Hungry? Don't read the KJV!

I noticed something the other day as I was studying.  One day Jesus' disciples tried to cast out a devil but couldn't.  After Jesus had successfully cast the devil out, the disciples asked him why they were unable to.  In Mark 9:29 Jesus gave them the answer: "And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting" (KJV).

Notice that Jesus tells the disciples that prayer and fasting are both spiritual disciplines necessary to cast out devils.  When I look this verse up in modern translations of the Bible, though, Jesus' words are modified ever so slightly: "He told them, 'This kind can come out only by prayer.'" (NET).  The words "and fasting" are left out.  The ESV, NIV, NASB, and J.B. Phillips versions all do this same sort of thing; and I'm sure there are others.  For whatever reason, many modern versions of the Bible leave the words "and fasting" out of Mark 9:29.

The reason modern versions omit the words "and fasting" is because modern versions are based on a different type of manuscripts than the KJV is.  And the footnotes in modern versions sort of let us know that.

The NASB, J.B. Phillips, NET, and multiple other versions, don't even bother to give us a footnote explaining the change at all---much less that the change is because of a different set of manuscripts.  The ESV and NIV leave out "and fasting", but put a footnote that says something along the lines of "Some manuscripts add and fasting".  The HCSB and ISV versions include "and fasting" but put a footnote that says something like "Other mss. lack and fasting".  Modern versions are based on manuscripts that leave the words out; the KJV is based on manuscripts that keep the phrase in.

At this point many would assume, "Well, there are manuscripts that read both ways, so it doesn't really matter".  Or maybe someone will go a step farther and say, "We have found older manuscripts since the KJV was made.  The KJV manuscripts probably added and fasting, but we now have better manuscripts that prove the KJV wrong".  But before we assume, let's look at the evidence.

Should Mark 9:29 have the words "and fasting" or not?  The footnotes don't really give us much help deciding which reading is better.  Just how many "some manuscripts" disagree with the KJV?  Just exactly which "other manuscripts" leave these words out like most modern versions?

The answer to these questions?  Only three Greek manuscripts leave out the words "and fasting" from this verse.  To be specific, only manuscripts א, B, and 0274 support this reading.  A couple ancient versions (geo1 and itk) also agree with the omission.  This means, when it comes to this verse of Mark, that modern versions are based on a total of five manuscript witnesses.

Five.  Modern versions of Mark 9:29 are supported by five manuscript witnesses.  Five.  Let that number sink in.  We literally have over 2300 Greek manuscripts for the gospels!  And only three leave "and fasting" out of Mark 9:29.  Of the nearly fifteen ancient Latin versions that attest Mark 9:29, only one (itk) supports modern versions.  These "some" "other" manuscripts that modern version footnotes tell us about all of the sudden seem less impressive.

So what about the KJV?  The KJV's "prayer and fasting" is supported by the VAST majority of Greek manuscripts.  It is supported by over ten different ancient Latin translations (some of which date as early as the 4th century and as late as the 12th), as well as an ancient Syriac version (syrh, 7th century), two Coptic versions (the earliest of which is 4th century), a Georgian version (geo2, 10th century) and the Slavonic version (9th century).  On top of all of this our oldest manuscript, P45 (dating to the third century), seems to agree with the KJV as well.  P45 is an interesting witness to "prayer and fasting" because it is about 100 years older than א, B, and itk (the oldest witnesses modern versions have for leaving "and fasting" out).

From a textual perspective, the KJV is immensely superior than modern versions at Mark 9:29.  I do not have nearly the prestige that some of modern version editors do; but going against the EXTENSIVE corpus of manuscript evidence seems like a foolish decision at best and like shoddy scholarship at worst.  What other senseless textual changes have the NIV, ESV, NASB, NET, and other versions made to our Bibles?  Please keep Mark 9:29 in mind the next time you use a modern version or criticize the KJV.

-CJK

It Pleased The Father

By my counting, the popular website www.biblegateway.com lists no less than about 50 different English translations of the Bible.  These days it seems like everyone is using a different translation of the Bible and arguing over which version is the best, is the easiest to understand, is the closest to the original Greek, and so forth.


Frequently the Authorized Version (KJV) gets thrown under the bus as "antiquated".  But occasionally, people will attempt to give a more substantive criticism of the KJV about how it translates the original Greek.  I ran into one such criticism when I was having a fun, friendly debate with one of my friends about the differences in Bible versions.


My friend's critique of the KJV centered around Colossians 1:19:

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell .

My friend pointed out to me that "the Father" was not in the original Greek.  Because of this, he argued that the KJV's translation of this verse was not as accurate as the English Standard Version (ESV)'s:

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell  .

Since "the Father" isn't in the original Greek, my friend's argument made sense.  If we take out "the Father" from the verse, it makes sense to read it along the lines that the ESV does: it pleased all fullness to dwell in him.


I admit that my friend's argument wounded air tight to me; and I was bothered (in a good, fun sort of way) that the ESV seemed to do a better job of translating this verse than the KJV does.  Since I can read ancient Greek, I began to pour over this passage in the original Greek New Testament; and I have come to the conclusion that not only is the ESV's translation not superior to the KJV's, but that the KJV actually does a better job with the original Greek than the ESV.


In order to understand why I have reached this conclusion, we need to look at the next verse with it:

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven (Colossians 1:19-20).

In the original Greek, this passage is

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, δι’ αὐτοῦ εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς·

As I said before, "the Father" is not in the original Greek.  But I want to look at the grammar of this passage for a little bit.  The ESV translates this passage as if πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα (all the fullness) is the subject of εὐδόκησεν: all fullness was pleased to dwell in him.  But there is a problem with this. 


In verse twenty there is a participle εἰρηνοποιήσας (having made peace) that grammatically has to match with the subject of εὐδόκησεν (it pleased).  The problem comes because πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα (all the fullness) is grammatically neuter but the participle εἰρηνοποιήσας is grammatically masculine.  This means that πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα cannot be the antecedent of εἰρηνοποιήσας.  And since εἰρηνοποιήσας must grammatically must go with the main verb εὐδόκησεν, this means that πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα cannot be the subject of εὐδόκησεν.


So if "all the fullness" is not the subject of the verb "it pleased", then who is?


In this passage, the main verb "it pleased" (εὐδόκησεν) has two other verbs, "to dwell" (κατοικῆσαι) and "to reconcile" (ἀποκαταλλάξαι) that are infinitives dependent on this main verb.  In other words, these verses are basically saying "it pleased someone to dwell and to reconcile".


Since both of these infinitives (to reconcile and to dwell) depend on εὐδόκησεν (it pleased), let's ignore verse 19 for a second and focus on verse 20.  It pleased someone..."by him [Jesus] to reconcile all things unto himself".  It pleased someone to reconcile everything to himself through Jesus.  Who was that?  The Father.  It pleased the Father to reconcile everything to himself through Jesus.

Verse 20 shows us that the subject of εὐδόκησεν (it pleased) is the Father.  Having "the Father" as the subject of "it pleased" eliminates the grammatical problem that the ESV's translation causes.  The Father is masculine, and so it matches with the masculine participle εἰρηνοποιήσας (having made peace); and since εἰρηνοποιήσας goes with εὐδόκησεν, the Father is the subject of the main verb.  πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα then becomes the subject of the first infinitive: it pleased the Father that all the fullness dwell...etc.


The ESV creates a careless grammatical mistake in Colossians 1:19-20, but the KJV recognizes the issue and adds in "the Father" in order for the verses to make sense in English: "it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and...by him to reconcile all things unto himself".  The Father was pleased that all fullness dwells in Jesus and that everything is reconciled through Jesus.  The KJV is not playing loose and free with the original Greek here.  Not adding "the Father" causes the grammatical translation mistake that we see in the ESV.  Many other versions insert "the Father" when translating this passage.


The original Greek at a glance does seem to support the ESV.  But when we look deeper into the grammar, we see that the KJV is actually superior.  As a final thought, perhaps it is worth noting that in context Colossians 1:19-20 is part of a prayer in which the apostle Paul is " giving thanks unto the Father" (Colossians 1:12).
~CJK


NOTE:  The KJV is not the only version that inserts "the Father" into Colossians 1:19.  Some other versions include

• Pre-KJV Bibles: Erasmus' Latin translation (1519), Coverdale's translation (1535), the Great Bible (1541), the Geneva New Testament (1557), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Reina's Spanish translation (1569), and the Spanish, French, Italian, and English versions found in the Hutter Polyglot (1599)

Other modern versions follow the KJV's line of reasoning, but add "God" instead of the Father