Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 180+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text) Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
Mark 9:29 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”
Mark 9:29English Standard Version (ESV) 29And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”
Mark 9:29 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 1995/2020
29 And He said to them, “This kind cannot come out by anything except prayer.”
Mark 9:29 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
“This kind does not come out except by prayer” is the original reading according to two of the earliest and weightiest manuscripts (א* B), and B 0274 itk. The variant reading “and fasting” is not original and was likely added by scribes that were attempting to highlight the church’s focus on fasting. (See also Matthew 17:21; Acts 10:30; 1 Cor. 7:5, as they contain the same kind of interpolation.) As Comfort points out, 𝔓45vid has a lacuna in the manuscript, so it may or may not support the longer reading. Lacuna (pl: Lacunae): an unfortunate loss of text within a manuscript due to accident or wear and tear. Unfortunately, lacunae are usually more frequent and more damaging in early manuscripts, especially papyri. The essential elements of the missing text can be supplied from other manuscripts, of course, but not sufficient to reconstruct a variant reading. To attempt any kind of reconstruction, one must have access to an accurate facsimile of the damaged manuscript. In some cases, with the size and spacing of letters, measuring the missing space can allow us to determine the likely reading.
Mark 9:29 Philip Comfort
WH NU εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ. “This kind does not come out except by prayer.” א* B 0274 itk
Variant/TR ει μη εν προσευχη και νηστεια “This kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting.” 𝔓45 א A C D L W Θ Ψ f1, 33 Maj
The shorter reading is supported by two reliable manuscripts, א* B, and one noteworthy versional witness, it. Had the words “and fasting” been in their exemplars, there is no good reason to explain why these scribes would have deleted them. The variant reading appears to be supported by 𝔓45, but it must be noted that this manuscript has a lacuna after προσ[ευχη], which may or may not have been filled in with και νηστεια (“and fasting”). Given the independent proclivities of the scribe of 𝔓45, one cannot dogmatically say this is what was there. In any event, the words “and fasting” were probably added by scribes who were influenced by the early church’s strong emphasis on fasting. (See also note on Matt 17:21; Acts 10:30; 1 Cor 7:5 for the same kind of addition.) The KJV tradition retains the longer text, followed by NKJV and HCSB (set in brackets).
Bruce M. Metzger writes,
9:29 προσευχῇ {A}
In light of the increasing emphasis in the early church on the necessity of fasting, it is understandable that καὶ νηστείᾳ is a gloss that found its way into most witnesses. Among the witnesses that resisted such an accretion are important representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text.
Some Insights
Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been(55%), would have been (80%),must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certainunless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006)
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
“This kind does not come out except by prayer” is the original reading according to two of the earliest and weightiest manuscripts (א* B), and B 0274 itk. The variant reading “and fasting” is not original and was likely added by scribes that were attempting to highlight the church’s focus on fasting. (See also Matthew 17:21; Acts 10:30; 1 Cor. 7:5, as they contain the same kind of interpolation.) As Comfort points out, 𝔓45vid has a lacuna in the manuscript, so it may or may not support the longer reading. Lacuna (pl: Lacunae): an unfortunate loss of text within a manuscript due to accident or wear and tear. Unfortunately, lacunae are usually more frequent and more damaging in early manuscripts, especially papyri. The essential elements of the missing text can be supplied from other manuscripts, of course, but not sufficient to reconstruct a variant reading. To attempt any kind of reconstruction, one must have access to an accurate facsimile of the damaged manuscript. In some cases, with the size and spacing of letters, measuring the missing space can allow us to determine the likely reading. 
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
