Seek the truth in this matter, by Juda Brinkman

On August 11, 2022, YouTuber Erik Manning posted a response to “TikTokker: Why Are Verses Missing From My Bible?” on his Testify channel. Apparently, this obscure young lady’s TikTok video had gone “viral” and Erik felt a response was necessary. Juda Brinkman, a Christian in the Netherlands, also felt a response to Erik was necessary. Juda blogs (in the Dutch language) at Slangen Stompen. Here is his well-written reply. (All that follows is from Juda, with his permission.)

I love you Eric, but I’mma hard disagree with you here. So much of what you say – and many textual critics say on these passages – is not true and/or misleading. The evidence for the authenticity of these three passages [Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 23:14, rlv] is absolutely clear and overwhelming. I’ll keep it brief, so I’ll just take the first verse, Matthew 17:21, after two considerations against your introduction.

Firstly, you say that older translators weren’t always super careful in the selection of manuscripts that they used. I’m not surprised that you say it, for this is the standard talk of many current textual critics. The problem is that they never provide any proof for the statement, leaving the listener, who is most likely a noob on the topic, with only two choices: either to accept the statement blindly, or to disbelieve it until evidence is actually presented. I advise the readers of my comment to do the latter, for there are and have been plenty of prestigious textual critics who think that the KJV, for example, has a much better selection of manuscripts than most modern translations. A few are John Burgon, James Snapp. and Wilbur Pickering.

Secondly, you say that older translators didn’t have the number of manuscripts that we have today. While this is true, it is no argument in favor of the validity of modern textual criticism. Sure, we’ve discovered some papyri, but we’ve actually lost much more than we’ve gained, because of burnings of libraries and the like.

Thirdly, you present the suggestion of many modern text-critical scholars, namely, that the verse was taken from Mark 9:29 and put between Matthew 17:20 and Matthew 17:22. But this explanation falls flat on its face when we consider that a whole half of the verse, “and fasting,” according to most modern textual critics and translators, isn’t actually part of Mark 9:29. If they’re right about that – they’re not, but it’s beyond the scope of my argument – Matthew 17:21 cannot be explained as a textual harmonization from Mark 9:29.

Fourthly, you say that the saying is still in our current Bible in “its most basic form,” but I guess you really mean, “half of the verse is still in your current Bible,” because your current Bible doesn’t have the words “and fasting” in the text. So, your current Bible has a difference in meaning in this verse.

Fifthly, Matthew 17:21 is original, and the evidence is absolutely clear.

According to the study of Wilbur Pickering:

“Less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit this whole verse (as in NIV, [NASB], LB, [TEV], etc.).” - Pickering, W. (2016). The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken (Second Edition). Clube de Autores.

Furthermore, James Snapp presents the very sobering state of the evidence when he says:

“Matthew 17:21 is not only in over 99% of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew; it was in the manuscripts used by the early church writer Origen (early 200s-254). One can consult Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, Book 13, chapter 7, to see this. It is also in the Vulgate, which was translated by Jerome in 383. (Jerome stated in his Preface to the Vulgate Gospels that he had consulted ancient Greek manuscripts in the preparation of the Gospels’ text.) Codex W, found in Egypt, also includes the verse. The Latin manuscripts used by Ambrose of Milan in the 300s also included this verse, and so do several Old Latin manuscripts. Thus the support for this verse does not only come from the vast majority of Greek manuscripts; it comes from a patristic quotation earlier than the earliest manuscript of this part of the Gospel of Matthew, and it comes from witnesses in at least four different parts of the Roman Empire.” - Snapp, J., Jr. (2018, May 28). A Moment Please, Dr. Holmes! The Text of the Gospels.

The witnesses to the presence of this verse are so early, widespread, diverse and overwhelming, that, respectfully, one would have to be either ignorant or a fool to trust Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus when their testimony is opposed by such incredible evidence. Certainly, there is no evidence that these two manuscripts are our “best witnesses,” and that they are in many cases our “earliest manuscripts” is absolutely irrelevant when we have so many texts that date to an earlier time, like patristic quotations.

I ask you, Eric, to seek the truth in this matter. I’ve learned so much from you and all other modern apologists, but it’s time we climb out of the pit of ignorance and blind trust in regard to current textual and translational criticism. As far as I’ve been able to discern, the modern translations have made steps forward in readability, but only steps backwards in regards to accuracy.

I pray that God soon lifts the veil of deception on the matter. I do not believe that most modern textual critics and translators are workers of Satan, but I certainly believe they have been deceived by him in many ways. That most are genuine Christians is evident to me, but that they are good at their jobs is not.

Juda Brinkman, Dordrecht, Netherlands