is present in 1600+ Greek manuscripts and absent in only three, and present in all Old Latin manuscripts except one, in all Vulgate manuscripts, in both Old Syriac manuscripts and all other Syriac manuscripts, in all Coptic manuscripts, and Tertullian around 200, and even in the oldest manuscript of any kind, p45, also from around 200. So the presence of the expression is 100+ years older than any extant witness for its absence, and also the presence is, as I said, ubiquitous, universally present in the early church. Now that is just dandy for your view and trust in the NET notes, isn't it? Actually, I'm not surprised in the least.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

 

[Van]

Hey Van,

Not strange at all for all who understand the underlying principles which govern their decisions. And also funny (but not surprising for those who know) how most versions do not have "and fasting" in Mark 9:29 even though it is present in 1600+ Greek manuscripts and absent in only three, and present in all Old Latin manuscripts except one, in all Vulgate manuscripts, in both Old Syriac manuscripts and all other Syriac manuscripts, in all Coptic manuscripts, and Tertullian around 200, and even in the oldest manuscript of any kind, p45, also from around 200. So the presence of the expression is 100+ years older than any extant witness for its absence, and also the presence is, as I said, ubiquitous, universally present in the early church. Now that is just dandy for your view and trust in the NET notes, isn't it? Actually, I'm not surprised in the least.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

So in Mark 9:29 you believe that everything was corrupted except three related Greek manuscripts (2 from the 4th and 1 from the 5th century), and a single Latin manuscript from the 4th/5th century?

That is to say, you think everything else was corrupted, including all other 1600+ Greek manuscripts, all other Latin manuscripts of every kind, all manuscripts from all Syriac versions, all manuscripts from all Coptic versions, in fact, all manuscripts from every other known version ever made before the 19th century, and every father ever known to quote the passage.

My follow-up question is simple: How was such a universal orthodox corruption accomplished? You sound like Bart Ehrman!

Far easier to assume that the few related Alexandrian manuscripts that omit "and fasting" (for there are no other witnesses of any other kind that do so) were the result of a feeble orthodox attempt, obviously in Egypt, to take away a proof text from the super ascetic cults that vexed them so in that locale. I'm actually preparing some academic arguments to appeal to the Ehrmanite laity who assume that such ubiquitous and organized orthodox corruption was not only possible but actually likely, occurring again and again and overcoming almost every known witness of the true text everywhere. I really pity this Ehrmanite laity, really I do.

Also, the few witnesses that are guilty of orthodox corruption here, when they are found to do the same in many other places (as I can show at will), can no longer be labeled "the best," for they are only the best if they habitually have the best text. I can show that they habitually do not have the initial text.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Deacon]

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

 

[jonathan.borland]

Ascetic cults, particularly in Egypt, were a huge concern to Christian leaders. Evidence of their concern shows up in the ms tradition especially from there. Also, I think the Ehrmanite view that Orthodox leaders could orchestrate a 99+ percent takeover of the Greek, versional, and patristic evidence for the canonical text (cf Mark 16:9-20, Mark 9:29, etc.) is completely unsubstantiated on historical and practical grounds. Some people call me Bart, which is funny, since in reality it is they who hold to his views in theory and practice, and not I.

 

[Van]

Ascetic cults, particularly in Egypt, were a huge concern to Christian leaders. Evidence of their concern shows up in the ms tradition especially from there. Also, I think the Ehrmanite view that Orthodox leaders could orchestrate a 99+ percent takeover of the Greek, versional, and patristic evidence for the canonical text (cf Mark 16:9-20, Mark 9:29, etc.) is completely unsubstantiated on historical and practical grounds. Some people call me Bart, which is funny, since in reality it is they who hold to his views in theory and practice, and not I.

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

When you sing the praises of the reading that contradicts 99.7+ percent of all Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and patristic evidence without a viable explanation for HOW such occurred and then IF such occurred as you say it did, why should we believe in the accuracy of the text even when everything agrees perfectly? There is really no reason to do so. Then we see just how absurd your claim is in the integrity of the NT text. Rational skeptics see it too. The ignorance of evangelical academics is at a high these days.

 

[Deacon]

Ascetic cults, particularly in Egypt, were a huge concern to Christian leaders. Evidence of their concern shows up in the ms tradition especially from there. Also, I think the Ehrmanite view that Orthodox leaders could orchestrate a 99+ percent takeover of the Greek, versional, and patristic evidence for the canonical text (cf Mark 16:9-20, Mark 9:29, etc.) is completely unsubstantiated on historical and practical grounds. Some people call me Bart, which is funny, since in reality it is they who hold to his views in theory and practice, and not I.

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

 

[Van]

[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:

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

[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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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

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?

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.

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:

 

[Van]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Van, your argument makes no more sense than if I were to ask, as an argument, why someone who was powerful enough to overcome the Greek manuscript tradition didn't bother to add more fasting references throughout the NT. We have what we have.

Now why not come up with a practical solution to describe who was powerful enough to create a false reading and then to get it into not only nearly all the Greek manuscripts of active churches, but also all the churches Latin-, Coptic-, Syriac-speaking believers? This is the biggest question, and its implications, that you have yet to address!

Since the three Greek mss and one Old Latin ms that omit "and fasting" in Mark 9:29 are related, that means they go back to a single source. That single source is Alexandrian. When one observes the other variations, they also are heavily Alexandrian, with the exception of 1 Cor 7:5, which adds Western support and is, I believe, the place where the motivation to alter some fasting texts first materialized.

The cults chose their fasting texts from the Bible, just as those who did not hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Both groups were battled against by the orthodox through the alteration of NT texts (cf. Matt 1:18 ["before they came together" omitted by some]; Matt 1:25 ["he did not know her until" omitted by some, including one that omits "and fasting" in Mark 9:29]; Matt 1:25 and Luke 2:7 ["her firstborn" omitted by some, since the term indicated that she had other children]; John 2:12 ["his brothers" is changed to "brothers" in some]; Luke 2:33 ["Joseph" is changed to "his father" to show that elsewhere "his brothers" doesn't really mean that Jesus had any siblings], etc.). These are all the texts that Helvidius (and others before him) used to argue against the perpetual virginity of Mary, and these are just the texts that happened to be altered!

So when it comes to why some were altered and some were not, much has to do with which verses were important to the side opposing certain orthodox beliefs. The important thing to remember, though, is that the orthodox (thank the good Lord!) were utterly unable to alter the text of the NT everywhere, although they certainly achieved some success in remote areas here and there. In general, the NT churches did just what Paul commanded to Timothy three or more times, they guarded the deposit (or what was handed down to them). How could they have done anything else.

Please, Van, we wait with baited breath hard evidence of the universal collusion of the early church to corrupt the text of the NT in opposition to Paul's charge.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Van]

Pitchback

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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:

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?

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?