Col 2:18 and asceticism

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Hey Van,

The manuscripts themselves show what was important to certain ones. Also, do you think it a little odd that, if "and fasting" is not genuine in Mark 9:29, that not a single one of the 1625 manuscripts that have Matt 17:21, assuming it not original for the sake of argument, copied it right (i.e. without "and fasting")? That means all those mss are evidence for its authenticity there. And the verbiage in Matt is very different from that in mark, another reason. BTW, the father of modern NT TC, Johann Griesbach, as well as older scholars like Bengel and Wettstein and Matthäi, held to the authenticity of those passages. I could care less about an argument's proponents than the merits of defects of the argument itself. BTW, Dan Wallace has no post grad degree in NT TC. His was in Greek grammar as far as I know.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

Quite the opposite! Ten Greek mss (out of 1635) omit Matt 17:21, while three out of 1656 omit "and fasting" in Mark 9:29. You must say basically all the mss of all the churches became corrupt by massive collusion among the orthodox; I must say only that a later orthodox corruption, one comparatively limited in territory and extent, occurred. Get the difference?

 

[humblethinker]

Quite the opposite! Ten Greek mss (out of 1635) omit Matt 17:21, while three out of 1656 omit "and fasting" in Mark 9:29. You must say basically all the mss of all the churches became corrupt by massive collusion among the orthodox; I must say only that a later orthodox corruption, one comparatively limited in territory and extent, occurred. Get the difference?

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.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Quite the opposite! Ten Greek mss (out of 1635) omit Matt 17:21, while three out of 1656 omit "and fasting" in Mark 9:29. You must say basically all the mss of all the churches became corrupt by massive collusion among the orthodox; I must say only that a later orthodox corruption, one comparatively limited in territory and extent, occurred. Get the difference?

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

Why the arbitrary date? Current trends in NT textual criticism say that late manuscripts are just as likely to have original readings as early ones.

See, for example, the statement of Metzger-trained Princetonite Michael W. Holmes, "Working with an Open Textual Tradition: Challenges in Theory and Practice," in Klaus Wachtel and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 73:

The primary point is this: as a result of mixture, a derivative manuscript can appear instead as a source manuscript. In an open textual tradition -- especially one with as many 'missing links' as the New Testament apparently has -- the apparent direction of relationships may be the polar opposite of the actual direction of the relationships.

And then, on p. 74:

It means that even late or otherwise inconsequential manuscripts potentially may be carriers of original readings. It disallows any sort of programmatic appeal to a 'best manuscript' or a 'best tradition': any one witness or combination of witnesses -- even those that statistically are the more reliable in general -- may, at any given point, preserve a secondary reading.

Anyway, the many manuscripts that dominate the Greek tradition are also corroborated by the earliest witnesses of the versions and the earliest evidence of any kind for Matthew (Origen) and for Mark (p45).

So what's your point?

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[jonathan.borland]

No, I do not get the difference. Again the number of copies of the same corruption does not argue against the corruption.

Certainly number plays a factor. How many readings in the NT supported by only one manuscript are deemed original? Why? Because they are likely the result of only one scribe. Furthermore, when only 2 mss have an error, and when they frequently agree with each other in other errors, then they are not to be considered very trustworthy. And so on with any small minority of manuscripts that often agree with each other and are from one location.

When did these colluding redactors remove Matthew 17:21?

Sometime quite later than the multiplying streams of the original were in place.

Copies made after the redaction do not support the validity of the redacted copies.

True, and this applies equally to the case of possible omission in Matt 17:21 and Mark 9:29.

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

See my last post.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Many claim that there is no reason why Matt 17:21 would have been omitted. I can think of 10 reasons. I'll try to upload a sample of my paper in progress.


Sample page of paper on orthodox corruption of Matthew.


Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[humblethinker]

So what's your point?

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

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)

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks JOJ, you did indeed answer my question specifically on your second try.

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.

But you seem to think these four verses were omissions by scribes, rather than at the behest of orthodox leaders.

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.

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.

Where?

 

[jonathan.borland]

Humblethinker,

I fail to see your point, since the date of a manuscript proves nothing as to its worth as a good or bad witness. That was the whole point of Michael Holmes' quote,

It means that even late or otherwise inconsequential manuscripts potentially may be carriers of original readings. It disallows any sort of programmatic appeal to a 'best manuscript' or a 'best tradition': any one witness or combination of witnesses -- even those that statistically are the more reliable in general -- may, at any given point, preserve a secondary reading.

Some of the worst witnesses are from the 3d century. None of the Family 1 witnesses that include Matt 17:21 (1. 118. 131. 205. 209. 1582. 2193. 2542) were copied before the 10th century, but everyone agrees that that text was current in the 4th century. The same goes for the Family 13 manuscripts that include the verse (13. 124. 174. 230. 346. 543. 826. 828. 983).

But to answer your question, here are the manuscripts copied before A.D. 900 that omit Matt 17:21:

ℵ* B Θ 0281 33. 892*

Here are the mss copied before A.D. 900 that include Matt 17:21:

ℵ2 C D E F G H K L M O U V W Y Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 047. 0211. 0257 399. 461. 565. 566. 1080. 1295. 1424. 1500. 2224. 2500

In addition to these Greek witnesses for the verse's inclusion, we have Old Latin Vercellensis (a/3) made in the 4th century, Veronensis (b/4), Bezae (d/5), Corbeiensis II (ff2/8), and the St. Gallen (n/16) made in the 5th century, and other important ones (c/6 g1/7 f/10 l/11 q/13 r1/14 aur/15). There is the Vulgate from the 4th century, the Peshitta from about the same time and the Harklensis from a little later, the oldest Coptic witness (Codex Schøyen) from around 350, as well as the extremely early fathers Origen and probably Clement of Alexandria in the third, Juvencus, Asterius, Hilary, Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose, and Chrysostom in the fourth, and Jerome and Augustine and others in the fifth.

So I will pose the question again: is it easier to charge that all these witnesses representing every area of the early church came to be corrupted than that the few related witnesses from Egypt reflect a relatively late intrusion (in comparison with the age of the original) into the NT textual tradition? If you think so, then by what method do you propose that this occurred? If there is no practical method for such a universal collusion to corrupt the NT text, then why is it a crime that the original text came to be multiplied predominantly more often than the corrupted one?

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Van]

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.borland]

Van,

Do you understand that the date of a ms has nothing to do with the date of its text? God gave us many witnesses to his Word, not just Egyptian ones from AD 400 or earlier. There are places, like Matt 27:49, where all the Greek witnesses before AD 400 are corrupt, and so 1500 mss made after the 10th century contain an earlier text than all the extant Greek witnesses before AD 400 there. Do you get it? In Matt 17:21, as far as i know there are no extant witnesses from the 7th century. Does that mean there were more mss before the 7th century than during it? No, and so one easily sees the fallacy of pretending that extant mss represent the actual state of the text everywhere in the century in which they were copied. Wallace should know better, but obviously doesn't. But his training was in grammar and not in TC.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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?

 

[jonathan.borland]

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?

I think I've already gone over these, but here we go again. Last time.

1. NT textual criticism doesn't attempt to explain what scribes didn't do, only what they did.

2. Setting an arbitrary date that includes only witnesses from Egypt is fallacious, discounting most of the evidence for the NT. Anyway, why not say all evidence from A.D. 300 and earlier? Then Matt 17:21 and Mark 9:29 are in with Origen in the former and p45 in the latter. But I won't do that since I prefer not to operate by fallacious logic.

3. Ascetic cults vexed the early church, especially in Egypt. See the Alands, Metzger, Ehrman, and general church history on this. There would be no reason for the orthodox to give the cults more proof texts, but rather to limit their more popular ones that could be or were being used prescriptively.

4. Actually, the ones omitting the expressions/passages were acting in good faith: they were making God's Word clear by removing possibilities for its destructive use by cults. This is not an isolated thing. I'm also showing the same practice by similar (primarily Alexandrian) mss in Matt 1:25, 4:10, 5:22, 19:17, 24:36. So I go by to my text-critical fathers Westcott and Hort: Witnesses -- and even more than that, groups of witnesses -- that are perpetually found to be of bad character on internal and preliminary external grounds are not to be given much weight in the final evaluation of external witnesses.

5. Those places need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, but my preliminary judgment is that the orthodox had no method or power to corrupt the majority of all the Greek manuscripts and versions and fathers simultaneously. The textual traditions were too far spread out and uncontrolled. They were able to corrupt some of these at times, but generally on a comparatively small scale. You might be surprised, but of all the places I discuss, the orthodox had the most success in corrupting Matt 4:10.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Van]

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.