Why does the NAB delete fasting?

[hopefull]

In Mark 9-29, Christ explains that casting out a particular demon requires prayer and fasting. In the Greek, this translates as proseuche kai nesteia . It is clear that BOTH words are included. Why, then, does the NAB have Christ saying that this kind can only be cast out by prayer?

Is this part of downplaying the importance of fasting for Catholics, as we have seen the transition from most days of Lent to only 2 days of Lent? It seems like fasting is treated like an anachronism. Also, this seems to me like substantively changing an important verse in the Bible. I wonder what others think…

 

[porthos11]

I think the NAB translators simply used what in their best judgment were the best variants for each particular passage, rather than any insidious plot to water down fasting. A simple glance at the footnote will tell say that "a variant reading adds, ‘and through fasting’.

 

[lak611]

I think the NAB translators simply used what in their best judgment were the best variants for each particular passage, rather than any insidious plot to water down fasting. A simple glance at the footnote will tell say that "a variant reading adds, ‘and through fasting’.

The RSV also omits “fasting”. From the RSV: "[29] And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

In the NIV, Mark 9:29 reads, " 29 He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer. **” The footnote in the NIV says, “Mark 9:29 Some manuscripts prayer and fasting”.

So far from what I have seen, only the Douay-Rheims and KJV mention “fasting”. “(DRB) (9:29) And he said to them: This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.” “(KJV) And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.”**

 

[tee_eff_em]

It sounds like a simple case of the current/modern scholarship. The Clementine Vulgate and *Nova Vulgata *differ similarly.

Et dixit illis: Hoc genus in nullo potest exire, nisi in oratione et jejunio.

Et dixit illis: “Hoc genus in nullo potest exire nisi in oratione”.

tee

 

[lak611]

It sounds like a simple case of the current/modern scholarship. The Clementine Vulgate and *Nova Vulgata *differ similarly.

Et dixit illis: Hoc genus in nullo potest exire, nisi in oratione et jejunio.

Et dixit illis: “Hoc genus in nullo potest exire nisi in oratione”.

tee

There also must be differences in the Greek manuscripts used for the KJV and the ones used for the RSV and NIV, because those translations also differ.

 

[El_camino]

There also must be differences in the Greek manuscripts used for the KJV and the ones used for the RSV and NIV, because those translations also differ.

THat is correct. Depending on which Greek manuscript you use, you find that the word fasting is omitted.

 

[porthos11]

The RSV also omits “fasting”. From the RSV: "[29] And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

Interestingly, the RSV-CE restores “and fasting” to the text, moving it from the footnotes. In the original RSV, the footnote read, “Other authorities add ‘and fasting’.” In the RSV-CE, the footnote now reads, “Other authorities omit ‘and fasting’.”

 

[porthos11]

THat is correct. Depending on which Greek manuscript you use, you find that the word fasting is omitted.

The Textus Receptus, I believe has it. I think the UBS4 does not, if I recall correctly.

 

[Todd_Easton]

In A Cathilic Commentary On Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1953, it says that the words “and fasting” are missing from a few important manuscripts.