Fasting

In "O Biblios The Book," appendix 2, III, by Professor Allan O'Reilly, he sites Dean John Burgon as pointing out “the verse is attested by every known uncial except Aleph, B, L and every known cursive except three. Also bearing witness to the verse are the Old Latin, Peshitta, Curetonian and Philoxenian Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions…the verse was read in the universal Eastern Church on the day following Pentecost, from the beginning. Berry's Greek text also contains the verse.

Compared to the tiny minority that does not include the verse (these also have it in Mark 9) the witness of their exclusion is suspicious at best.

So why "preserve" in Egypt but not everywhere else since most of this evidence precedes either one of those from there?
 
In "O Biblios The Book," appendix 2, III, by Professor Allan O'Reilly, he sites Dean John Burgon as pointing out “the verse is attested by every known uncial except Aleph, B, L and every known cursive except three. Also bearing witness to the verse are the Old Latin, Peshitta, Curetonian and Philoxenian Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions…the verse was read in the universal Eastern Church on the day following Pentecost, from the beginning. Berry's Greek text also contains the verse.

Compared to the tiny minority that does not include the verse (these also have it in Mark 9) the witness of their exclusion is suspicious at best.

So why "preserve" in Egypt but not everywhere else since most of this evidence precedes either one of those from there?
Well you know as well as I do that I could post an opinion by some scholar that is very different. And the older text are far above these other sources and God did send His Word to Egypt to preserve it, you ask why? Well because He is God and He knows what he is doing... probably knew the coming apostasy would seek to pervert the truth and held these witnesses in safe keeping, just as He sent His own Son to be preserved from Herod and the apostasy of that time. Like I said before Origen could have changed this passage in his writings and these others where a product of his common practice of adding to the scriptures?
 
Tischendorf himself and the British scholars Westcott and Hort produced two rival editions of the Greek text. They believed that their text reflected the original as well as possible, even if it was based on manuscripts dating from at least three centuries after the New Testament was written. Gradually the new critical texts replaced Erasmus' text, which has not received much attention from serious scholars anymore. Thousands more ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have become known in the past 100 years.

We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.
ca. A.D. 200 250 300 350 450
Matthew P45 B Sin.
Mark P45 B Sin. A
Luke P4,P45,P75 B Sin. A
John P66 P45,P75 B Sin. A
Acts P45 B Sin. A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B Sin. A
James-Jude P72,B Sin. A
Apocalypse P47 Sin. A
As you can see, from the fourth century onwards the material base for establishing the text of the Greek New Testament is very good indeed. The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.
 
Wow - how to go off the OP! I can't say it hasn't been informative about other things but no one is saying that fasting is a commandment from God. The little I do has helped me listen better to/fine tune my understanding of God. And I have only done it when I felt spirit lead. Fasting is for my benefit not for anyone elses. And probably what I mean by fasting was not total deprivation of food or water.
 
Wow - how to go off the OP! I can't say it hasn't been informative about other things but no one is saying that fasting is a commandment from God. The little I do has helped me listen better to/fine tune my understanding of God. And I have only done it when I felt spirit lead. Fasting is for my benefit not for anyone elses. And probably what I mean by fasting was not total deprivation of food or water.
Sorry silk the issue of the text are very important to this issue, because if one depends on the older text (1000 years older) the term is almost completely removed from the New Testament.
 
Sorry silk the issue of the text are very important to this issue, because if one depends on the older text (1000 years older) the term is almost completely removed from the New Testament.

But as I have just shown you texts even older include it, therefore if older is better it should be included. Secondly, if the number of witnesses comprises 95% and the number of opposing texts (all which disagree among themselves in so many places...literally 1000s of variants with each other). Why should we discard the earlier witness and the overwhelming number texts including it? If this were ANY OTHER book from antiquity the decision would be quite the opposite of the conclusion you are agreeing with.
 
But as I have just shown you texts even older include it, therefore if older is better it should be included. Secondly, if the number of witnesses comprises 95% and the number of opposing texts (all which disagree among themselves in so many places...literally 1000s of variants with each other). Why should we discard the earlier witness and the overwhelming number texts including it? If this were ANY OTHER book from antiquity the decision would be quite the opposite of the conclusion you are agreeing with.
No you have not shown any biblical text? Name the text... Not Origens writings?
 
Sorry silk the issue of the text are very important to this issue, because if one depends on the older text (1000 years older) the term is almost completely removed from the New Testament.

This isn't the only place that fast/ing is mentioned in the NT. (Mat 6:16, Mat 6:18, Mat 9:14-15, Mar 2:18-20, Luk 5:33-35, Luk 18:12) The verses including prayer and fasting - Mat 17:21, Mar 9:29 and other verses with fasting alone - Mark 9:29, Act 10:30, Act 14:23, Act 27:33, 1Cor (another fasting and prayer). I think this shows that fasting was an acceptable practice. Christ, when asked why his disciples did not fast, said that while He was with them (assuming He meant in the flesh) they need not fast but will fast after. If the older texts wipe all this out then maybe you are leaning on the wrong texts.
 
This isn't the only place that fast/ing is mentioned in the NT. (Mat 6:16, Mat 6:18, Mat 9:14-15, Mar 2:18-20, Luk 5:33-35, Luk 18:12) The verses including prayer and fasting - Mat 17:21, Mar 9:29 and other verses with fasting alone - Mark 9:29, Act 10:30, Act 14:23, Act 27:33, 1Cor (another fasting and prayer). I think this shows that fasting was an acceptable practice. Christ, when asked why his disciples did not fast, said that while He was with them (assuming He meant in the flesh) they need not fast but will fast after. If the older texts wipe all this out then maybe you are leaning on the wrong texts.
Well my point is that almost all of those mentions of that term are not in the older text.
 
No you have not shown any biblical text? Name the text... Not Origens writings?

What do you think "every known uncial except Aleph, B, L and every known cursive except three. Also bearing witness to the verse are the Old Latin, Peshitta, Curetonian and Philoxenian Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions

What do you call these (plus the Vulgate and every Byzantine text)? The Old Latin (3rd century) and the Peshitta (2nd century) precede the others as well.
 
Last edited:
What do you think "every known uncial except Aleph, B, L and every known cursive except three. Also bearing witness to the verse are the Old Latin, Peshitta, Curetonian and Philoxenian Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions

What do you call these (plus the Vulgate and every Byzantine text)?
Well the "except" is a pretty big issue and the foundation of the whole conflict.. Of course there are fewer older text

The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts.
With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.
 
sorry I don't know why the scriptures posted by me don't connect to online bible and the last site is 1Cor 7:5. You are saying Christ did not state "..while the bridegroom is still with us.." It's corroborated both in Matthew and Mark.
 
Well the "except" is a pretty big issue and the foundation of the whole conflict.. Of course there are fewer older text

The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts.
With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.
I would also add that I have read scholars to day that make the exact opposite point you are trying to make with these other sources.
 
sorry I don't know why the scriptures posted by me don't connect to online bible and the last site is 1Cor 7:5. You are saying Christ did not state "..while the bridegroom is still with us.." It's corroborated both in Matthew and Mark.
No Silk I was carful to say "almost" all these mentions of fasting are not found in the older and better text.. In this scripture you point out... the Lord said that His disciples could not fast, while he was with them... why would He a few chapters later rebuke their unbelief and then mention "fasting" He did not... that's the point.
 
Christ with the phrase bridegroom is said in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and they all say fast later. Fasting as a practice is mentioned throughout the Bible. Christ answer when asked why a demon could not be ousted said fasting and prayer. It was a direct response so I assume that's why it is said a few chapters later.
And Christ, Himself, fasted!!!
 
Christ with the phrase bridegroom is said in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and they all say fast later. Fasting as a practice is mentioned throughout the Bible. Christ answer when asked why a demon could not be ousted said fasting and prayer. It was a direct response so I assume that's why it is said a few chapters later.
Who could not cast it out? His disciples who He said could not fast.. That seems a little odd don't it? Or is the text 1000 years older correct and this word in not part of the intended truth of that passage? Which is my point and sincere belief.
 
The way I read this verse is that one of the disciples had a problem casting a demon out and Christ's response was ...
 
It was never said that the disciples couldn't fast. Christ answer to what was posed as a criticism of the disciples was to say, why should they? Big difference.
 
Top