Is Matthew 17.21 missing from your version of the Bible?

[JimB]

Is Matthew 17.21 missing from your version of the Bible?

Matthew 17.21 (Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting, KJV) is missing from my NIV Bible. In fact it is missing from a lot of modern translations?

Why?

 

[probinson]

It would seem, from the footnotes in my Bibles, that v21 was not included in all manuscripts. But it isn't technically "missing" from any version that I have. Just relegated to a footnote.

Why? I have no idea.

 

[NewSong]

That would be a problem with the early manuscripts ir a difference in the earlier manuscripts and I bet you have that little note in all of your Bible's too, but don't let it alarm anyone, it is still the written word of God.

Mark 9:29 (New American Standard Bible)


29And He said to them, "This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer."

------------------------------------
Mark 9:29 (New King James Version)

29 So He said to them, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.”

--------------------------------
Mark 9:29
(Amplified Bible)

29And He replied to them, This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting.

 

[KleinerApfel]

In my NIV, UK version, they placed it in parentheses, indicating they had some uncertainty about it:

[But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.]

 

[Trish1947]

There's a listing that shows how they monkey around with scripture..I think we have to learn Greek or better yet just trust the Holy Spirit as your guide.

http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

 

[TexasSky]

Ancient manuscripts that were copied often had "notes in the side" added by the translators.

Sometimes when these "copies were copied" the new versions carried the "notes" as actual text.

When the King James bible was written there were (correct me if my memory is faulty) approximately 3 manuscripts used. This was after the fire at Alexandria too, so the 3 were "copied" manuscripts. They were also poorly perserved so very difficult to read. To solve some problems with this, the translators of King James looked at the Latin Vulgate and the Geneva for help.

Any translation after the early 1970's had thousands of manuscripts to compare, and though they were also after the Alexandria fire, they were copied earlier, or closer to the time the origianls were written than the copies used to make the King James.

The translators of NIV disagreed on whether to include vs that appeared in KJ but not in the majority of the manuscripts. When they found only 1 or 2 examples in the manuscripts they would put it in parenthesis. If they didn't find it all, they put it in the footnotes.

Now - in defense of the King James. MORE discoveries have confirmed that the verses were actually in at least 1 manuscript. New printings of NIV and other bibles move these from footnote to parenthetical again.

 

[Jesusong]

I'm at work right now so I don't have access to my Greek commentaries. When I get home I'll look it up and post a response some time this evening. There is a legitimate reason.

 

[oneshot012]

From my memory the KJV used the Textus Receptus which was not three manuscripts but two. One for the OT and one for the NT it may have been 3 but I thought it was two. Though the reason for the verse missing in one version from the other is that not all manscripts include that verse espicially the older manuscripts. I am postive you know this and you are only doing this to try and bring something out to us, but when they (scholars) find that older manscripts don't have a particular verse they take them and begin to rate them on a scale. The higher up the scale the more likely it was in the original text and not an addition by the copiest and a mis copy. For example the Our Father prayer has something at the end of the prayer "for thine is the Kingdom the glory and the power forever amen" or something of that nature. Since it does not appear in the oldest manscripts of Matthew it is rated lower. The rest of the text of that prayer would be rated say and "A" and the other text based upon appeatance would be rated like a "B" or a "C" or a "D". I think "D" is the lowest. I think A and B text are given with no footnote while C and D variations are given with a footnote in most Bibles. Furthermore the reason for footnoting in mordern translations has the to do with the issue of the amount of manscripts used as I was mentioned above. The more manscripts used the more comparitive texts you have. Now with most of the texts of your Bible there is little or no variation. I think one teacher in Bible College said 98% of your Bible is not argueable. There are a few pasages though such as John 8, Mark 16, this verse and a few others that are debateable. So if you have issues like this were there is not as much textual credibility what they do is footnote it to let you know at least one manscript has it. Or if it is minor they footnote a word variation due to incorrect wording of the text by the copiest. Such as if they misplaced a word out of order.

Well I think that pretty much covers it. As for this verse I think it does not have great frequencey in other manuscripts. But then we raise the issue of is there really the Textus Recptus or not.

Hope this helps. Please feel free to add or subtract as I am doing this from my memory and I learned about this in one class for one session about 3 years ago.

 

[oneshot012]

Sorry it double posted, I really dislike that.

 

[JimB]

Great posts.

The scripture is omitted (or footnoted) in modern translations because the verse is not found in older manuscripts of the NT discovered since 1611 that are chronologically closer to the orignal. For that reason it was determined that there is a strong likelihood that it was added by a copyist at a later dater either as their own notes which found its way into the text or as an addition to add weight to the passage.


The immediate context of the verse reads:

20 So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.

​

Perhaps, to the mind of the copyist, this seemed too simple, that surely more must be required of a believer in order for them to move mountains. So the copyist added their subjective qualifier:

21 However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.

​

I am not saying this is how I view it, but that’s what they say.

 

[oneshot012]

So out of curisosity if you knew the reason why it was not orginally in there why did you ask that question?

 

[JimB]

So out of curisosity if you knew the reason why it was not orginally in there why did you ask that question?

Who says I knew the answer? (But thanks anyhow). I only told you what I heard/read. I’d like to hear other views (like those above).

 

[Jesusong]

Ok, here's what I have found in my library.

According to "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" we read the following:

"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

The committee gave this passage an A rating indicating that the passage is certain.

The NIV General Editor Kenneth Barker had this to say in his book "The Accuracy of The NIV:

"Where is this verse in the NIV? It is in the footnote. Ralph Earle explains: To answer this question we should first turn to Mark 9:29 … "and fasting" is not found in our two fourth-century manuscripts (cf. NIV). It apparently was added in the fifth century, when much emphasis was being given to Gnostic asceticism and to monasticism. Then the whole of Mark 9:29 was inserted in Matthew. But Matthew 17:21 is not found in our two earliest manuscripts."

Philip W. Comfort has this to say in his book, "Essential Guide To Bible Versions"

"Several manuscripts do not include verse 21. Let us look at the textual evidence:

Exclude verse 21
Aleph, B, 33, it, syr, cop

Other manuscripts include the verse which reads: "This kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting."
Aleph(2nd corrector), C, D, L, W, f1, Majority Text – TR.

This verse was assimilated from Mark 9:29 in its long form, which has the additional words "and fasting." In fact the same manuscripts that have the long form in Mark 9:29 (C D L W f Maj) have the additional verse here. Thus some scribe(s) took the full verse of Mark 9:29 as presented in his manuscript and inserted it here; most other later manuscripts maintained this insertion in the transmission of the text."

The age of some of these manuscripts are as follows:
Aleph (aka Codex Sinaiticus) : 4th Century. The corrections by a later copyist seem to be from the 7th century.
B (aka Codex Vaticanus) : 4th Century.
C (aka Codex Ephraemi) : 5th century
D (aka Codex Bezae) : 5th Century
L (aka Codex Regius) : 8th Century
W (aka Codex Washingtonianus) : Late 4th or 5th Century
33 : 9th Century
f1 : four cursive mss of a Byzantine text type 7th –14th Century
syr : 5th Century Syriac text
cop : There are two – Sahidic 3rd Century, Bohairic 4th or 5th Century
TR : Textus Receptus: The Greek text of the KJV which was a compilation of 7 mss no earlier than the 11th Century.
Majority Text : A collection of mss that make up the majority of the text of the Greek New Testament. Most of these manuscripts are of late origin (9th century and later) and are written in cursive script.

 

[Svt4Him]

Is it missing or was it added?

Hmmm.

 

[lunalinda]

*cues Jeopardy theme*

 

[oneshot012]

Ok, here's what I have found in my library.

According to "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" we read the following:
The committee gave this passage an A rating indicating that the passage is certain.

The NIV General Editor Kenneth Barker had this to say in his book "The Accuracy of The NIV:


Philip W. Comfort has this to say in his book, "Essential Guide To Bible Versions"


The age of some of these manuscripts are as follows:
Aleph (aka Codex Sinaiticus) : 4th Century. The corrections by a later copyist seem to be from the 7th century.
B (aka Codex Vaticanus) : 4th Century.
C (aka Codex Ephraemi) : 5th century
D (aka Codex Bezae) : 5th Century
L (aka Codex Regius) : 8th Century
W (aka Codex Washingtonianus) : Late 4th or 5th Century
33 : 9th Century
f1 : four cursive mss of a Byzantine text type 7th –14th Century
syr : 5th Century Syriac text
cop : There are two – Sahidic 3rd Century, Bohairic 4th or 5th Century
TR : Textus Receptus: The Greek text of the KJV which was a compilation of 7 mss no earlier than the 11th Century.
Majority Text : A collection of mss that make up the majority of the text of the Greek New Testament. Most of these manuscripts are of late origin (9th century and later) and are written in cursive script.

Wow it was given an A rating that is really good. I didn't know that. Then information on the mansctipts that is priceless.

 

[Svt4Him]

The davinci code answers the question very well. It is not in some because women were suppose to rule.

 

[Jesusong]

Is it missing or was it added?

The verse in question, Matt 17:21 was added. The verse was taken from Mark 9:29. The probability that the verse does not belong in Matthew is certain which is an A rating.

Now another issue arises when you look at Mark 9:29 whick reads:

KJV: "And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting."

NIV: "He replied, This kind can come out only by prayer."

The question that needs to be asked now is did Mark include the words "and fasting" in his text?

"A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" has this to say:

In light of the increasing emphasis in the early church on the necessity of fasting, it is understandable that καὶ νηστείᾳ is a gloss that found its way into most witnesses. Among the witnesses that resisted such an accretion are important representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text.
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York

The probability that the words "and fasting" did not originate with Mark are certain which is given an A rating.

To re-quote what the reasons were from Kenneth Barker's "The Accuracy of the NIV" we read:

To answer this question we should first turn to Mark 9:29 … "and fasting" is not found in our two fourth-century manuscripts (cf. NIV). It apparently was added in the fifth century, when much emphasis was being given to Gnostic asceticism and to monasticism.

The earliest manuscript that contains Mark 9:29 is p45 which is dated from the 3rd Century, and the leaf goes from 9:18-9:31. At 9:29, the phrase "and fasting" is not present. As the explaination states above, it does not show up in the manuscripts till the 5th Century.

 

[luvinjesus111]

If it's in the Bible it's the word of God. If we believe the Bible to be the very breath of God then stick to it. I go by King James but I do have others I refer to. King James has been the Bible for many years so I trust God that whats in there it what he wants us to go by. If we start debating over what's in King James then IMHO we may start to question the authority of Gods Word.

 

[Jesusong]

If it's in the Bible it's the word of God. If we believe the Bible to be the very breath of God then stick to it. I go by King James but I do have others I refer to. King James has been the Bible for many years so I trust God that whats in there it what he wants us to go by. If we start debating over what's in King James then IMHO we may start to question the authority of Gods Word.

But, if Mark didn't write something in his gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but later on someone else added to what he wrote, is the added material considered God breathed? In this instance the words "and fasting" found in Mark 9:29. The evidence is showing that Markk did not write those words, but someone else did 400 years later. Are those words God-breathed even though the Holy Spirit didn't inspire Mark to write them? And, if the Holy Spirit didn't have Mark write them, did Jesus actually say those words??? If Jesus didn't say them, then we are guilty of putting words into Jesus' mouth.