Matthew 12 in the ESV is missing verse 47 or a verse 47

Anthony Etienne
Anthony Etienne Member Posts: 196 ✭✭
edited November 2024 in English Forum

I was doing my daily reading plan of reading the NT in the ESV and noticed that the verses go from 46 to 48 omitting 47. I can see that in the context of the passage that it seems to have been rolled into 46. I use the Text Comparison tool; as a poor man's paralle bible, and the other 4 bibles (NKJV,KJV,NASB95,GW) include verse 47. I'm a NKJV and NASB95 person, and the ESV is new to me, this may have already been brought up, and resovled...I was just curious as to why the omission.

Comments

  • Jonathan Griffiths
    Jonathan Griffiths Member Posts: 95 ✭✭

    It's a disputed verse in terms of its inclusion in the original manuscripts, so it is not in the main text. Unless you're in "Bible only" mode, you should be able to hover over the reference point at the end of v.46 and the pop-up will verify this.

    L5 on Lenovo Thinkpad, i5, windows 7 pro | Logos App on Samsung Galaxy S3 | Logos App on tablet soon

  • Rich DeRuiter
    Rich DeRuiter MVP Posts: 6,729

    Anthony Etienne said:

    I was doing my daily reading plan of reading the NT in the ESV and noticed that the verses go from 46 to 48 omitting 47. I can see that in the context of the passage that it seems to have been rolled into 46. I use the Text Comparison tool; as a poor man's paralle bible, and the other 4 bibles (NKJV,KJV,NASB95,GW) include verse 47. I'm a NKJV and NASB95 person, and the ESV is new to me, this may have already been brought up, and resovled...I was just curious as to why the omission.

    If you have the NET Bible, look at the footnote immediately following the verse number at v 47 for a detailed explanation of what's going on (from the perspective that it should be included).

     Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

  • Anthony Etienne
    Anthony Etienne Member Posts: 196 ✭✭
    https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64827#Comment_64827

    Thanks for the input guys, I guess since verse numbers are not in the original manuscripts, it is no biggie. Especially since it is not like they cut out actual scripture. I'll check the NET and the other mode Jonathan spoke of.

  • Robert Pavich
    Robert Pavich Member Posts: 5,685 ✭✭✭
    https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64846#Comment_64846

    Anthony,

    Do you have Metzger's Textual Commentary?

    That's really handy to have, and it's entries are short and to the point. I'm a layman and they are MUCH easier to digest than a full blown apparatus....

    Robert Pavich

    For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

  • Anthony Etienne
    Anthony Etienne Member Posts: 196 ✭✭
    https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/65137#Comment_65137

    Robert Pavich said:


    Anthony,

    Do you have Metzger's Textual Commentary?

    That's really handy to have, and it's entries are short and to the point. I'm a layman and they are MUCH easier to digest than a full blown apparatus....


    Not sure, I'll have to check (still exploring my Scholars library).

    Thanks for the info on Metzger's Commentary

Categories