why is matthew 17 21 omitted

asalmes

2 min read

·

28-11-2024

84

0

Share

Matthew 17:21 is a verse that often sparks curiosity among Bible students. Many modern Bible translations omit it entirely, raising questions about its authenticity and inclusion within the biblical text. This article delves into the reasons behind the omission of Matthew 17:21, exploring the complexities of textual criticism and variant readings within the New Testament.

Understanding Textual Variants

Before we dive into the specifics of Matthew 17:21, it's essential to understand that the Bible we read today isn't a single, unchanging manuscript. Over centuries, the scriptures have been copied and recopied, resulting in slight variations between different manuscripts. These differences are known as textual variants.

These variants aren't necessarily errors; they represent the natural process of transmission. Scribes might have made accidental mistakes, or intentionally altered passages for various reasons. Textual critics analyze these variants to determine the most likely original reading.

The Case of Matthew 17:21

Matthew 17:21, in some ancient manuscripts, reads something like this: "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." This verse follows the account of Jesus healing a demon-possessed boy, and seemingly connects the healing to prayer and fasting.

However, many modern translations omit this verse because it's absent in several important and early manuscripts, including the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus—two of the most significant sources for the Greek New Testament. These manuscripts are considered to represent older and purer forms of the text.

Why the Omission?

The omission of Matthew 17:21 isn't a case of deliberate censorship or theological agenda. Textual critics consider the verse to be a later addition, possibly a marginal note that inadvertently became incorporated into the main text in some manuscript lineages. Its absence in major early manuscripts strengthens this hypothesis.

Several factors contribute to this conclusion:

• Manuscript Evidence: The key evidence lies in the absence of the verse in crucial early manuscripts. The weight of evidence from these older texts suggests the verse is not original.
• Textual Style: Some scholars argue the stylistic elements of Matthew 17:21 differ slightly from the surrounding text, hinting at a different authorial hand.
• Theological Consistency: While the verse is theologically sound, its inclusion isn't strictly necessary to understand the narrative of the healing. The story retains its meaning and impact without it.

The Importance of Textual Criticism

The debate over Matthew 17:21 highlights the critical importance of textual criticism. This discipline involves careful study and comparison of various manuscripts to reconstruct the most likely original text. The goal isn't to "correct" the Bible but to understand its transmission history and present the most reliable reading possible based on the available evidence.

Modern translations that omit Matthew 17:21 do so based on careful textual analysis and a commitment to presenting a text as close to the original as possible. This approach, while sometimes resulting in the exclusion of familiar passages, ensures a more accurate and historically informed understanding of scripture.

Conclusion: Faith and Scholarship

The omission of Matthew 17:21 doesn't diminish the importance of prayer and fasting in the Christian faith. Many other passages clearly emphasize their role. The debate over this particular verse, however, serves as a valuable lesson in the rigorous scholarship behind biblical textual criticism and the ongoing effort to understand and preserve the word of God. It underscores the dynamic relationship between faith and scholarship in interpreting scripture. The process of textual criticism, while complex, helps provide a more accurate and historically grounded understanding of the Bible.