Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
Many modern Bibles move this sentence to a footnote.
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.
Authorized Version
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” — Matthew 17:21
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.
Translation or explanation
The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage; the printed confidence rating represented here is {B}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note on Matthew 17:21
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Matthew, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 17:21, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it. Critics argue that a copyist imported the line from Mark to make Matthew’s explanation fuller. A copyist or editor accustomed to the shorter Mark may find Matthew’s whole verse suspect.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 17:21 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it. The whole-verse omission in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and allied witnesses gives that claim force.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Critics argue that a copyist imported the line from Mark to make Matthew’s explanation fuller. The whole-verse omission in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and allied witnesses gives that claim force. Scribes also shortened passages when a sentence seemed duplicated elsewhere, especially when a lection moved from the healing to the next scene without requiring the private explanation.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it. Matthew 17:21 has wide church use, a natural place in the answer, and wording that is demanding rather than decorative. The received sentence should stay where the Church has long read it: between failed self-reliance and the renewed walk with Christ.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 17:21. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it. Critics argue that a copyist imported the line from Mark to make Matthew’s explanation fuller. A copyist or editor accustomed to the shorter Mark may find Matthew’s whole verse suspect.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 3 passage-specific notes attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF pp. 76
Burgon directly discusses Matthew 17:21. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions, patristic citation as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Take as an illustration of what I have been saying the exceedingly precious verse, “Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting” (St. Matt. xvii. 21), which has met with rejection by the recent school of critics. Here the evidence against the verse is confined to B and the first reading of amongst the Uncials, Evan. 33 alone of the Cursives, e and ff1 of the Old Latin Versions, as well as the Curetonian and the Lewis, Jerusalem, Sahidic, a few Bohairic copies, a few Ethiopic, and the Greek of Eusebius' Canons:—evidence of a slight and shifty character, when contrasted with the witness of all the…
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
The Revision RevisedPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon — supplied PDF pp. 139
Burgon directly discusses Matthew 17:21. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions, patristic citation as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens, before we pass on :— (a) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that ‘ this kind [of evil spirit] goeth not out but by prayer and fasting, is expunged by our Revisionists ; although it is vouched for by every known uncial but two (B &), every known cursive but one (Evan.…
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 5
Matthew 17.21: It sets “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:21 Authorised Version)” against “[Omit].” Its stated doctrinal argument is that The Alexandrian Text also deletes references to fasting in Mark 9.29 and Acts 10.30. The Alexandrian Text has thus eliminated all references by our Lord and Saviour Himself to prayer and fasting, and it has eliminated from our purview the fact that Cornelius the centurion was also fasting when in prayer, when the angel appeared to him, commanding him to summon Peter to bring the Gospel to his house. These deletions of fasting from the Holy Writ would appear to be systematic. Given the antinomian trends that were rampant in Egypt in the second and third centuries A.D.… The compilation appeals to The omission of this verse by the Nestle-Aland Text is supported by Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The inclusion of this verse is supported the Diatessaron of Tatian in the 2nd century A.D.,xvii and by Origen in the 3rd century in his Commentary on Matthew.xviii These words were also cited by the third century Latin Father Tertullian.xix They are also universally found in the Byzantine Text.
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
The variant at Mark 9:29—where some texts retain prayer but omit fasting—likely influenced how readers approached Matthew. A copyist or editor accustomed to the shorter Mark may find Matthew’s whole verse suspect. Another may fill Matthew from the full Mark. The parallel history must be weighed in both Gospels rather than used as a single automatic answer.
The verse’s ascetic use in the church can cut two ways as evidence. Devotion may preserve a difficult command in memory; devotion may also expand a text. Its exact fit with the failed exorcism and the received breadth remain the firmer grounds for inclusion.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Matthew 17:21, the received text reads “The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” — Matthew 17:21”. The assessed critical reading is “The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Matthew 17:21, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” — Matthew 17:21”. The assessed critical form is “The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Matthew 17:21, the received text reads “The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” — Matthew 17:21”. The assessed critical reading is “The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF pp. 76 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- The Revision Revisedsupplied PDF pp. 139 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 5 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Read the full research essay and its sources
Many modern Bibles move this sentence to a footnote. The earliest Greek witnesses behind the critical text omit the entire verse, while the received text and the broad later tradition keep it. Its words resemble Mark 9:29, where Jesus says that “this kind” can come forth by prayer and, in the received form, fasting.
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” — Matthew 17:21
The likeness to Mark supplies the chief case against Matthew 17:21. It does not settle the case.
A saying at home in the scene
The disciples had attempted an exorcism without success. Jesus rebukes their unbelief, speaks of mustard-seed faith, and then names the discipline required in this hard case. Prayer confesses dependence. Fasting gives bodily form to earnest self-denial. Neither is a technique that forces God’s hand.
The verse does not interrupt the answer. It completes it. Unbelief is answered not by loud confidence but by a life turned toward God.
Critics argue that a copyist imported the line from Mark to make Matthew’s explanation fuller. The whole-verse omission in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and allied witnesses gives that claim force. There is also no obvious single-letter accident that must account for the shorter form.
Yet parallel truth is not foreign truth. Jesus may repeat the same instruction in the same historical incident; Matthew and Mark may both report it. Scribes also shortened passages when a sentence seemed duplicated elsewhere, especially when a lection moved from the healing to the next scene without requiring the private explanation. A smooth omission can spread without leaving broken grammar.
Prayer and fasting are not magic
The verse has sometimes been abused as though longer fasting purchases greater spiritual rank. Christ gives no scale and promises no spectacle. Scripture condemns fasting performed for human praise. True fasting humbles the body before God and joins prayer when need presses hard.
Nor does the command reduce every affliction to a devil needing an elite exorcist. “This kind” belongs to the case before the disciples. The authority remains Christ’s; the servants must not act as if a former commission made present dependence needless.
Matthew 17:21 has wide church use, a natural place in the answer, and wording that is demanding rather than decorative. The Markan parallel explains why a scribe might add it, but it also confirms that the Lord gave such instruction. The received sentence should stay where the Church has long read it: between failed self-reliance and the renewed walk with Christ.
Prayer and fasting also belong together without becoming inseparable rules for every request. Scripture records prayer without fasting and fasting joined to solemn prayer at moments of need, repentance, and appointment. The pairing in this case marks unusual dependence, not a universal timetable.
The variant at Mark 9:29—where some texts retain prayer but omit fasting—likely influenced how readers approached Matthew. A copyist or editor accustomed to the shorter Mark may find Matthew’s whole verse suspect. Another may fill Matthew from the full Mark. The parallel history must be weighed in both Gospels rather than used as a single automatic answer.
The verse’s ascetic use in the church can cut two ways as evidence. Devotion may preserve a difficult command in memory; devotion may also expand a text. Its exact fit with the failed exorcism and the received breadth remain the firmer grounds for inclusion.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 6:16–18; 17:14–22; Mark 9:14–29.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 17:21.
- John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-1061
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 2026-07-22 · Exact Day
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Recovered project data; bibliographic and source-level verification remains record-specific. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis; cited sources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging record; independent review remains open.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Matthew 17:21 — “Prayer and Fasting”: Is the Entire Verse Authentic?,” VAR-1061, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas