I remember sitting in my first class on “hermeneutics” as a freshman in college. The college I attended was associated with Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity. Therefore, there was a lot of talk about angelic and demonic beings, spiritual gifts, spiritual warfare, and so forth. It was a great surprise to many of the students sitting in class one morning when our professor noted the textual variant of Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29 which are two passages that narrate exorcisms. Since most of us were familiar with the KJV we read these two passages respectively as saying, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting” and “This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting”. Our professor noted that Mt. 17:21 was not authentic and that the long ending of Mk. 9:29–“by fasting”–was also not part of the original text.
There were some students who did not like this. These passages were used as proof texts that there are times when we might pray for someone who is demon possessed and it will not be enough. Instead, we must be praying but also fasting. I think it was understood that those who fasted often would be prepared to face “this kind” of demonic being. Those who did not fast often would not be ready.
For others it was a great relief because we did not fast enough to be ready for “this kind”. I was one of those who found textual criticism very valuable that day. I always felt guilty because I had a really, really hard time with fasting.
I found it interesting that in Misquoting Jesus Bart D. Ehrman mentions this passage. He provides an excellent explanation for how and why this passage came to be altered. Let me quote him here:
On occasion scribes modified their texts not because of theology but for liturgical reasons. As the ascetic tradition strengthened in early Christianity, it is not surprising to find this having an impact on scribal changes to the text. For example, in Mark 9, when Jesus cast out a demon that his disciples had been unable to budge, he tells them, “This kind comes out only by prayer” (Mark 9:29). Later scribes made the appropriate addition, in view of their own practices, so that now Jesus indicates that “This kind comes out only by prayer and fasting.”
Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, San Francisco: Harper, 2005. 97.
This is why textual criticism, even as the amateur level such as my own, is worthwhile. There are some who see textual criticism as a bad thing, distorting the word of God or undermining the doctrine of inspiration/inerrancy. But it is not a bad thing at all. As it has been noted before: these variants are there whether or not we acknowledge or ignore them. If we bury our head in the sand in hopes that they will go away so that we can preserve our understanding of the Bible without working through these issues we put ourselves and those we minister to in the church at great risk. It is better to examine the text at whatever level we are trained for the sake of rightly dividing the word of truth. Also, it may help the really skinny ascetic folk in your congregation find joy in eating a nice steak with some mashed potatoes and steamed vegetables!
For more visit the Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog.
the archives near Emmaus 
Amen & Amen!
I am all for prayer and fasting but I agree that one must be cautious about a textual variant and not try to found doctrine on it.
Alterations to the text are simply part of the scripture, there is no way of going back to some grand and fully original text. Such a imagination of the scripture is mythical at best and delusional at worst. I am a strong believer in faithful skepticism, as well as a critical approach to the scripture, but i am left wondering to what end you think this type of criticism leads. Follow the footprints of scribes and translators throughout history, and you will find plenty more examples just like this issue of fasting and prayer, the scripture is a living text, it changes with the times, contrary to what most people imagine it as. In your search for the truth, I wonder if this kind of criticism might lead into a false sense of ‘the true word’ as opposed to ‘the word as written’. But on a most basic level, I am asking this: what makes this case of liturgical alteration of the text so worthy of criticism? How does it benefit us?
Victor,
While textual criticism may not be a perfect science I wouldn’t abandon its significance in the way you have here. I do respect your approach to the canonical text though. I know it is hard to see the worth of continual redaction after redaction, especially when the redaction becomes theory not supported by any MSS (like some of Raymond Brown’s writings on the Fourth Gospel and the editors of the ‘beloved community’). Nevertheless, as it can be an endless rabbit trail this direction so can it be if we simply see textual additions as the unfolding and theologizing of the text. I think if something stands out as not original it is beneficial to question how it may change the message of the text. In this case I think it significantly alters it.
Brian,
I have to agree with you that criticism of the text is valuable, both in academic setting and in matters of faith. To not grapple with scripture and its meaning would be passive faith, which I personally cannot abide. By extension, and again in agreement with you, historical analysis is a significant part of that same process. Really, I think we both have similar interests here. The problem I see with some textual criticism is subtle, and I may not have the grace to describe it but here is my best shot.
I am not opposed to textual criticism on the grounds you mention, that it ends up “distorting the word of God or undermining the doctrine of inspiration/inerrancy”. Rather, I believe that textual criticism can lead to the same things which make the cries of ‘distortion of the word of god’ and ‘the text is inerrant’ so problematic themselves. When textual criticism leads us to believe that we are ‘rightly dividing the truth’ as you put it, I think we have made a mistake. It leads us to think that we have uncovered a lost, superior version of the text, that have gained some new access to reality that was not possible before the text was changed. A good number of Christians today are trying to get back to the true Christianity, the old untouched, uncorrupted source. Everything that I have studied has led me to believe there is no such thing. You may disagree with me on that point, but I think textual criticism needs to be cautious as to not fall into the same traps that a belief in textual inerrancy might.
As far as fasting goes, I wonder why you are so keen on its presence in the scripture being a bad thing, or even an untrue thing. There are other portions of the scripture, I’m sure you know better than I do, where Jesus fasts, as well as Elijah and Moses. Fasting is certainly a useful spiritual technology and many Christians believe it to be efficacious in exorcisms. So, to pose my initial question, hopefully more clearly than before, what is the purpose of this textual criticism? I agree with you that it is not part of the ‘original text’, but I am not at all convinced that that makes it less true.
best,
Victor
Victor,
I agree that there is no pristine age of Christianity (a reading of the Corinthian Epistles makes that obvious). Likewise, it is not possible for us to know if we have reconstructed an identical “original” text through textual criticism. It may be an impossibility.
In this particular instance I see it as an example of when textual criticism helps us recognize faulty doctrinal positions based on later editions of the text. This is one of those examples. I am not against fasting; I am against fasting as if it is some sort of “power boost” that helps one more than others who don’t fast, especially in the areas related to spiritual warfare.
It seems that Christ has authority over the demonic realm. He has given that to his followers. We pray to request the Spirit to move in the authority of Christ in such situations.
If I were in Africa or South America or an inner city here in the United States where encounter with the demonic is more probable for whatever reason, and I cam across someone who is filled with evil spirits, I would hate to think that because I didn’t fast recently or regularly that somehow this person’s deliverance was dependent upon that. I trust that prayer in the authority of Christ would be sufficient.
Now it may be that fasting makes someone more aware of such things. I am OK with that theory. I am not OK with the idea that our power in Christ is dependent upon fasting if we do notice something demonic occurring.
Hmm, I see what you mean, Brian. Our point departure on this issue seems to be on the value of later editions of the text. In part because there are so many edits, translations, and other instances where scripture changes meaning, I am left wondering how many doctrines *aren’t* edited material. This doesn’t particularly their value to me, if they are based on truly original material or if they are based on reinterpreted tropes, suspect translations, etc. To me, their value is not really dependent on this point.
You do, of course, make an interesting point about an individuals ability to fast potentially precluding them from receiving a divine “boost.” Thinking about it in these terms would bring up some social boundaries as well as an aspect of magic (do something and automatically receive power from God). Both of these, I will agree with you, are problematic and don’t seem to resemble the Word at all for reasons obvious to both of us.
Still, I remain open to the idea that fasting is potentially helpful for Christians interested in performing an exorcism based on my studies. I suppose I should, at this point, out myself as a religious studies student, having grown up with a Catholic background; so of course we have some theological and pragmatic differences of interest in the concept of fasting in Christianity. The reasons I find some interest in fasting as a spiritual weapon/technology are centered around those who believe in and witness its efficacy in their exorcisms. Having studied fasting in a variety of Christian settings and denominations (as well as other religions) I have seen instances where fasting is not necessarily a life threatening practice, something even a starving person might be able to practice, giving they have something in their life that they indulge in (though in some cases, a starving person might be even more effective at the exorcism precisely because of their condition).
I am currently doing a research paper on the role of fasting in exorcism within medieval Christianity, and tracing some of it into contemporary practices for a religious studies class on fasting across a variety of religious belief systems. This is precisely how I happened upon your ~6 month-old blog post, so I hope that I’m not bugging you with my inquiry, I am genuinely interested in your theological perspective and was excited to find your blog post. I enjoy friendly a argument, especially when it sheds some light on something I am so interested in studying.
cheers,
Victor
Why did Jesus speak in parables ? So his word or meaning would be understood after thought and prayer for all generation’s as it applies to the times (past, present & future). As noted above, as a living text to be applied in the way’s of God’s truth, not for one generation or culture but for all. As for the power of fasting helping in prayer or exorcism, there are several passages about how Christ would fast, not neccesarily for more power or connecton to his Father, but to rely on God the Father and not the flesh for all thing’s.
The Bible is God inspired, unfortunetly it was recorded and re-recorded by man, who is without a doubt not perfect and think’s he is doing what HE believes God want’s. But unless God speaks directly, man is a best a poor scribe to the truth God would have us know.
I am curious as to why Ehrman feels the “absence” of fasting in Mark PROVES that Matthew is incorrect… Maybe Mark had a weaker memory than Matt. I assume better logic exists for citing this or are we just buying Ehrman’s assertion wholesale?
In fact, I believe it was an inaccuracy in Mark that caused Ehrman to question the bible in the first place if MY memory serves me correctly. Now its the gold standard by which other books are judged? Also, given how poorly the average Christian does on “this and greater things…” I place hope in the fact that few actually really follow Yeshua’s methods and that when we eventually get serious about it, perhaps we might claim our divine birthrights.