Why Is Matthew 17:21 Missing in Some Bible Translations? Understanding Textual Variations

A Personal Encounter with a Curious Absence

I remember it vividly. I was engrossed in a study of Jesus’ teachings on prayer and fasting, digging into the power that comes from a deep connection with the divine. I’d always found a particular passage in Matthew’s Gospel to be quite profound in this context. It was Matthew 17:21, a verse that seemed to offer a direct explanation for why some disciples struggled to cast out a demon when others succeeded. The verse, as I recalled it, read something like, “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” Yet, as I consulted a few different Bible versions on my shelf – a well-worn King James Version, a modern New International Version, and a more scholarly New Revised Standard Version – I noticed something unsettling. The verse simply wasn’t there in the NIV and NRSV! It was a real head-scratcher. Was I misremembering? Had my KJV been somehow altered? Or was there a genuine reason why Matthew 17:21 was absent in some Bible translations? This seemingly small omission sparked a deep dive into the fascinating, and sometimes complex, world of biblical textual criticism.

The Concise Answer: Textual Variants and Manuscript Evidence

The primary reason why Matthew 17:21 is missing in some Bible translations is due to the fact that it is not found in some of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. These translations, often referred to as “modern” or “critical” translations, prioritize accuracy based on the available manuscript evidence, and therefore omit verses or readings that appear to be later additions or alterations. Other translations, particularly those that rely more heavily on later manuscript traditions, may include the verse.

Delving Deeper: Understanding Textual Criticism

To truly grasp why Matthew 17:21 appears in some Bibles and not others, we need to understand the discipline of textual criticism. This isn’t about questioning the core message of the Bible, but rather about painstakingly reconstructing the original text as accurately as possible, given that we don’t possess the original autographs (the very first writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the apostles). Instead, we have thousands of ancient copies, or manuscripts, of these texts, painstakingly copied by scribes over centuries.

The Challenge of Ancient Manuscripts

Imagine a game of ancient “telephone.” The message starts with an original author. Then, a scribe copies it. That copy is then copied, and so on, for hundreds, even thousands, of years. During this process, it’s inevitable that small changes creep in. These changes can be unintentional: a scribe might misread a word, their hand might slip, or they might fall asleep and miss a line. Other changes can be intentional: a scribe might try to harmonize parallel passages in different Gospels, clarify a difficult phrase, or even add a marginal note into the main text.

What is Textual Criticism Trying to Achieve?

Textual criticism is the scholarly method used to compare these various manuscripts and determine, with the greatest possible certainty, what the original wording of the text likely was. It’s like being a detective, piecing together clues from different sources to reconstruct an event. Scholars look at various factors when evaluating manuscripts:

• Age: Older manuscripts are generally considered more reliable, as they are closer to the original writing.
• Geographical Distribution: Manuscripts from different geographical regions that agree with each other are often seen as representing an older tradition.
• Text Type: Manuscripts can be grouped into families or text types (e.g., Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine). Scholars often favor the readings found in the Alexandrian text-type, as it is generally believed to be the most conservative and least prone to scribal alterations.
• Internal Evidence: Scholars also consider how well a reading fits with the author’s style, vocabulary, and theological perspective.

The Case of Matthew 17:21: A Closer Look at the Evidence

Now, let’s bring this back to Matthew 17:21. This particular verse reads:

Matthew 17:21 (KJV): “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”

When scholars examine the earliest and most reputable Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel, they find that this verse is conspicuously absent in many of them. For example, some of the most important early manuscripts, such as:

• Codex Vaticanus (B)
• Codex Sinaiticus (א)
• The majority of early papyri

These manuscripts, which are foundational for reconstructing the New Testament text, do not contain Matthew 17:21. The verse *does* appear in later Byzantine manuscripts, which form the basis of the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying the King James Version and some other older translations).

Why Might This Verse Have Been Added?

The presence of Matthew 17:21 in later manuscripts suggests it was likely a later addition. But why would scribes add it? The most plausible explanation is that it was a harmonization with the parallel account in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 9:29, the disciples ask Jesus why they couldn’t cast out the demon, and Jesus replies:

Mark 9:29 (ESV): “And he said to them, ‘This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.'”

Notice that Mark’s account only mentions prayer, not fasting. It’s easy to see how a scribe, reading Matthew’s account and recalling Mark’s, might have thought, “Ah, yes, and fasting too!” and added the word “fasting” to Matthew’s text, perhaps to emphasize the spiritual discipline involved in overcoming such strong demonic forces. This kind of harmonization was a common practice among scribes who sought to make the Gospels consistent with each other.

The Implications for Translation

Bible translators today, particularly those working with critical editions of the Greek New Testament (which are based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts), must decide how to handle such variations. When a verse is absent in the majority of the earliest and best manuscripts, modern critical translations will typically:

• Omit the verse entirely, as is the case with Matthew 17:21 in many modern Bibles.
• Include the verse but place it in brackets, indicating that its inclusion is questionable.
• Include the verse but add a footnote explaining that it is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts.

Translations like the NIV, ESV, NRSV, and NASB generally follow the practice of omitting verses or readings that lack strong early manuscript support. This is done not to diminish the Bible, but to be as faithful as possible to the original text as it was inspired by God and written by the apostles.

What About the King James Version and Similar Translations?

The King James Version (KJV), along with the New King James Version (NKJV) and others, are based on the Textus Receptus. This Greek text was compiled in the 16th century by Erasmus and later scholars, primarily from much later Byzantine manuscripts. While the Textus Receptus has historical significance and has been the basis for translations that have blessed millions, its manuscript base is generally considered less reliable than the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts used by modern critical scholars.

The “Majority Text” vs. “Eclectic Text” Debate

This brings us to a point of discussion within some Christian circles: the debate between the “Majority Text” and the “Eclectic Text.”

• Majority Text: This view holds that the best way to reconstruct the original text is to follow the reading found in the majority of the available manuscripts, assuming that the most frequently occurring reading is the most likely to be original. Proponents of this view often include passages like Matthew 17:21.
• Eclectic Text: This is the approach favored by most modern textual critics. It doesn’t simply count manuscripts but weighs them based on age, geographical distribution, and other factors. The critical editions of the Greek New Testament used by most modern translators are eclectic texts.

The difference in manuscript evidence for Matthew 17:21 is a classic illustration of why these different approaches lead to different translations. The KJV, based on the Textus Receptus, includes the verse because it is present in the later Byzantine manuscripts that formed its basis. Modern translations, using eclectic texts derived from older manuscripts, omit it because it’s absent in those earlier witnesses.

Theological Implications: Does It Matter?

This might lead one to wonder: does the absence of Matthew 17:21 in some Bibles diminish the spiritual power or theological truth found in Scripture? I believe the answer is a resounding no, and here’s why:

1. The Core Message Remains Intact

The central message of Jesus about the power of prayer and faith is profoundly evident throughout the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The story of the disciples’ failure to cast out the demon is found in Matthew 17:14-20, and Jesus’ explanation in verse 20 focuses on their lack of faith: “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” This emphasis on faith is consistent across all Gospel accounts and is a cornerstone of Christian teaching.

2. The Concept of Prayer and Spiritual Discipline is Still Present

While Matthew 17:21 might be absent, the importance of prayer and spiritual discipline is not. As we saw, Mark 9:29 explicitly mentions prayer as the means by which the demon is cast out. The Gospels are replete with instances of Jesus praying, teaching His disciples to pray, and emphasizing its power. The broader biblical witness strongly supports the idea that consistent prayer and a life lived in dependence on God are essential for spiritual victory. So, even without that specific verse in Matthew, the spiritual principle is overwhelmingly affirmed elsewhere.

3. Focus on the More Ancient Testimony

By following the earliest manuscript evidence, modern translations are essentially prioritizing the word of God as it was first conveyed to the church. This doesn’t mean older traditions are wrong, but it does mean we are striving for the most accurate historical and textual representation of the original message.

4. The Reliability of the Bible is Not Undermined

The existence of textual variations, even significant ones like this, does not undermine the overall reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible. The vast majority of the New Testament text is undisputed. The variations that exist are often minor and do not affect core doctrines. The issue of Matthew 17:21 is a prime example of a relatively minor variant that doesn’t impact essential Christian theology.

Personal Reflections and a Call to Understanding

My initial confusion over Matthew 17:21 was a valuable learning experience. It moved me from a passive acceptance of a text to an active engagement with how that text came to be. It taught me that the Bible is not a monolithic, unchanging block of text magically preserved, but a collection of ancient documents that have been transmitted with remarkable faithfulness, yet with inevitable variations that require scholarly work to navigate.

When I encountered this absence, my first thought wasn’t to doubt God, but to question my own understanding and the tools I was using. This led me to appreciate the rigorous work of textual critics and the careful consideration that goes into producing different Bible translations. It also reinforced for me the importance of using translations that are transparent about their methodology and provide notes for significant textual variations.

For believers, this understanding should lead to greater appreciation for the Bible as a historical document and a profound respect for the process that has brought God’s Word to us. It also encourages humility. We may not always agree on every textual detail, but we can unite in the shared conviction that God has preserved His Word for us through the ages.

Frequently Asked Questions About Matthew 17:21

Why is Matthew 17:21 sometimes considered a scribal error or addition?

Matthew 17:21 is often considered a scribal error or addition because it is absent from many of the oldest and most authoritative Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew. Prominent manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which date back to the 4th century and are highly regarded by textual scholars, do not include this verse. The verse *does* appear in later manuscripts, particularly those that form the basis of the Textus Receptus (the Greek text used for the King James Version). The prevailing scholarly consensus is that the verse was likely added to harmonize Matthew’s account with the parallel passage in Mark 9:29, where Jesus states that a particular type of demon can only be cast out by prayer.

The addition of “and fasting” in Matthew 17:21, while absent in Mark 9:29, suggests a scribe may have felt that fasting was an integral part of overcoming such spiritual challenges, or perhaps they were seeking to enhance the emphasis on spiritual discipline within Matthew’s Gospel. Textual critics meticulously compare these manuscript variations, and when a reading is missing from the earliest witnesses, it is often flagged as a potential interpolation or later addition, even if it is present in later manuscript traditions.

Does the absence of Matthew 17:21 mean the KJV is flawed?

The question of whether the King James Version (KJV) is “flawed” is a sensitive one within Christian communities. It’s more accurate to say that the KJV, like all translations, is a product of the manuscript tradition available to its translators at the time. The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text compiled in the 16th century, which in turn relied on later Byzantine manuscripts.

The fact that Matthew 17:21 is present in the KJV but absent in many modern translations (like the NIV, ESV, NRSV) highlights a significant difference in their underlying Greek texts. Modern translations generally use critical editions of the Greek New Testament that are based on a wider range of older and more varied manuscripts. Therefore, when a verse like Matthew 17:21 is missing from these older manuscripts, modern translators typically omit it or note its absence. This doesn’t necessarily mean the KJV is “flawed” in its entirety, but rather that its textual basis differs from the basis used by most modern critical translations. Many scholars believe that the KJV’s reliance on later manuscripts means it occasionally includes readings that were not in the original autographs. However, the KJV remains a beloved and historically significant translation, and the theological points it conveys are largely consistent with the broader biblical message, even with such textual variations.

How do modern translations decide which verses to include or exclude?

Modern Bible translations strive for accuracy by basing their work on the earliest and most reliable manuscript evidence available. This process involves extensive textual criticism, where scholars compare thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. They analyze factors such as:

• Age of the Manuscript: Older manuscripts are generally considered more trustworthy because they are closer to the original writings.
• Quality of the Manuscript: Some manuscripts are known for their accuracy and have fewer scribal errors.
• Geographical Distribution: Manuscripts from different regions that agree with each other lend greater confidence to a particular reading.
• Textual Type: Manuscripts can be categorized into different “text types” (e.g., Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine). The Alexandrian text-type, found in many early manuscripts, is often favored for its conservative nature.

When a verse or reading is found in the majority of the earliest and best manuscripts, translators will include it. Conversely, if a verse or reading is absent in these older, authoritative manuscripts but appears only in later ones, translators typically omit it, place it in brackets, or include a footnote indicating the textual uncertainty. This approach is intended to reconstruct the original text as faithfully as possible, even if it means departing from readings found in later manuscript traditions like the Textus Receptus. The goal is to present the most accurate representation of God’s Word as it was originally given.

What does the absence of Matthew 17:21 mean for the practice of prayer and fasting?

The absence of Matthew 17:21 in some translations does not diminish the importance of prayer and fasting in the Christian life. The surrounding context in Matthew 17:14-20 still emphasizes faith as the key element in overcoming challenges, with Jesus rebuking the disciples for their “little faith.” Furthermore, the parallel account in Mark 9:29 explicitly states that this type of demon “cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.” This verse alone strongly affirms the power of prayer.

The broader biblical narrative consistently highlights the significance of prayer, spiritual discipline, and dependence on God. Jesus Himself modeled a life of prayer, and the New Testament epistles are filled with exhortations to pray continually and to live a life set apart. Fasting is also presented as a spiritual discipline that can accompany prayer, deepening devotion and focus. Therefore, even without Matthew 17:21 being present in every translation, the foundational principles of fervent prayer and spiritual commitment remain central to Christian discipleship and are well-supported by the entirety of Scripture. The absence of this specific verse does not negate the profound spiritual truths about prayer and fasting that are evident throughout the Bible.

Are there other examples of verses missing in some Bible translations?

Yes, there are numerous other instances where verses or readings found in older translations like the King James Version are absent or noted as uncertain in modern, critical translations. These variations are a natural consequence of using different manuscript traditions as the basis for translation. Some well-known examples include:

• The Ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20): Many of the earliest and best Greek manuscripts of Mark end at chapter 16, verse 8. The longer ending, which describes the resurrected Jesus appearing to His disciples and giving the Great Commission, is missing from these early manuscripts. Modern translations often include it with a footnote indicating its questionable authenticity.
• The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53 – 8:11): This famous pericope, detailing Jesus’ encounter with a woman accused of adultery, is not found in many of the oldest Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel. It appears in later manuscripts and was likely added to harmonize with other Gospel accounts or to serve as a teaching example.
• The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8): This verse, which explicitly mentions the Trinity (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”), is found in only a few late medieval manuscripts and is widely considered a scribal addition. It is absent in almost all modern translations.

These examples, along with Matthew 17:21, illustrate the consistent practice of modern critical translations to rely on the oldest available manuscript evidence, even when it means diverging from readings found in older, respected translations. The existence of these textual variations is a testament to the scholarly diligence involved in biblical translation and does not detract from the core message of the Bible.

Conclusion: A Deeper Appreciation for God’s Word

The question of why Matthew 17:21 is missing in some Bible translations leads us on a fascinating journey into the history of biblical transmission. It’s a journey that, for me, has fostered a deeper appreciation for the Bible not just as a divine revelation, but as a historically grounded text that has been preserved through the ages with remarkable faithfulness. Understanding textual criticism doesn’t require us to become scholars, but it does equip us to engage with Scripture more thoughtfully, to appreciate the work of those who translate it, and to trust that God has indeed given us His Word in a way that is both reliable and life-changing, regardless of minor textual variations.