Was Matthew removed from modern Bibles? | onlineradiobg.info
Camila Cabello, 21, and her dating coach beau Matthew Hussey, 31, take Friendly with the family: The year-old singer's mom Sinuhe Estrabao was . Lisa Van Allen recall alleged underage threesomes Dated him at The Gospel According to Matthew is the first book of the New Testament and one of the three of possibility between AD 70 to (a pre date remains a minority view). . Jesus predicts his death (–28,–23,–19) . that are God's" (Matthew ), leaves them marveling at his words (Matthew ). They omit Matthew , and this judgment is given a B rating. the original text of Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus, which date from the 4th Century CE.
While the vast majority of the Latin tradition favors the verse, there are two Old Latin manuscripts that do not contain it: The verse is also missing in the earliest Syriac manuscripts: The Sinaitic Palimpsest fourth century and Curetonian Gospels fifth centuryas well as the later Palestinian Syriac. Thus, while the vast majority of late sources support the inclusion of the verse though a minority tradition of its absence in Matthew persists even in those later generationsour early sources are rather split on the matter.
Whatever happened to Matthew 17, an addition or a subtraction, it must have happened very early. Possible Explanations There are only four possible ways that this situation could have arisen: Either way, the original reading was preserved throughout the ages.
Whether in the majority or the minority tradition, whether with the verse or without it, one of these options is what Matthew wrote. Nothing has been lost here.
Further, even if the verse is not original in Matthew, most or all of it is original in Mark, and thus, either way, we have inspired testimony that Jesus did say at least most of what Matthew As far as teaching goes, the only thing at stake in this discussion is whether or not fasting is required along with prayer in order to cast out certain demons.
Obviously, this is by no means a central issue of the faith, and most King James Only churches I have attended are not actively trying to cast out demons, with or without fasting. Still, it is legitimate to be concerned with every word that God has revealed. We do not want to deny as Scripture anything that God truly inspired, nor do we want to call Scripture words of men which were added by a later scribe.
- Matthew 18
- Gospel of Matthew
The manuscript data is not, by itself, enough to settle the question. We have to consider the likelihood of our four possibilities. Accidental Omission The first option is that a scribe or even more than one scribe on different occasions accidentally skipped or omitted this sentence while copying Matthew's gospel.
Others copied this scribe's manuscript without noticing the error, and this led to the minority tradition in the manuscripts. This explanation is possible.
When someone is hand-copying a document, simple mistakes like skipped words, phrases, or even skipping an entire line certainly happen. Most scholars, however, doubt that this is the case here.
There are typical reasons to explain most scribal errors of this sort. When going back and forth between the page one is copying and the page one is writing on, one's eyes might accidentally jump to the same word in a different place on the page, causing one to skip a block of text.
Similarly, one might accidentally jump to a nearby word with a similar ending and copy on from there, having mistakenly skipped the words in between. And, of course, it is common to accidentally skip a line when working down the page. So, when there is text in one manuscript that is absent in another manuscript, scholars look for these kinds of features to see if it is easily explained by a common scribal mistake. In the case of Matthew Of course, anyone who has done a great deal of hand-copying or transcribing knows that sometimes our mistakes are not as clean and logical as this.
Sometimes we skip words or phrases and there is no clear or obvious reason why it happened. We didn't mean to, and none of the usual explanations apply, we just seem to have randomly messed up.
Thus, an accidental omission is still possible, but there are reasons to think it unlikely. First, these kind of "random" mistakes are rarely clean and precise, and usually result in a nonsense reading that is obviously a mistake. Here, if the verse is original, we are talking about the removal of one exact clause from beginning to end with no additional words removed and no part of the clause left behind.
It is, of course, possible that this could happen by pure chance as a random error, but it is not probable. Intentional Deletion This brings us to the second option. Maybe some scribe removed the phrase on purpose, perhaps to further some theological agenda or because he had some erroneous reason for thinking it was not original. While these kinds of explanations make good headlines, we should always be careful about running to them too quickly.
The fact of the matter is, scribes were, for the most part, dedicated to faithfully preserving the document in front of them, especially those who held the document to be sacred. The vast majority of textual variants can be explained by honest mistakes, mental lapses, misreading, or errors in judgment. We need not and should not rush to the conclusion of scribes willfully altering the texts they copied however they saw fit. This simply doesn't fit the facts, especially among the New Testament manuscripts.
Further, while we can come up with all kinds of imaginative stories about why a scribe might do just about anything, there is no obvious reason why any scribe would desire to remove this particular verse.
The power and importance of fasting became more emphasized as we move forward through church history, not less. The only early Christian documents that ever say any negative thing about fasting are not talking about all fasting but only about Christians who participate in traditional Jewish fasts such as the Day of Atonement or the Jewish weekly fast days. Some later Christians saw this as a dangerous compromise and opposed it, but those same Christians firmly believed in Christian fasting traditions.
Nothing in Matthew Indeed, there is no evidence-based reason why a scribe might willfully delete the verse, only imaginative speculations about why someone theoretically could want to do so.
This is why Bruce Mezger concluded: At first glance, this seems unlikely.
How does a scribe accidentally add an entire phrase that was not in the text they were looking at? Isn't that the kind of thing that, if it happens, has to be on purpose? In cases where a scribe regularly copies multiple documents with similar passages, the scribe may become so familiar with the one that he accidentally adds material from memory into the other. This is especially possible among the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke who tell so many of the same stories, sometimes even in similar words, but who also each contain information not found in the others.
Thus, as Metzger points out, Matthew He may not have even realized he had done it! My wife, who once memorized several of Paul's letters in their entirety, often made this exact kind of mistake when reciting similar passages in, for example, 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
Familiar content from one was accidentally transferred to the other without any intentional editing. Interestingly, many of the mistakes she made in reciting often had parallels in the manuscript tradition. Scribes made these kinds of mistakes too! It's also possible that a scribe put some paraphrased information from Mark in the margins of his copy of Matthew as an explanatory note and that a later scribe mistakenly copied it into the main text.
For example, if a scribe accidentally left out a line or a few words, the corrector might put them in the margin. The next scribe who came along and copied this manuscript might reinsert the words into the text in the wrong place. Alternatively, the marginal note might have been a scribe's comment rather than an integral part of the text; but the scribe who copied that manuscript might well have inserted the note into the new copy he was writing, thus adding something to the text of scripture that should not be there.
No malice was involved, no intentional corruption of the text - just an error in judgment. It is, at least, a highly plausible explanation. Intentional Addition As we noted above, the idea of scribes willfully changing the text to suit their own purposes should not be entertained lightly.
This would have been much rarer than modern sensationalists would love to have us believe.
Scribes were not often given to change the text simply because they thought it should say something else. We would need to have good reason based on hard evidence to conclude that a scribe would add a verse like this into the text.
Matthew 21 - Wikipedia
One might argue, for example, that a scribe added this material from Mark 9 to intentionally harmonize the two texts and thus undermine accusations of contradiction between the gospels. But, without any source to indicate that this passage was being used at the time as an example of contradiction by opponents of Christianity or some other hard line of evidence, this remains pure conjecture.
Matthew and Mark do not actually contradict one another here, even without Matthew We have no particular reason to think that any scribe would have been concerned about this. Thus, barring further evidence, willful addition does not appear to be our best option, especially given the plausibility of a purely accidental addition.
The Complication of Mark 9 Of course, all of this thus far assumes that Mark 9: As we have noted above, there is a complication in this. The words "and fasting" are missing in three early Greek copies: Codex B, Siniaticus both fourth centuryand Uncial fifth century. Likewise, the earliest citation by a church father, Clement of Alexandria late second or early third century10 lacks the reference to fasting.
Less significantly, a later Georgian translation also lacks it. This is a very small group of witnesses, but all but the Georgian translation represent some of our earliest copies of this text and thus should not be ignored simply for being in the minority. Yet, the manuscripts containing "and fasting" are quite impressive: P45 third centuryour earliest manuscript for this section of Mark, is fragmentary and missing the place on the page where "and fasting" would be.
However, when one measures the size of the letters and space on each line and estimates which text would better fit the missing space, it seems that "and fasting" was probably there. Likewise, every Old Latin manuscript other than Codex Bobiensis supports the reading "and fasting. The later Latin vulgate tradition also contained "and fasting," as did the Coptic in both the Sahidic and Bohairic dialects.
The words are also found in the later Gothic and Slovenian manuscripts. There is also Georgian manuscript evidence for the words, thus making the Georgian tradition split on the matter. The Syriac is an interesting case, but one that overall favors the reference to fasting.
Some later Syriac manuscripts match the reading "prayer and fasting" exactly.
Was Matthew 17:21 removed from modern Bibles?
Most of the Syriac texts, including all of the earliest manuscripts, have a similar but reversed reading of "fasting and prayer. While this variation may raise some questions, it seems most reasonable to say that these favor the presence of "fasting" in the Greek texts from which they were translated. As far as early Christian writings go, there are no relevant examples of an explicit citation of Mark containing fasting, but there are more ambiguous references that are worth noting.
Several writers cite Jesus as having said "prayer and fasting" without reference to which gospel they got the words from. Thus, it seems likely that they either had a copy of Matthew that contained Either way, their voice is relevant here. Some of the earliest examples include: This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer, offered unceasingly and with an earnest mind," Pseudo-Clementine Epistles Concerning Virginity, First Epistle, Chapter Second Coming Jesus travels toward Jerusalem, and the opposition intensifies: He teaches in the Temple, debating with the chief priests and religious leaders and speaking in parables about the Kingdom of God and the failings of the chief priests and the Pharisees.
The Herodian caucus also become involved in a scheme to entangle Jesus Matthew The disciples ask about the future, and in his final discourse the Olivet Discourse Jesus speaks of the coming end. At the end of the discourse, Matthew notes that Jesus has finished all his words, and attention turns to the crucifixion. Passion, Resurrection and Great Commission[ edit ] The events of Jesus' last week occupy a third of the content of all four gospels.
Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia
He is tried by the Jewish leaders the Sanhedrin and before Pontius Pilateand Pilate washes his hands to indicate that he does not assume responsibility. Jesus is crucified as king of the Jews, mocked by all.
On his death there is an earthquake, the veil of the Temple is rent, and saints rise from their tombs. Mary Magdalene and another Mary discover the empty tomb, guarded by an angeland Jesus himself tells them to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. After the resurrection the remaining disciples return to Galilee, "to the mountain that Jesus had appointed", where he comes to them and tells them that he has been given "all authority in heaven and on Earth.
Jesus will be with them "to the very end of the age". The angelically inspired Saint Matthew musters the Old Testament figures, led by Abraham and David Christology[ edit ] Christology is the theological doctrine of Christ, "the affirmations and definitions of Christ's humanity and deity".
Audio Bible - KJV
Early understandings of this nature grew as the gospels were being written. Before the gospels, that understanding was focused on the revelation of Jesus as God in his resurrection, but the gospels reflect a broadened focus extended backwards in time. Matthew and Luke go back further still, showing Jesus as the Son of God from his birth.