The Enigma of Matthew 17:21: A Verse That's Not Quite There
For many Bible readers, especially those accustomed to certain translations or older editions, encountering Matthew 17:21 can be a source of confusion. The question "Why is Matthew 17:21 removed?" often arises when this specific verse seems to be absent from their copy of the New Testament. This isn't a case of deliberate censorship in the way we might think of it today, but rather a fascinating story rooted in biblical scholarship, translation choices, and the history of the Bible's text itself.
What is Matthew 17:21 and Why the Fuss?
The verse in question, Matthew 17:21, in translations where it *does* appear, typically reads something like this:
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." (King James Version)
This verse follows the account where Jesus' disciples are unable to cast out a demon from a young boy, despite Jesus' earlier commission to them. Jesus then heals the boy, and afterward, the disciples ask him why they couldn't cast out the demon. Jesus' response, according to some texts, includes this statement about prayer and fasting being necessary for this particular type of spiritual warfare.
The reason for the "removal" or, more accurately, the *absence* of this verse in many modern translations lies in the textual evidence available to scholars and translators.
The Textual Basis: Ancient Manuscripts Matter
The Bible, as we have it today, is not a single, original document. Instead, it's a collection of texts that have been painstakingly copied by hand over centuries. Scholars who study these manuscripts, a field known as textual criticism, compare thousands of these ancient copies to determine what the original writers most likely intended. This is a complex process, as variations, errors, and even deliberate additions can creep in over generations of copying.
When it comes to Matthew 17:21, the vast majority of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts do *not* contain this verse. These key manuscripts include:
- Codex Vaticanus (B)
- Codex Sinaiticus (א)
- The bulk of the early Byzantine manuscripts
These manuscripts, dating from the 4th century CE and earlier, are considered foundational for reconstructing the original text of the New Testament. In these important documents, the narrative flows directly from Jesus' disciples asking why they couldn't cast out the demon to Jesus' answer that begins with "But as for this kind..." or a similar phrase, without the intervening statement about prayer and fasting.
Where Did the Verse Come From?
If the oldest manuscripts don't have it, where did Matthew 17:21 come from? Scholars believe it likely originated as a marginal note or a scribal gloss that was eventually incorporated into the main text in some later copies. This kind of thing wasn't uncommon; scribes would sometimes add explanations or comments in the margins, and over time, these could be accidentally copied into the body of the text.
Another theory suggests that the phrase was harmonized from other biblical passages or early Christian teachings that emphasized the importance of prayer and fasting in overcoming demonic opposition. The sentiment of the verse is certainly in line with other biblical teachings on spiritual discipline.
Translation Choices and the "Received Text"
The difference in translations often comes down to which Greek text they are based on. For centuries, a widely used Greek text was the Textus Receptus (Latin for "Received Text"). This text, developed primarily in the 16th and 17th centuries, was based on a smaller number of later Greek manuscripts that were available at the time. The King James Version (KJV), first published in 1611, is a prime example of a translation based on the Textus Receptus.
Because the Textus Receptus did include Matthew 17:21 (likely incorporating it from some of the later manuscripts it relied upon), the KJV and other translations based on it also include the verse.
However, with the discovery and cataloging of thousands more ancient manuscripts in the 19th and 20th centuries, biblical scholars gained a much clearer picture of the earliest form of the New Testament text. Modern scholarly critical texts, such as the Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, are based on this wider range of older and generally more reliable evidence. These critical texts omit Matthew 17:21.
Consequently, most modern American English translations, including:
- The New International Version (NIV)
- The English Standard Version (ESV)
- The New Living Translation (NLT)
- The Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
- The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
...omit Matthew 17:21 from their main text. Often, these translations will include a footnote indicating that some manuscripts do contain the verse.
So, Is It "Removed" or Just Not Original?
It's more accurate to say that Matthew 17:21 is **not included in the earliest and most reliable manuscript traditions** of the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, modern translations that prioritize these older texts omit it from the main body of scripture. It wasn't "removed" by some clandestine group in recent times, but rather identified as a later addition by textual scholars.
For believers, this distinction is important. The inclusion or exclusion of a verse based on textual evidence doesn't diminish the overall message of the Bible. The core teachings about prayer, fasting, faith, and Jesus' power to overcome spiritual forces remain strongly supported by the vast amount of scripture that *is* consistently found across all ancient manuscripts.
The existence of Matthew 17:21 in some older translations and its absence in many modern ones highlights the ongoing work of biblical scholarship and the care taken to present the Bible as accurately as possible to contemporary readers. It's a testament to the historical process of the Bible's transmission and the diligent efforts to understand its original form.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why do some Bibles have Matthew 17:21 and others don't?
This difference is due to the underlying Greek manuscripts used by translators. Older translations like the King James Version were based on the Textus Receptus, a compilation of later Greek manuscripts that included Matthew 17:21. Modern translations are generally based on a wider range of much older and more reliable Greek manuscripts, which do not contain this verse.
How did Matthew 17:21 get into some older Bibles in the first place?
Scholars believe Matthew 17:21 was likely a marginal note or a scribal gloss added by a copier to the text. This addition, perhaps to harmonize with other teachings on prayer and fasting, was later incorporated into the main body of the text in some of the later Greek manuscripts that formed the basis for the Textus Receptus.
Is the teaching about prayer and fasting invalid if Matthew 17:21 isn't in the original text?
No, the teaching is not invalidated. The concept of prayer and fasting as important spiritual disciplines for overcoming obstacles, including spiritual ones, is strongly supported by many other passages throughout the Bible. The omission of this specific verse from the earliest texts doesn't negate the validity of these practices as taught elsewhere in scripture.
What does this say about the reliability of the Bible?
The careful study and comparison of ancient manuscripts, which leads to the omission of certain verses in modern translations, actually demonstrates the rigor and commitment to accuracy in biblical scholarship. It shows that translators are striving to present the earliest recoverable form of the text, rather than simply perpetuating older traditions that may have incorporated later additions.
