Video summary
The video addresses a common question regarding why certain verses appear in the King James Version of the Bible but are missing from modern translations like the ESV, specifically focusing on Matthew 17:21. The speaker demonstrates that while this verse exists in older texts, it is absent in newer ones because it was likely not part of the original autograph. Using digital tools, he highlights a special symbol known as a siglum or sigma found in modern editions, which indicates that a section of text has been omitted. This specific omission occurs because early and highly reliable manuscripts, such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, do not contain this verse, whereas the only significant manuscripts that include it are later copies of lower textual quality.
To determine the authenticity of biblical passages, scholars rely on textual criticism, which examines both internal and external evidence to reconstruct the original text. External evidence involves analyzing the age and geographical distribution of surviving manuscripts, while internal evidence considers the writing style and vocabulary of the author. A key principle in this field is that scribes were more likely to add words to clarify meaning or correct what they perceived as errors than to accidentally delete them. Consequently, textual critics generally prefer the shorter reading when faced with a discrepancy, assuming that additions were often intentional attempts to harmonize passages or explain difficult concepts rather than accidental omissions.
The specific case of Matthew 17:21 illustrates how such scribal additions can affect practical theology without necessarily altering core doctrine. The verse in question adds the instruction that casting out demons requires prayer and fasting, a phrase found in Mark 9:29 but not in the parallel passage in Matthew. The speaker explains that a scribe may have inadvertently included this phrase from the Gospel of Mark into the Matthean text to ensure consistency between the two accounts. While this addition does not change fundamental beliefs about salvation or the nature of God, it can influence orthopraxy, or how believers practice their faith, such as whether they feel compelled to fast before every prayer for deliverance.
Ultimately, the presence or absence of verses like Matthew 17:21 does not undermine the trustworthiness of the Bible, as the vast majority of textual variants are minor and do not affect essential teachings. The speaker emphasizes that modern translations reflect a deeper understanding of ancient manuscripts and a more rigorous scholarly process than older versions like the King James Version, which was based on fewer and later sources. By adhering to established rules of textual criticism, translators aim to present the most accurate version of the original text possible, ensuring that readers engage with the scripture as it was likely intended by its authors.
Read the full video transcript
got a question for you and then um I got
a request. But first, I'll start my
question. I wanted to get your take on
this. Um if you go to K to the KJV and
you go to Matthew 17:21,
>> Matthew,
>> there's a verse there.
>> Okay, hold on. Let me let me go to KJV.
>> Yep.
>> Um
Uhoh. And you say go to Matthew 17:21.
>> 17:21
>> and you'll see a verse and it reads,
"How be it this kind goeth not out but
my but by prayer and fasting."
>> Mhm.
>> Here's my question.
1721 is in the KJV, but it's not in the
newer um translations like the ESV. It
just goes from 1720 straight to 22.
>> I wanted to get your take on that. Well,
dog on it. Let me go to my logos. Let me
show you something. Uh, let's see. Do I
want to go? Which one of Uh oh. I I
think that's it. I think I typed it in
wrong. Okay, cool. Okay, so let's go
over to Matthew
17 23 over here. Let's put this on Logos
and show you something.
Matthew 17:21.
Okay, let's make this a little bit
bigger and you'll see the issue that we
have. If I can find There it is. View.
View and make it a little bit bigger.
So, Matthew 17. Why didn't it go to 20?
Why didn't it move? Hold on one second.
Hold on one second. Let me see if I can
redo this. This is crazy.
>> So good. So good. Because the other
interesting thing is if you go to Mark
9:29, that same verse that's missing
from Matthew 17:21
>> is there
>> is in Mark 9:29. So, it's like, okay, am
I reading something wrong here or did
they not put something in the newer um
translations or I wanted to get your
take on that?
>> Okay, so let's go to let's go to
Matthew. It see it seems like it's
working now. Matthew 17, let's go to
17:20. So, now if you notice here, you
see it light up. Verse 20 is there,
>> but then I go to verse 22.
>> Right?
>> Now, let me make this a little bit
bigger. I want you all to see this.
Let's make this a little bit bigger. And
my Greek students know where I'm going
with this. So you see this little butt,
this little D right here?
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, dog on it. This little like like a
little T. You see that?
>> So that is what we call a sigma or
siglum. What it does is it points out
that there is something missing,
something omitted. So if I if I were to
click on it, it'll bring this up over
here. Let's make this a little bit
bigger. Make it bigger so you guys can
see what I'm looking at. So over here,
what's missing is verse 21. this kind.
So this kind and so the question is
should this verse belong? Does this
verse belong in this text? So here is
the problem that we have whenever we
look at an actual text. Let me go find
me ladies and gentlemen. I'll go back to
you. So here here's the problem we have.
We've got a plethora of manuscripts.
We've got different types of
manuscripts. We've got older
manuscripts. We got newer manuscripts.
We have manuscripts that are in um
Greek. We have manuscripts that are in
Latin. We've got some later manuscripts
that are in uh Syriak and Aramaic and
and Hebrew and other later manuscripts.
We've got lectionaries. We've got Father
Patricia quotations. We've got all these
different things. So, which one do we
know is the truth?
>> Right? So when you go to the King James
version, these are later manuscripts
from about the 12th century uh on. But
what about the manuscripts that we found
earlier? As a matter of fact, the King
James versions, the the translators
stated that there was more work to be
done. They never stated that their
translation was the perfect translation
that there was more to be done. And the
whole issue was finding of more
manuscripts, which we've done. So we've
got more manuscripts. And so we can find
certain manuscripts that are of a
certain type of what they call a text
type. You've got an Alexandrian text
type. I know I hope I don't lose you
guys, but you've got an Alexandrian text
type. You've got what's called a
Byzantine text type and a western text
type. Now, at my seminary, we tend to
favor the Alexandrian text type, then
the western text type, then the
Byzantine text type. And all that really
refers to is the the the local that they
are. uh Alexandrian text type is to be
preferred and of that you have Codex
Vaticanis Codeexcaticus
um um
what did I say Sanaticus Alexander and
Vaticanis you also have these different
papar
and P66 and so forth you got and so
those will be the the the better text
uh the earlier text as well So when I go
back over here and I'm trying to figure
out which one of these should I actually
look at, which one of these do I think
is the better at testation? Which
meaning what I mean by that is is the
text that we have or is it the variant?
All a variant is is if there is some
sort of difference. So I might read a
text. Now this this part that's
important because people might think
that wait a second does that mean the
Bible is untrustworthy? No. Uh, if I
read a particular text in the Bible and
I've got a manuscript that says Jesus
and then I got another manuscript that
says Lord, everything else is the same.
That's considered a one textual variant.
If I've got John spelled with two N's or
with one N, that's considered a textual
variant. Doesn't change anything. That's
90 90 plus% of all the variants we have.
They don't change anything whatsoever.
Right? Some have small. There are no
variants that change anything major
though. So that's good news. But there
are some that have some small. But my
question is which reading is is
appropriate and how do I know which
particular um reading is appropriate? Is
the longer reading preferred or the
shorter reading? So here is kind of the
rule of thumb when it comes to textual
criticism. Textual criticism is kind of
the art and science of trying to get
back to the original, figuring out what
the original said. and we don't have the
originals. So the question is Matthew
21, I mean Matthew 17:21,
is that part of the original
>> or does the original not have verse 21?
So we got to figure it out. There's two
ways we can do it. We can look at the
internal evidence and the external
evidence. The external evidence would be
all the different manuscripts. The
internal evidence is kind of the writing
style. M
>> is this person known to use this word or
in this tense or what have you? So with
Matthew,
he can use this. So it there's not a lot
of in there's probably some internal
evidence to to say whether or not it
should or should not be. But let's look
at the external evidence real quick. So
the external evidence for this here are
the the verses or the texts that don't
have this in it.
Um, let me click on this. So, I don't
know if it's going to show up. Yeah, it
showed up. So, um, Codex Saticus, which
is one of the better manuscripts, does
does not have this, uh, this verse in
it, nor does Codex Vaticanis.
We've got some others also, by the way.
We've got some some some other unils or
magiscals. We also have some um
minuscules as well. That's the the the
lowercase writings of the Greek. Uh
we've got the Syriak version so forth.
But let which versions actually have
verse 21.
The best manuscript that has verse 21
would be um C in this case uh CEX
Araming. It's nowhere near the quality
of ALF or Vatican Saticus or
Alexandrinas or one of the paparay. So
for that reason alone it's a later it's
a later manuscript uh than the other and
it's not it's not as it's not as a
better quality as Olive or Saticus or
Alexandrinas or um or any of the papar.
So for that reason that that main reason
enough says that verse 21 does not
belong. Also,
>> when scribes are writing something,
remember the scribes are not they're not
John. The scribes are not Paul. They're
not Peter. They're not they are not um
God. They're not they're not anointed by
the Lord. They're just doing their job.
They're just copying. It's a nineto-ive
job. They're just copying it. So,
sometimes scribes make mistakes.
We're going to find mistakes in a lot of
manuscripts. As a matter of fact, when
you go to the Old Testament, some of the
Old Testament um writings, they're going
to differ. So when you look at first and
2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles and so
forth, you're going to see some
differences in numbers. Was this king
18? Was I'm sorry, was he 8 or was he
21? Was it 700 or was it 7,000 chariots?
Those that's a difference. So clearly
there can be a copious or a scribal
error. So we got to figure out which one
is right. So when scribes make a
mistake, the the mistake can be either
unintentional or intentional.
Unintentional he was tired. His eyesight
was off. We if you ever one day I'll
show you guys I think I did one time
I'll show you guys what an actual
reading looks like and you can see
because it's all bunched up together.
There are no breaks. So you'll go from
the middle of a word stop and the word
picks up at the bottom. I mean the next
the next line. Well, how do you know
what that word is?
>> How do you know if it ended or not?
>> So it's hard. It can it can it can be
difficult. So, but so they can make an
unintentional error, but they can also
make an intentional error where the
scribe thinks this should be added. So,
like you said in the other chapter, in
the other book, that verse is added.
>> Right.
>> Right. But in Matthew, it's not. So,
maybe a scribe said, you know what,
he says this in another verse, so maybe
I should add this here.
>> Right. Right. or the same thing with
with the what we call the Lord's prayer.
So,
>> right,
>> it should be in another verse but not
here. Now, does it change anything at
all by it being added here? No. No,
because it's it's it's somewhere else.
Uh or it might. This is where it can it
can affect not orthodoxy, but your
orthopraxy. So, does that mean that I
that the way we cast out demons is by
fasting and prayer? Well, fasting is not
added here. here. It's not attested to
here. It's just by prayer. Okay. So,
okay. In order for me to get this demon
out, give me a few days. Give me give me
24 hours. I got to fast first.
Doesn't seem like what he's what he what
he's trying to get at, right? So, that's
the reason why you'll see additions or
subtractions. And
as far as the rules for textual critics
are concerned, the shorter reading is
the preferred reading. Why? because you
the scribe in most cases would tend to
add a word or add words versus take away
something because if you want to clarify
something typically you would add more
writings to clarify it. Now they and we
won't we're not going to ascribe bad
intentions to the scribes sometimes hey
you know what I'm looking at something
not sure what that says let me add this
here to make sure or it could have been
that the scribe actually this was his
own this might have been someone's own
personal writing,
>> right?
>> They and and so if it's their own
writing, just like you would take notes
in your Bible and put something in there
for you, they can do the same thing.
>> But we find it and we think that this
was one of the one of the uh the
manuscripts. There's all sorts of
reasons as to why
this is all there all sorts of reasons
as to why a text u would attest to a
certain writings and things like that.
So now I I've never done it here because
it's just too much for people in the
chat to go along with, but when we're
reading something and I see a text and I
see let let's go back to an actual
passage. Let's let's I'm going bring it
back up cuz I I really want you all to
see. So, while I'm doing this, the
scribes, there are times when
um
the
a scribe might he might not be writing
something down. He might be listening.
So, he might be in what's called a
scriptorum. And at a scriptorum, someone
is telling them,
"Well, where's it at?
Where is my
>> You got all kinds of technical
difficulties.
>> Oh, there it is. There it is. No, I
don't have it. There it is. It's on this
other screen. There it is. Okay. So, at
at a scriptorum,
they're telling you, they're reading it
off to you. So, now you're trying to
listen.
>> So, now here's the difference with this
word right here that I have highlighted.
This word echan, and it's this word,
this letter amocrron. It's our it's a
the English O. But is it a long O or a
short O? Is it a or O? So ecom means we
have. Ecom means let us have we may
have.
It's not too big a difference but it
says let us have peace because of this
we can have peace or we do have peace.
Which one it is? Now there's a
difference. It's a subtle difference but
it's a difference. But I'm just using
this to kind of highlight the difference
with this word. So this textual variant
here is the word ecom or ecommen. So did
are you so you're hearing the person
speak and you hear him say uh echmen
prostan theon did he say did he wait hey
did he say ecommen or echcommen
there there in lies a problem and so one
scribe may write ecommen another writes
echo well which one is it
we don't know and that's one of the ones
where we really don't know what the what
it is um most will go with a common.
>> Thankfully, it doesn't change a whole
lot because both are true. We may have
peace and we do have peace.
So,
there there's the issue right there that
that's what you have to look at whenever
you're looking at a particular verse to
see if a text um um should be there like
the longer or shorter ending of Mark,
things like that. That helps. Did all
that stuff make sense about textual
criticism, which is, by the way, how you
have your Bible? What I just showed you,
not as not as indepth, but what I just
showed you is really how you have your
Bible. I don't care which version you
you have. If you're King James version,
New King James Version, ESV and ESB,
LSB, if you're NIV, NLT, whatever it is,
that's how you have your Bible. Unless
you have the Passion Translation, then
you're then you're not saved. I'm
kidding. You're probably not saved,
though. But maybe you are. I don't know.
You're just not reading the Bible. But
that's how Bibles are put together. Uh,
it's a little bit more sophisticated
than what I just showed you, but just
kind of a basic barebones way of looking
at it. And if you ever were to look at
an actual manuscript, oh man, it's hard.
I don't listen,
they have my they have my respect. They
have my utmost respect because of what
they have to do to go through it. It's
it's just difficult. It is difficult. If
you all can remind me, I'll put up some
pictures of And maybe I do have I don't
know if I have one I know I have one on
Logos. I'm not gonna pull it up because
I don't want every time I go there,
something always funky happens and it
happens when I'm not using this this
live streaming software. So, I I'm not
going to use it now. But, if you all
remind me, I'll put up pull up some some
actual manuscripts and then you can see
what they look like.