Matt 17:21 - Is it original?

[jonathan.borland]

Rob,

I appreciate the dialogue. I admit the possibility that the verse may be inauthentic. But what of the primary Greek evidence and secondary versional and patristic evidence? Besides being present in 99.4 percent of all Greek manuscripts, the verse has major representation in each of the three main early versions (Latin, Syriac, Coptic) and all the fathers (since we are not sure what Eusebius actually read due to confusion in his Greek canon [cf. Griesbach's note in my post #6], although his canon in Syriac indicates he read the verse). How did the addition of the verse (if it is not original) overwhelm the textual evidence of the early church in every major category? If it could so happen here, what is the basis of faith in the security of the text in other places? Of course this last question is one that Bart Ehrman frequently uses to tempt those teetering in their faith to take the next step away from faith completely. But this last point is really not applicable to the present inquiry of considering all the evidence and deciding what it means.

Do you think that the UBS4/NA27 text is ever wrong? If so, what is the amount of evidence necessary to tip the scales in the other direction? In Matt 4:23 apparently only one Greek manuscript (B) omits "Jesus" along with one very important Old Latin manuscript (k), one Old Syriac manuscript (sy-c), and two dialects of the Egyptian Coptic (sa mae). In other words, roughly 0.05 percent of the primary Greek evidence omits "Jesus," while the vast consensus of the primary Greek evidence (99.95 percent) and the secondary evidence of the Old Latin, Latin, Old Syriac, Syriac, even one of the Egyptian Coptic dialects (bo), and any fathers we know of (perhaps only Eusebius) all have "Jesus" in their texts at this place. Is it likely that such an addition intruded into all the Greek copies but one? If so, how? What is the basis of faith in the safety of the text? Or is it more probable that one Greek copy for one reason or another lost the word?

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Deacon]

Thanks for your friendship Jonathan.

I admit the possibility that the verse may be inauthentic. But what of the primary Greek evidence and secondary versional and patristic evidence? Besides being present in 99.4 percent of all Greek manuscripts, the verse has major representation in each of the three main early versions (Latin, Syriac, Coptic) and all the fathers…

The numbers don’t necessarily impress me. The earliest known manuscripts, those found before the 5th century, are almost equally divided in number and distribution [as noted in David Robert Palmer’s note #5].

How did the addition of the verse (if it is not original) overwhelm the textual evidence of the early church in every major category? If it could so happen here, what is the basis of faith in the security of the text in other places? Of course this last question is one that Bart Ehrman frequently uses to tempt those teetering in their faith to take the next step away from faith completely. But this last point is really not applicable to the present inquiry of considering all the evidence and deciding what it means.

The first question is beyond the scope of this thread and surely a question with a book length answer.
This problem can be viewed with a, “Glass Half Full” approach. Sure you can look at the text with Ehrman’s skepticism but through eyes of faith one can have full confidence in God’s provision of the text we need... as God wills it, it boils down to one's faith.

Do you think that the UBS4/NA27 text is ever wrong? If so, what is the amount of evidence necessary to tip the scales in the other direction?

There have been places where I question the decisions made in the NA27. These decisions have generally commanded a footnote in the modern texts.

What is the basis of faith in the safety of the text? Or is it more probable that one Greek copy for one reason or another lost the word?

My passion for study in recent years has been the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew text reveals isolated places where words have been lost, confused, moved or altered over the ages. Translators from even the earliest times have used every clue available to clarify these areas. The best advice, which should be used when applying any scriptural teaching, is to confirm it with another portion of Scripture.
Today’s practice of providing footnotes and alternate readings shouldn't provoke faithlessness, it demonstrates the faithful accountability of the translators to communicate what God has given them. The basis for my faith in the text is my faith in God himself.

Personally I find that textual studies opens up an aspect of the nature and character of God that has been neglected by the average Christian. An awesome, incomprehensible and untamed God; the very definition of holy.

Rob

 

[jonathan.borland]

The earliest known manuscripts, those found before the 5th century, are almost equally divided in number and distribution [as noted in David Robert Palmer’s note #5].

This is highly begging the question, since we are certain that only two Greek manuscripts containing this passage were copied before the fifth century (ℵ B), with two or three on the borderline (C D W). Why choose the end of the fourth century as the cut-off date for "early"? Is this arbitrary? Where did all the manuscripts from the fifth-eighth centuries come from? Or does one choose the end of the fourth century as the cut-off date simply because those few manuscripts tend to line up more often with the text he already supports? (As an outsider surveying KJVO proponents' arguments I admit this sounds much like the premise of much of their argumentation.)

It is well-known that basically 100 percent of the early papyri were discovered in Egypt, the only place of the early church where the climate was so dry that it was conducive to preserving paper manuscripts. But we do know historically that the Egyptian church was rather fledgling compared to the church in Asia Minor in the second and third centuries (and afterward). We do not know where most of the Greek manuscripts after the fourth century were copied, but we do know that most of them witness to a text different in many respects to those manuscripts we generally call "Alexandrian."

It is also a matter of intellectual honesty in regard to apologetic claims that the precise wording of the New Testament rests upon the foundation of thousands of Greek manuscripts, if in fact the "thousands" are irrelevant (so the impression from D. R. Palmer's notes) for determining the precise wording of the text. Of course it rests upon thousands when they are all in agreement, but when there is disagreement (such as in Matt 17:21 or 4:23) the Greek text merely rests upon one or two; this is the same as saying that the thousands are basically useless for determining the precise wording of the New Testament text. Apologetically, it also means that errors at any given time could easily overtake and indeed dominate the already existing and multiplying copies of the original text not only in Greek but in ancient versions and fathers as well (for that is exactly what most claim has happened in Matt 17:21, to take but one example). The Latin Vulgate, which is a secondary witness, is a good example of how a later secondary text could dominate earlier secondary texts. But do we have evidence, besides the evidence of differences among the manuscripts themselves, that this happened with the primary Greek texts? Jerome's lofty endeavors were well-known, well-documented, and well-disseminated. Is it not improbable to suggest that a similar and amazingly successful endeavor on the primary Greek side of the evidence would have similar documentation and fame?

I admit I have many unanswered questions, not only here but also specifically with regard to my main points in posts #6, #15, #16, #17), yet such is the nature of scientific investigation!

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[jonathan.borland]

I think the very early Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200) may be said to support the inclusion of Matt 17:21 on critical grounds. What do you think?

Clement of Alexandria: "The Savior plainly declared to the believing apostles that prayer was stronger than faith in the case of a certain demoniac, whom they could not cleanse, when he said, "Such things are accomplished successfully through prayer." He who has believed has received forgiveness of sins from the Lord, but he who abides in knowledge, inasmuch as he no longer sins, receives from himself the forgiveness of the rest" (Clement of Alexandria, Ecl. 15.1-2).

I think this loose patristic citation may be said to support the inclusion of Matt 17:21 on the grounds that only from Matthew is it most likely possible that one would come up with such an interpretation that prayer is stronger than faith, since the small discourse on the disciples' lack of faith and the faith of the mustard seed is only recorded in this context in Matthew (17:20). I have already shown from other commentators, correctly, I think, that such an interpretation is not best, but that instead prayer and fasting should be seen as an assistance to and strengthening of faith. Yet the interpretation very plainly set out by Clement of Alexandria demonstrates the obvious difficulty, namely, that some famous commentators were interpreting the verse to mean that prayer was "stronger than faith." This situation presented some critics the reason for the occasion of canceling the verse.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[jonathan.borland]

Also very early is Tertullian (ca. 215), who very clearly supports the Byzantine text of either Matt 17:21 or Mark 9:29. I think on critical grounds it is most probable that he refers to Matt 17:21.

Tertullian: "After that, he prescribed that fasting should be carried out without sadness. For why should what is beneficial be sad? He taught also to fight against the more fierce demons by means of fasting. For is it surprising that the Holy Spirit is lead in through the same means by which the sinful spirit is lead out?" (Tertullian, Jejun. 8.2c-3).

Tertullian most likely refers to Matt 17:21 instead of Mark 9:29 for the following critical reasons: (1) it does not appear that he ever explicitly cites Mark in the 17 chapters of De jejunio adversus psychicos; (2) in the immediate context he cites either Matthew alone or Matthew where Luke is parallel (8.2a = Matt 4:1-3 || Luke 4:1-3; 8.2b = Matt 11:19 || Luke 7:34; 8.2c = Matt 6:16-18); (3) he explicitly cites Matthew alone on several occasions (2.8 = Matt 22:40; 8.2c = Matt 6:16-18; 14.3 = Matt 13:52; 15.6a = Matt 5:6).

What do you think?

 

[jonathan.borland]

The renowned early church scholar Origen (ca. 250), later than Clement of Alexandria (200) and Tertullian (215) but still earlier than our earliest Greek manuscripts of Matthew 17:21 by about a century, his Commentarii in Matthaeum is an extremely important witness for the verse's authenticity on the grounds that it is a full century earlier than any evidence of any kind that omits the passage. Origen refers to Matt 17:21 twice in his commentary. I am wondering if anyone can help me check on a third passage that may possibly refer to Matt 17:21, Homiliae in Exodum (Hom. Exod. 2.3).

Origen: "That those, then, who suffer from what is called lunacy sometimes fall into the water is evident, and that they also fall into the fire, less frequently indeed, yet it does happen; and it is evident that this disorder is very difficult to cure, so that those who have the power to cure demoniacs sometimes fail in respect of this, and sometimes with fastings and supplications and more toils, succeed" (Comm. Matt. 13.6 [ANF 9:478-9]).

Origen: "But let us also attend to this, 'This kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,' in order that if at any time it is necessary that we should be engaged in the healing of one suffering from such a disorder, we may not adjure, nor put questions, nor speak to the impure spirit as if it heard, but devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting, may be successful as we pray for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may thrust out the unclean spirit from him" (Comm. Matt. 13.7 [ANF 9:479]).

Bibliography: The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885-1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.

 

[Deacon]

I'm not ignoring you, I've been reading your posts.
It's been a particularly interesting week. :tonofbricks:

To nail down quotes from the fathers and whether they match up to a particular gospel or are just loosely quoted from a clouded memory, you'll need to see their original Greek writings, best searched for in a major theological library by looking in the volumes of Jacques Paul Migne’s, Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca .

It would require quite a bit of work (way too much for me). :saint:

Best bet, his volumes could probably be found in the Library of Congress.

Rob

 

[jonathan.borland]

I have access to Migne's PG series online (a very valuable resource), here's the link. However, in Migne's day only a Greek fragment of Origen's In Exodum homiliae was available (merely 1.5 pages on the Migne PDF). Since then, a copy of Rufinus' Latin translation of the work was discovered, and it has been published in Biblia Patristica for one. But I don't have access to Western libraries at the moment, being out of the country indefinitely. If anyone has access to BP and can get me the Latin text of Hom. Exod. 2.3 (Biblia Patristica, vol. 3, page 158, line 19 [and surrounding context]), that would be awesome.

I will slowly be posting all the patristic evidence for Matt 17:21 as I have time, with critical comments and various musings.

By the way, did you know that the oldest Coptic manuscript of Matthew by at least 50 years, the Schøyen Codex (ca. 325-350), includes Matthew 17:21?

 

[Deacon]

Wow, I bookmarked that site!!! :applause:

I'll be following your posts but you're far past my abilities.

If anything you've convinced me that Metzger's {A} ranking should probably be a {C} :thumbsup:

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

Wow, I bookmarked that site!!! :applause:

I'll be following your posts but you're far past my abilities.

If anything you've convinced me that Metzger's {A} ranking should probably be a {C} :thumbsup:

Rob

What, disagree with Metzger? Is that allowed on the BB? :laugh:

Seriously, you guys are beyond me. Splendid discussion! :thumbsup:

 

[jonathan.borland]

Also very early are the Letters on Virginity by Clement of Rome or Pseudo-Clement (ca. 100-200; whether they are by Clement of Rome or a later pseudonymous author is still hotly debated, with very learned Roman Catholic scholars generally ascribing them to Clement of Rome and the Protestants to someone else, perhaps ca. 175-200, which nevertheless is extremely early).

Pseudo-Clement: "Such men are 'like a sounding pipe, or a tinkling cymbal;' and they bring no help to those over whom they make their adjurations; but they speak with terrible words, and affright people, but do not act with true faith, according to the teaching of our Lord, who hath said: 'This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer,' offered unceasingly and with earnest mind" (Ps.-Clem. Ep. de virg. 1.12 [ANF 8:59]).

1. The document, as a whole, supports ascetic tendencies. Some orthodox in the early church raised their guard against asceticism for various reasons, like its connection to cults (e.g., Gnostic and Manichaean sects), its prescription as normative for Christian practice, etc. It will be argued later that for such reasons some orthodox believers, with pure motives indeed, attempted to alleviate said opponents' biblical support through emendation of Matt 17:21 and Mark 9:29 (and perhaps even 1 Cor 7:5) by either removing or tampering with them. (More on this in a post to come much later after much research. No, I'm not turning into Bart Ehrman, but merely recognizing the fact that orthodox "corruption" of the Scripture certainly did occur but usually only on a small scale and without much success.)

2. The wording follows Matthew's (17:21) and not Mark's (9:29) version of the passage. This is not surprising since Mark was generally neglected in the early church.

3. The inversion of "prayer and fasting" is due to the Syriac form in which the letters have been preserved. A standard protocol of Syriac translation is to invert pairs of things.

4. It is widely recognized that pseudepigraphic writers in the early church predominantly cite the Bible more than anything else, presumably in order to gain acceptance for their views. Hence these authors would start with something everyone accepted as true from the Bible before distorting it or digressing from it to accomplish their individual purposes. Also for this reason it must generally be assumed that the author, whether Clement himself or someone else, actually quoted Matthew 17:21 at this place.

Jonathan C. Borland

For everyone's benefit I took a picture of the part containing the passage from the appendix to vol. 2 of Johann Jakob Wettstein, Novum Testamentum graecum (2 vols.; Amstelaedami: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751, 1752).

 

[jonathan.borland]

Juvencus (ca. 330) is a significant witness for the inclusion of Matt 17:21 not only because he is early but also because of his distant location, Spain. He predates Jeromes's Vulgate by at least 50 years and therefore is a valuable witness to the Old Latin tradition, which must have been present in Spain by the middle of the second century, since Irenaeus (Haer. 1.10) and Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 7) both mention the presence of churches there. Apparently the Spanish churches were associated with those in North Africa (cf. Cyprian, Epistulae 67 [CSEL 3:735-43]). In short, Juvencus helps to demonstrate both the early and widespread provenance of Matt 17:21.

Juvencus: "For by means of limitless prayers it is faith and much fasting of determined soul that drive off this kind of illness" (Libri evangeliorum quattuor 3.379-80).

The passage is from Book 3 and is decidedly from Matthew. In lines 371-372 the disciples ask Jesus why their cure for the boy was unsuccessful, and then in lines 373-378 comes the Lord's reply about their unsteady faith and the illustration of the mustard seed and moving mountains.

"Throughout the body of the work Juvencus follows the Gospel of Matthew for the most part. He almost entirely ignores Mark but does excerpt some material from Luke and John. . . . Parts of Book 2 are drawn from John's Gospel, but in Book 3 Juvencus follows only Matthew" (Carl P. E. Springer, The Gospel as Epic in Late Antiquity: the Paschale Carmen of Sedulius [Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 2; Leiden: Brill, 1988], 54).

Jerome: "Juvencus, a Spaniard of noble family and presbyter, translating the four gospels almost verbally in hexameter verses, composed four books. He wrote some other things in the same metre relating to the order of the sacraments. He flourished in the reign of Constantinus" (Vir. ill. 84 [NPNF2 3:379]).

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[jonathan.borland]

The UBS Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) cites Asterius for including Matt 17:21. I'm wondering if anyone can help me identify (1) which Asterius this is and (2) in what work does he cite or allude to Matt 17:21. Any help would be very greatly appreciated!

 

[John of Japan]

The UBS Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) cites Asterius for including Matt 17:21. I'm wondering if anyone can help me identify (1) which Asterius this is and (2) in what work does he cite or allude to Matt 17:21. Any help would be very greatly appreciated!

Never even heard of the guy. Was he a Baptist? Or isn't he a German cartoon character? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Deacon]

Probably Asterius Urbanus [LINK]

From:
Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (335).

My electronic version of UBS doesn't note Mt 17.21 or say anything about Asterius. :tear:

Rob

 

[jonathan.borland]

Can someone who has Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary please post his treatment on Matt 17:21 along with the page number(s) in his book where it is found? Much thanks in advance!

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[jonathan.borland]

Here is Philip W. Comfort:

"The external evidence against including this verse is substantial, including ℵ* B (the two earliest manuscripts), 0281 (a seventh-century manuscript discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery in the late twentieth century) and early witnesses of Old Latin, Coptic, and Syriac. If the verse was originally part of Matthew's gospel, there is no good reason to explain why it was dropped from so many early and diverse witnesses. Thus, it is far more likely that this added verse was assimilated from Mark 9:29 in its long form, which has the additional words 'and fasting.' In fact, the same manuscripts (ℵ2 C D L W f1,13 Maj) that have the long form in Mark 9:29 have the additional verse here. Thus, a scribe took the full verse of Mark 9:29 as presented in his manuscript and inserted it here; most other manuscripts maintained this insertion in the transmission of the text. (The short form in Mark 9:29 appears in ℵ* B.) The verse is included in KJV and NKJV and excluded in all other modern versions except NASB and HCSB which include the verse in brackets" (New Testament Text and Translation Commentary [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2008], 51).

My brief comments based on the evidence already mentioned in this thread:

1. The earliest Old Latin manuscripts (including the oldest of them all) actually include the verse.
2. The oldest and most important Coptic manuscript of Matthew actually includes the verse.
3. There are no early fathers who are known not to have read the verse in their copies (cf. Griesbach's note on Eusebius' canons), while many are known to have read the verse in their copies.
4. There are many reasons why the verse would have been omitted by a scribe or editor, not the least of which is a limited orthodox attempt to remove support for certain ascetic practices of those followers of Valentinus, Saturninus, Marcion, not to mention the Encratite, Gnostic, Manichaean heresies.
5. There are great difficulties with the view that the Matthean version of the verse arose from Mark 9:29.
6. Actually less than half of the 10 Greek manuscripts that omit Matt 17:21 also omit "and fasting" in Mark 9:29, and the Latin, Old Latin (except k), Old Syriac, Syriac, and Coptic all support "and fasting" in that place.
7. It is indeed more likely, given the slim external evidence for the omission in both places, that the same force was behind both omissions. That force, however, was unable to overcome the velocity of the already multiplying copies of manuscripts that included the passages. The strong support of the versions and especially the fathers also support this preliminary conclusion.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[jonathan.borland]

Another internal reason for the authenticity of Matt 17:21 is Matthew's tendency to include exceptions (e.g., 5:22 [in most mss]; 5:32; 19:9).

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[TomVols]

That's an interesting point.