Followers

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Mark Ward and His Ridiculous Claim about the KJV

          

Dr. Mark Ward
 If you know me at all you know that I am not, never have been, and never will be an advocate of KJV-Onlyism.  The more I study the position the more I am tempted to completely dismiss dogmatic KJV-Onlyism as a schismatic and somewhat cultic position that is not so much a position as a condition.  Dogmatic KJV-Onlyists such as Will Kinney (with whom I had a lengthy debate earlier this year) seem to confuse their simple ability to be stubborn as if it is a point in favor of their position.


            But this past week I witnessed a position from the opposite camp 
 from a user of multiple modern versions based on the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilations of the New Testament  that is in its own way no less extreme.  Dr. Mark Ward, an editor at Crossway known for his blog, his editorial work at Crossway, and his book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, in the course of a debate with Dr. Dan Haifley, stated, if I understand him correctly, that it is a sin to give a child a King James Bible.  The footage is here (click the embedded link), following the 1:18:00 mark of the debate.   

   
            Mark Ward stated "The King James should be revised or replaced in institutional settings like this pulpit, like Scripture memory curriculums, like Bible colleges, like revivals, even the signage outside your church."

           So far so good.  Then Dr. Ward went on to say (following the 1:21:00 mark of the debate) "There comes a point at which it's so close to this ditch that actually it is a sin for a given Bible translation to be handed to children.  I'm saying we've reached the point where there's a sufficient number of readability difficulties that it's time to turn away from the King James in institutional  contexts.  Would I say it's a sin to hand to your child?  Here's what I'd say, quoting the King James:  to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin."  

            He kept going, telling his audience, "Don't hand unintelligible words to your children," and "It's between you and God whether it's a sin or not, but don't do it."

            To which I say:  Ridiculous.

            Most New Testaments include the book of Revelation.  Give 100 twelve-year-olds copies of the book of the Apocalypse of Sant John and ask them to interpret chapter thirteen, (using the Contemporary English Version or the English Standard Version), without assistance from ecclesiastical authorities, all on their own, and I predict that you will get 100 different interpretations (I haven't tested this suspicion; readers are invited to test my theory) and lots of questions about the intelligibility of this piece of apocalyptic literature.  

            Mark Ward seems to have missed a fundamental point about the intelligibility of Scripture.  No Scripture was ever written with the understanding that its readers would be in a literary and educational vacuum.  Christians are instructed to worship together.  Christians should consider the Scriptures together - a practice known in modern times as group Bible Study.  The same person who affirmed that some things in the Pauline epistles are hard to understand (even for adults) also commanded his readers (in II Peter 3:18) to "Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."  

            We are expected to mature.  With maturity comes new understanding of what was once unintelligible.  We are expected to fellowship together.  We are expected to learn.  We should progress beyond a childhood understanding of a melodious tortoise when reading Song of Solomon 2:12b ("the voice of the turtle is heard in our land").  The fact that children can read as children and misunderstand things does not render the King James Version full of shortcomings.  The shortcoming is in the individual's level of comprehension - which is constantly changing.   

            Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood.  Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth.      

            Ask an American twelve-year-old to interpret Isaiah 10:9 (KJV:  "Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus?"   ESV:  "Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?") without resorting to a commentary.  For that matter, ask a twenty-year-old American or Canadian to interpret the verse.  I predict that 99 out of 100 will say "I do not understand this."  Does such a lack of understanding reflect a flaw in the translation, or a lack of maturity in the individual interpreter?  Surely the latter.  And a lack of maturity, or the characteristic of being underinformed, is the real problem in what Mark Ward tries to frame as reasons not to use the KJV over and over and over.            

           In the real world people who are determined to understand the Bible will seek out resources like BibleRef and the Blue Letter Bible (with its collection of commentaries) and LEARN.  Even in a fantasy realm in which children are incapable of becoming smarter and more literate and learning new things, it would not be remotely sinful to give a child a KJV, because it is better to have some truth than none of it.  

            I encourage Mark Ward:  come out of your fantasyland in which children never grow up and are incapable of learning new things.  Thomas Nelson Publishers disagrees with you.  They publish a children's version of the KJV.  Lo and behold Hendrickson Publishers also publish a Childrens KJV New TestamentLifeway and Holman Bible Publishers also publishes a Kids KJV.  There are even KJV Bibles marketed to be given to illiterate babies.  The KJV Armor of God Bible is marketed with the claim that it is "perfect for ages 6-10."  Is it sinful to give such Bibles?  No.  Dr. Ward, stop observing ignorance in action and concluding that ignorance must be accommodated.  Say instead that ignorance must be reduced via learning.

            For my part, although I prefer the New Testament in the EOB New Testament and the Evangelical Heritage Version and the New King James Bible and the World English Bible over the KJV New Testament, I would happily give the King James Bible to a child if the only other option was to give no Bible at all – which is a real scenario in some places.  Exceptionally rare is the occasion when a Bible is given and the giver can perfectly foresee how accurately it will be interpreted.  

            The act of sharing a Bible in any English translation is an act of faith that God will use it to convey his message as the reader will continue to study and learn.  Some sinful perversions masquerading as translations (such as the "Clear Word" and "The Passion Translation" and the Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation") are to be avoided by the flock of God, or else used only as examples of what translators should not do.   The King James Version does not fall into that category.  Dr. Ward, if James 3:10 implies that giving a KJV to a child is sinful because of a risk of misinterpretation, then giving a Bible – KJV, ESV, NIV, NRSV – to any immature person is sinful, because the element of risk remains.  Stop being silly.

           Paul told Timothy (in Second Timothy 4:15) that "from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures" (EHV).  He seems to have regarded this as a good thing - not because he ever imagined that an infant's level of comprehension never changes, but because he trusted the Holy Spirit to work through the Scriptures to make Timothy wise unto salvation.





         

 


  

Monday, October 21, 2024

GA 560 - Another Gospels-manuscript with Distigmai

GA 560 is a thousand-year-old copy of the four Gospels, containing an esentially Byzantine text.  It resides at the University of Glasgow as Manuscript Hunter 475.  Its Gospels text is preceded by 17 pages of material – instructions for a wedding service, and priestly vows.  Then comes Ad Carpianus and a simple well-executed Canon Tables before the Gospel of Matthew begins.  Each evangelist has a full-page icon.    Colorful headpieces are full size.

 

There is a minimal series of marginal notes constituting variant readings.  Making GA 560 somewhat unusual, these are denoted with distigmai (umlauts) in the text, linked to umlauts or colons in the margin. 

 

In Mark 4:17 the words και διωγμου δια τον λογον ευθεως are missing in the main text; a colon appears above the line.  They are supplied in the side margin alongside a colon.

 


In Mk 7:2 after αρτους the word εμεμψατο or εμεμψαντο is not in the main text.  It is supplied in the side margin; over-trimming has resulted in the loss of the final syllable.

 

In Mark 8:34 the text reads ακολουθειν, the majority reading, but the reading in the margin is ελθειν, supported by À A Β Κ L Π et al.  Distigmai link the two readings.

 

In Mark 10:17 there is nothing between εις οιδον and προσδραμων.  The words ιδου τις πλούσιος (read by A Κ Π Θ 700) are in the side margin, linked to the spot in the text via distigmai.

 

In Mark 10:30 there is no occurrence of και πατέρα.  A kai-compendium and πρα appear in the margin beside a colon; a distigmai appears above the line.  Nearby in the margin is what appears to be a reference to Origen. 

 


In Mark 12:38, φιλον- appears in the margin beside a colon; a distigmai appears in the text over the line between και and ασπασμους.

 

In Mark 13:3, between επηρώτα and καθ’ ιδιαν there is nothing in the main text, but a distigmai is above the line.  In the eside margin the word αυτον appears beside a distigmai.


In Mark 14:43 a distigmai appears above the line between ιούδας and εις.  In the side margin ὁ ισκαριώτης appears beside a distigmai.

 

In Mark 15:12 between αποκριθεις and παλιν a distigmai is above the line.  In the side margin a distigmai accompanies πάλιν, which appears before αποκριθεις in À Β C Θ Ψ et al, and after αποκριθεις in A Δ K M Π and the usual Byzantine text.

 

In Luke 1:8 a distigmai appears above the line after αὐτον.  In the margin a distigmai accompanies ησαν.


At the end of Luke 1:21 a distigmai appears above the between αυτόν and εξελθών.  In the side margin a distigmai accompanies ἐν τῶ ναῶ.  As far as I know 560 and 700 uniquely omit these three words, which precede αυτόν in B L W Ψ 565 579.

In Luke 3:33, Ἀραμ is followed by τοῦ Ἰωράμ.  Then before τοῦ Ἑσρών a distigmai appears above the line.   In the side margin another distigmai accompanies τοῦ Ἀρνὶ.


At the end of Luke 4:10 a distigmai is above the line after σε.  In the side margin a colon accompanies ἐν πάσεις ταις οδοις σου, a f1 reading.

 

In Luke 7:26 after ουτός a distigmai appears above the line.  In the side margin another distigmai accompanies γαρ, which is read by f1 and U Θ Ψ 33 and 1424.

 

A distigmai appears above the line at the end of Luke 8:21.  In the margin another distigmai accompanies αὐτον, the usual Byzantine reading (not supported by W Π 700 or f1).

In Luke 9:19 a distigmai is above the line between προφήτης and τῶν.  A colon and a distigmai accompany τ[ις] in the margin.

At the end of Luke 11:28 a distigmai appears.  In the margin a colon accompanies αὐτον.

 

At the end of Luke 12:7 a distigmai appears.   In the margin a colon accompanies υμ[εις], which is attested by D F G Y K M Θ Π 33.


In Luke 23:8 a distigmai appears before ιδειν.  In the margin a dot accompanies χρόνου (also supported by N W Π 157 f1).

 

In Luke 24:24 the words αὐτον δε οὺκ ειδον are missing in the main text, and added in the nearby margin.  As far as I know 560 and 565 uniquely share this omission.

 

In John 4:31 after μαθηται a distigmai appears above the line; αυτοῦ is supplied in the margin beside another distigmai.

 

In John 5:4 a ٧ appears after αγγελος.  In the margin, κυ (κυρίου), which is also supported by A K L Y Π Δ.

 

In John 6:52 after σάρκα an umlaut is above the line.  In the margin αυτοῦ appears beside a colon.   Αυτοῦ is supported by B P66 and 1424. 

 

At the end of John 8:6 after γῆν a distigmai appears.  In the margin beside a colon is προσποιούμενος.  The word μὴ is absent. 

 

In John 8:10 after εισιν the words οί κατήγοροί σου are not in the text; they appear in the margin.

 

At the beginning of John 19:3 the words καὶ ηρχοντο προς αυτον are absent from the main text; they are supplied in the margin (agreeing with B P66 À L N W  Θ Λ Π).  

 

An intriguing collection of marginalia as well as proof of the use of distigmai by a (late) medieval scribe!   It may seem like this was a lot of work for the sake of some very small details  but even very small details mattered to the scribe who did the work.

 

The indexing of GA 560 was made at the request of Craig Harmon in memory of his beloved wife Becky J. Harmon. 

 

  


Wednesday, October 9, 2024

Scribes & Scripture - A Nice Addition to a New Testament Textual Critic's Bookshelf

Scribes & Scripture (full title Scribes and Scripture - The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible), by Peter J. Gurry and John D. Meade, is a 2022 release from Crossway.  It has three parts – (1) text, (2) canon, and (3) translation.  Competently written, this book is what John Barton’s A History of the Bible should have been.  There is not much new data in Scribes & Scripture – much of the same ground was plowed in books focused on one of the three parts, such as Paul Wegner’s The Journey from Texts to Translation.  

          Focusing on elements in the book that pertain to New Testament textual criticism, most of the authors’ review of the history of the text of the New Testament is unobjectionable, accurate, and tidy.  There are a few inaccuracies, such as the claim that “the majuscules stop around the end of the ninth century” (p. 85)   I was a bit disappointed reading pages 94-100, where four textual variants are examined (Mark 1:2, Luke 23:34, Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:53-8:11).   The authors arrive at incorrect conclusions in three out of four cases and their discussion of the remaining variation-unit (Lk. 23:34) is inconclusive.  Rather than echoing Metzger’s preference for the “in Isaiah the prophet” in Mark 1:2, the less specific reading (“in the prophets”) should be adopted. 

          Regarding Mark 16:9-20 the author says (p. 97) “Whether or not we should treat it as Scripture is a difficult question.”  Considering that Mark 16:9-20 is treated as Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Lutheran Church, and was included in the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the King James Version and all Reformation era Bibles, I have to wonder who the “we” is in that sentence.   

          In the discussion about John 7:53-8:11 the authors wrote that “Almost 270 continuous-text Greek manuscripts out of about1,500 do not have it” (p. 97).  It would have been better to say that 270 continuous-text Greek manuscripts do not have the passage while 1,500 do.

          The third section contains no mention of the translation work of Giannozzo Manetti; although Annet den Haan has drawn attention to this Renaissance scholar’s Latin translation of a Greek text of the New Testament apparently her work hasn’t yet trickled down to American evangelical scholars.   

          Scribes and Scripture does what its authors set out to do:  to explain how American evangelicals got their Bible.  With minor reservations, I recommend it.  

Monday, October 7, 2024

Meet GA 200 - A Definitive Byzantine Gospels Manuscript

          GA 200 never gets cited individually in the Nestle-Aland apparatus, or any other modern textual apparatus as far as I know.  Housed at the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy (Conv. Sopp. 159), the text of this fine thousand-year-old Gospels manuscript could practically serve as the definitive medieval text of the Gospels.  Its text is Byzantine – but it is not a member of family 35.

The beginning of Mark in GA 200

          Eusebius’ letter to Carpian precedes the five-page Canon-tables, with a pair of peacocks above the epistle in a quadrefoil frame.  The Gospels- text is written in dark brown ink; assorted comments in red occassionally frame the main text on up to three sides.

          Let’s take a closer look at 200’s text of Matthew.

 

Mt. 5:38 – σου σιαγόνα

Mt. 5:45 – includes τοις

Mt. 9:4 – reads ιδον before ο ις

Mt. 9:5 – σου after αφέωνται

Mt. 9:27 – υιε  

Mt. 10:28 – has την before ψυχην

Mt. 10:28 – has και before το σωμα

Mt. 11:16 – reads αγοραις

Mt. 11:16 – reads ετεροις

Mt. 11:21 – reads βεθσαιδα

Mt. 11:23 – reads υψωθεισα

Mt. 13:3 – reads σπειρειν

Mt. 13:15 – reads ιασομαι

Mt. 13:28 – reads συλλεξοεν

Mt. 13:33 – reads εκρυψεν

Mt. 15:39 – reads ανεβη

Mt. 17:2 – reads εγενετο

Mt. 17:27 – αναβαινοντα

Mt. 19:5 – does not have αυτου after ρπα

Mt. 19:5 – reads προσκολληθήσεται

Mt. 19:26 – does not have εστιν after δυνατα

Mt. 21:1 – reads βηθφαγη

Mt. 21:22 – reads εαν

Mt. 21:30 – reads ετέρω

Mt. 21:33 – reads τις after ανος

Mt. 22:9 – reads αν

Mt. 22:13 – reads χειρα και ποδας

Mt. 22:23 – does not read οι after σαδδουκαιοι

Mt. 22:32 – reads αυτῃ

Mt. 23:36 – reads ταυτα (no παντα)

Mt. 24:2 – reads ταυτα παντα  

Mt. 24:33 – reads ταυτα παντα  

Mt. 26:9 – has τοις before πτωχοις 

Mt. 26:11 – begins τουσ πτωχους γαρ παντοτε 

Mt.  26:15 – reads και εγω 

Mt. 26:17 – reads ετοιμάσομεν 

Mt. 26:33 – reads δε ουδέποτε   

Mt. 26:35 – reads απαρνήσομαι 

Mt. 28:11 reads και εκει

 

In John, the pericope adulterae appears at the usual place after 7:52 and begins και απηλθεν εκαστος εις τον οικον αυτου.

Jn 8:2 – βαθεως

Jn 8:3 – includes προς αυτον

Jn 8:4 – αυτοφώρω

Jn 8:5 – μωσης

Jn 8:5 – does not read περι αυτης after λεγεις

Jn 8:9 –  after γυναι:  ουδεις σε κατέκρινεν

 

After the end of the text of John, the subscription reads τελος του ια εωθινου και του αποστολ[ου].   There follow five and a half pages of Gregory Nazianzus' composition Against the Arians, and then a long list of lectionary-related material.

 

The entire manuscript is very well executed and is in excellent condition.  GA 200 is fully indexed at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.  




Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Another Misleading Footnote - First Nations Version

           This is not a review of the First Nations Version of the New Testament, the work of translators such as Terry Wildman and Gordon Campbell, Alvin Deer, Antonia Belindo, Bryan Jon Maciewski and others which was released in 2021.  Today I want to simply point out that despite being recommended by scholars such as Matthew Schlimm (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary) and  L. Daniel Hawk (Ashland Theological Seminary), the First Nations Version perpetuates false information in its footnote at the end of Mark 16:8.  

The footnote says, "Most ancient manuscripts end at this verse.  Some others include verses 9-20 as we have in this translation."

            The problem is that only two ancient Greek manuscripts end the text of Mark at the end of 16:8.  And the "some" is over 1,650 Greek manuscripts.  In addition, earlier witnesses such as Tatian's Diatessaron and Irenaeus (in about 180) support the inclusion of verses 9-20; Irenaeus explicitly cited Mark 16:19 in his third book of Against Heresies.

            I don't know why it seems so hard for some people to write an accurate footnote.  The possibility occurs to me that if they were accurate and let readers know how lopsided the external evidence is in favor of including Mark 16:9-20, readers would stop trusting the scholars who want to erase the passage from the Gospel of Mark.  I suspect that some people are rejecting Mark 16:9-20 not because of the evidence but because they don't like what this Scripture says - they don't like the idea that baptism normally is a step into salvation instead of a consequence of salvation; they want Jesus to say "He who believes and is saved shall be baptized" instead of "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."  Or perhaps they don't like reading an endorsement of glossolalia from the lips of Jesus because they believe that sort of thing isn't for modern-day Christians.  Whatever the reason, the headings and footnotes in a lot of modern versions at Mark 16:9 are pitiful.  A half-truth is a whole lie.  FIX YOUR FOOTNOTES, Bible publishers.  Crossway and Holman and Zondervan, I'm talking to you.  You can do it if you want to.

Thursday, September 26, 2024

Matthew 17:21 - What's the Early Evidence Say?

In the Evangelical Heritage Version, Matthew 17:21 says, "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”  The KJV, NKJV, EOB-NT, MEV, WEB, and 1995 NASB read similarly.  In the RV 1881, ASV, ESV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV, however, there is no such verse; the versification jumps from 20 to 22.  What has happened?

Bruce Manning Metzger
          Bruce Metzger did not spend many words explaining:  “Since there is no good reason why the passage, if originally present in Mathew, should have been omitted, 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.”  (Textual Commentary on the GNT, p. 43)  His concise treatment is unsatisfactory for at least three reasons, first of which is the consideration that Matthew himself when using Mark’s Gospel (or something closely resembling it) had no discernible reason to skip over this statement of Jesus. 

          Second, the external evidence merits a closer look.  Neither the apparatus in the UBS GNT nor the Nestle-Aland NTG is sufficient.  We begin with their data, supplemented by Swanson:  verse 21 is absent in À* B Q 579 788 892* l253 ite  ff1 the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, Palestinian Aramaic, the Sahidic version, some Bohairic witnesses, an Ethiopic witness, and an early strata of the Old Georgian version.    Everything else favors the inclusion of τοῦτο δὲ τό γένος ούκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ (Àc reads ἐκβάλλεται instead of ἐκπορεύεται, 118 reads ἐξέρχεται, and 205 1505 l1074 read εξέρχεται) – including C D F G H K L Y O W Y Δ Σ Φ 0281 f1 f13 28 157 180 565 597 678 700 892c 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 Byz Lect ita itaur itb itc itd itf itff2 itg1 it1 itn itq Vulgate Peshitta Harklean Syriac Armenian some Georgian, and the patristic evidence is lopsided in favor of inclusion:  Origen Asterius Basil-of-Caesarea Chrysostom Hilary Ambrose Jerome Augustine.  Hort noted that daemonii is sometimes added in Old Latin witnesses.  The writer of an article at NeverThirsty stated, “The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it” and “Apparently in the process of copying the manuscripts, someone at a much later date copied the verse from the Gospel of Mark and added it to the Matthew account. “

 

         Now let’s zoom in on some patristic witnesses. 

          In 2010 Jonathan C. Borland presented a paper titled “THE AUTHENTICITY AND INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 17:21” at a gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia.  He noted that 1604 2680 should be added to the list of MSS favoring non-inclusion, and that the percentage of Greek MSS favoring inclusion is 99.4%.  He also took a close look at some patristic witnesses:

          ● The author known as Pseudo-Clement, in Letters on Virginity (1:12) did not specify which Gospel he was quoting but the wording looks more like Matthew 17:21 than  Mark 9:29 when he wrote against individuals who “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.’”

          ● Clement of Alexandria, c. 200, in Extracts from the Prophets, wrote, “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.’”

          Tertullian, in de Jejun 8:2-3, without specifying whether he was citing Matthew or Mark, wrote the following:  “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?”

          Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew (13:6-7) wrote, “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.”  And, “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.”

          ● The Latin writer Juvencus wrote in Book 3 of Libri evangeliorum quattuor, “For by means of limitless prayers it is faith and much fasting of determined soul that drive off this kind of illness.”

          Although defenders of modern versions have claimed that “The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it,” antiquity in this case favors inclusion:  the oldest witness for inclusion is older than the oldest witness for non-inclusion.

          The scope of attestation also favors inclusion at least as much as it favors non-inclusion:  Western witnesses for inclusion far outnumber the Western witnesses for non-inclusion, and they are geographically widespread.

          We are left with the appeal to the “best” manuscripts as the basis for rejecting the verse.  But this is circular reasoning; the real question is “What are the best witnesses at this specific point?”, and generalizations simply do not answer that question. It is like deciding which football team wins the ballgame when the score is tied by asking which kicker has made the most field goals, instead of by actually scoring more points than the other team.  

          Third, this supposed harmonization doesnt yield a tight harmony.  Let’s compare the text of Matthew 17:21 to Mark 9:29.  Mark wrote, τοῦτο  τό γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθειν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.  (Regarding the Alexandrian text’s non-inclusion of καὶ νηστείᾳ, see my earlier analysis.)  Metzger’s plea that Mark 9:29 was transplanted into Matthew 17 is complicated by the distinct lack of verbal similarity:

          Matthew:  τοῦτο δὲ τό γένος ούκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.

          Mark:  τοῦτο τό γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθειν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.

          This is not a verbatim harmonization – out of 12 words (in Matthew 17:21), nine are identical – and Metzger’s comment that “copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel” fails to explain why a scribe with Mark 9:29 in front of him would change 25% of its wording when inserting it into the text of the Gospel of Matthew.  It should also be noted that the kind of harmonization Metzger referred to usually involved harmonization to the text of Matthew in Mark and Luke, not the other way around (the harmonization of Matthew 9:13 and Mark 2:17 to Luke 5:32 being a notable exception).

          I propose that an early Western scribe intentionally omitted the material we know as Matthew 17:21 out of concern that readers might think that the ability of the Son of God was limited depending on whether he fasted or not.  (The same concern motivated the omission of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark 9:29.)  This exclusion was subsequently adopted by scribes in the Alexandrian transmission-line, which led to the reading (or non-reading) in À B Q et al.

          Matthew 17:21 should be regarded as an authentic part of the Gospel of Matthew.  The oldest evidence, the most geographically diverse evidence, and the vast majority of evidence all point in favor of its inclusion.  The NIV, ESV, etc. should be corrected accordingly.




Thanks to Jonathan Borland for sharing his insightful research.