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