Col 2:18 and asceticism

[John of Japan]

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.

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?

 

[Mexdeaf]

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

 

[John of Japan]

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:

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

Hey Van,

If only a few related witnesses do something, there is no collusion necessary, since they all could descend from one local scribe/critic. Collusion in error becomes necessary when the vast majority of all the evidence for the NT from everywhere (Greek mss, early fathers, Latin, Syriac, Coptic mss) is deemed corrupt in comparison to a remote trace in the NT tradition.

Your point 1 above, which I already addressed, is fallacious. It would be like me saying, "With so many references to fasting in the NT, there is no reason why anyone would need to add any more. Therefore these four references in question must be authentic." How absurd, and so please stop using this silly logic.

There are actually reasons why these four were focused on. They seem to be the only ones that might be interpreted in a way to make fasting prescriptive for complete Christianity, for complete power, for hearing from God, for the only reason for periodic abstinence in marriage.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Okay, Van,

I'll play by your faulty logic but arbitrarily change the date closer to the autograph in order to get a more reliable picture. So now instead of 400 we go back even CLOSER to the autograph to 300.

Evidence for the omission of Matt 17:21 before 300:

1. ...

Evidence for the presence of Matt 17:21 before 300:

1. Ps-Clem., Ep. de virg. 1.12.
2. Clement of Alexandria, Ecl. 14.
3. Tertullian, Jejun. 8.2c–3.
4. Origen, Comm. Matt. 13.6.


Evidence for the omission of "and fasting" in Mark 9:29 before 300:

1. ...

Evidence for the presence of "and fasting" in Mark 9:29 before 300:

1. p45
2. Tertullian, Jejun. 8.2c–3. (either here or Matt above; my judgment is Matt since Tertullian never exclusively cites Mark in the 17 chapters of De jejunia)

Glad to be of service to you to help you discover the earliest extant text of the NT. :tongue3:

I'll try to post my write-up of Matt 17:21 as soon as I can finish a rough draft.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Okay,

I think I have my argument on the orthodox corruption (by removal) of Matt 17:21 in a tolerably presentable form.

Click on this link for my preliminary case on The Orthodox Corruption of Matt 17:21.

If you're interested but it doesn't work or the fonts are garbled, please IM me and I can email you a copy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

Edit: I would suggest you download the PDF. The viewer through Dropbox considerably messes up the typesetting.

 

[Van]

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 (*).

 

[John of Japan]

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
Hebrews 3:6, 3:14, 4:14 and 10:23
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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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

Brother Van,

You should carefully read my argument from the link I posted where I answer this question (and many others). :tongue3:

Sincerely,

Jonathan

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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?

 

[Van]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay,

I think I have my argument on the orthodox corruption (by removal) of Matt 17:21 in a tolerably presentable form.

Click on this link for my preliminary case on The Orthodox Corruption of Matt 17:21.

If you're interested but it doesn't work or the fonts are garbled, please IM me and I can email you a copy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

Edit: I would suggest you download the PDF. The viewer through Dropbox considerably messes up the typesetting.

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

Dear John,

You're too kind. My main thesis is that while orthodox leaders and scribes obviously made changes to the text of their copies of the NT, the ability of one person's change here and another's there to effect an overturn of all the copying traditions of all the local churches was negligible.

Sincerely,

Jonathan