Featured The objective truth of God's word.

Yes I know that. As I said before if the first manuscript has an error and it is copied 100 times you now have 101 manuscripts with the error. The question you still have not dealt with is context. It is much more likely that the ending "and fasting" was added when you look at the context.

Despite the large number of witnesses in its favor, the NA28 has rejected this variant, a decision most modern commentators seem to agree with. The accretion of and fasting is understood to reflect a later ecclesiastical emphasis on fasting. Quoting Metzger’s textual commentary:
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament., Second Edition. 1994 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.

The oldest potential Greek witness is the P45vid, as it is 3rd century; but its reading is only "apparent" per NA28 because the actual part of the papyrus document at that point is missing. However, the Latin witnesses range from 2nd - 5th century according to NA28, showing the reading is just as ancient, if not more so, than the manuscripts omitting. So there is early testimony in the versions.

Even though there are many manuscripts that do include these words, the earliest and best do not. Because the addition (but not the omission) is easily explained by the prevalent emphasis on fasting in the early church, it is likely that it was not part of the original text. Interestingly, some Byzanatine manuscripts of Acts 10:30 and 1 Cor 7:5 have similar additions.

I am not saying this is conclusive evidence but it does give weight to the position that I have presented, "and fasting" is an addition to the text.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Scribal-Skips-1300-Words-Bible/dp/1483461874/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=67UGIQDIN1LI&keywords=scribal+skips&qid=1683386300&s=books&sprefix=scribal+skip,aps,202&sr=1-1

Here is an excellent, inexpensive book to judge the character of manuscripts, whether they accidently delete text a lot or very little. An eye opening book. Any one with intrest in the Text of the Bible should have. Especially the New Testament.

 

I have mostly just read the New Testament part, and it was excellent! Eye skip affected alot of early scribes. I doubt any manuscripts are free from it.

 

That is true. Almost all substantial textual Variants came to be in the 2nd century AD. The older manuscripts are our record of this wild time. However, like you said the older ones were not copied much. Nowhere near like the excellent copies of what we call the Byzantine Text.

While the agreements of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus go way back to the wild 2nd century, they go back to the time when almost all substantial variants came to be. But the Original Text goes back further to the first century AD.

This little book shows that the missing words in Vaticanus/Sinaiticus (and others) are due to accidental scribal skips by a common ancestor that goes way back to the 2nd century.

Certainly Westcott&Hort, Metzger, the Alands are wrong about the Original Text. They thought the missing text to be original. Turns out the missing words were accidental scribal skips.

 

I am pretty sure all of the original books were written this century. Not sure if they were issued together as a completed one volume New Testament and circulated in one volume, but they were all written by then.

The wild 2nd century, when most variants came into existence.

There are some New Testament Papyrus manuscripts from this century.

Codex's Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are dated this century.

Codex Alexandrinus, which is Byzantine in the Gospels was written in this century.

Which means we should not be making the mistakes from the 18-1900's anymore.

 

That is not what I said so please do not put words in my mouth. As I said the context does not requite "and fasting". If you want to put it in that is your choice. It is not required in the text and for all you know those words could have been added to Mat 17:21.

 

Don't you understand that it is not the fasting but the prayer to our living God that is important. You are letting your own bias come into the verse. Are you saying that if a person does not fast then their prayers are of no use?

Jas_5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

 

Yes I know what you are saying but you are factually wrong when you say "Matthew 17:21 text does not exist without both "prayer and fasting""

"Many modern English translations give the largest weight to a couple of early manuscripts (א and Β). They take the approach that oldest must be nearest to the original and therefore the most reliable. The oldest manuscripts do not include Matthew 17:21 (and omit “fasting” in the parallel verse at Mark 9:29). So English translations based on the oldest Greek manuscripts follow suite. An exception would be the NASB and HCSB (now CSB) which include the verse, but place it in brackets: indicating they prefer the older manuscripts, but also deem the variant to be important enough not to relegate it to a footnote.

Other translations, such as the KJV and NKJV, have a different philosophy regarding manuscripts. They do not assume that the oldest manuscript is necessarily more reliable and follow the "majority text" (MT) manuscript family—which includes Matthew 17:21 and mentions prayer and fasting in Mark 9:29. This philosophy of translation, in simplified form, sees the majority of manuscripts as a better witness to the original autographs than the oldest." Q333 : Why is Matthew 17:21 Omitted from Some Bibles?

"Many important MSS (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include Mat_17:21 "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." The verse is included in א2 C D L W À1,13 œ 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 (i.e., Mar_9:29)" (TCGNT 35)." New English Translation Notes


You are hanging your hat on the majority text as being the best because there are more of those manuscripts around, I would have to guess. But more does not mean better. An error copied 100 times is still an error. What is to say that the words "and fasting" were not in the best texts but were added latter by a scribe and then his error was just copied.

Also as you have said these are parallel passages and the context does not support your view that "and fasting" is required. It is illogical to think that Jesus would have to fast first before He could cast out the demon but that is what you are saying was necessary. For you to hold that view He should have said to the father, I have to go fast first so I will be back is three days.

The context and logic do not support your case.

 

Small correction here. The KJV and NKJV were translated from the Textus Receptus, and not the Majority Text. The two Texts, while close, are not the same. There are around 1000 translatable differences between them.

The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text

 

37 I understand that you want to hold to the idea that "and fasting" is in those verses but the context does not require that they be and I have to agree with B. M. Metzger "Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses".

Many important MSS (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include Mat_17:21 "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." The verse is included in א2 C D L W À1,13 œ 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... Logically if the whole verse is omitted then the words"and fasting" would also be omitted

If the omission of those words made a radical difference to the text then you would have a case but they do not.

I have to depend upon bible scholars for my information such as you do. What I have shown you presents a solid case for the omission and you say what you have presented gives a solid case for the inclusion. So we will have to agree to disagree.