Sections missing in MNTC - Matthew 9
Sections missing in MNTC - Matthew 9.
The first one is on page 114, Matthew 9:37a:
The second one is on page 115, Matthew 9:37a:
Note: There are about 4 lines missing in the first section, and there is only the last line missing in the second section.
Comments
-
Yes the green highlighted words below are in MTNC, but the red word is different and a few sentences are missing where the red highlighted word appears.
Could it be that in Logos we have an older or newer version of the MTNC in Logos than your physical / paper copy?
My Logos version was copyrighted as follows.
© 1985–1989 by
THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
JOHN MACARTHUR
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1985). Matthew (Vol. 1, p. ii). Moody Press.
When was your physical / paper copy copyrighted?
0 -
My physical / paper copy has the same copyright as logos - 1985 -1989 THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO.
0 -
Hi Kenute. Thanks for notifying us. We're looking into this.
0 -
Thank you very much 🙂
0 -
0
-
Kenute, thanks for your patience. We have discovered that the publisher supplied us with files of a different edition. We are working closely with them to receive the correct files in order to get this resource corrected. It may take some time still, but we're working on it!
0 -
Thank you very much Anna Adent. It is much appreciated.
0 -
Anna Adent said:
Kenute, thanks for your patience. We have discovered that the publisher supplied us with files of a different edition. We are working closely with them to receive the correct files in order to get this resource corrected. It may take some time still, but we're working on it!
Any updates on this?
0 -
Any updates on this?
0 -
Thanks for checking in on this! Despite delays, we are in the process of producing the 25th edition to replace our current, troubled edition. We have the materials from the publisher and things are moving forward.
I realize that's not a lot of information, so I thought you might be interested in some background details. Specifically, the version in Logos right now: It exists! We actually have it as a hard copy.
The copyright information matches the volumes described upthread, but the actual text is different. Maybe one was accidentally published using older proofs? Or maybe one quietly incorporated later revisions? It's impossible to tell, whatever happened here happened back in 1986. Here, I brought the evidence:
Here's our hardcopy. Maybe the changes snuck in as part of this particular set?
Here's the copyright page for maximum identification.
And here we have the relevant pages. The bold text on "harvest" makes it easy to spot the contested text.
Here, too.
Personally, I find all this fascinating—This kind of confusion is exactly why you don't make textual changes within an edition. In scholarship and in library science, there is no text unimportant enough that it won't be worth a forum discussion thirty years later. At the same time, I can't be frustrated with something that allows me to play "Library Detective" for a day or two.0 -
Thank you Hayley! It is quite odd. My hard copies have the missing information as well. I look forward to the updated editions!!!
Did I understand you correctly that they will replace the current version? Or would one have to purchase the newer editions?
0 -
I saw this today. Will I have to repurchase Matthew to get the notes that correlate with my Volume?
https://www.logos.com/product/251949/matthew-vols-1-4-rev-ed0 -
Mattillo said:
I saw this today. Will I have to repurchase Matthew to get the notes that correlate with my Volume?
https://www.logos.com/product/251949/matthew-vols-1-4-rev-edThe old set should be fixed but the new “revised edition” you would have to purchase if you want the “revisions.”
DAL
0 -
Mattillo said:
I saw this today. Will I have to repurchase Matthew to get the notes that correlate with my Volume?
https://www.logos.com/product/251949/matthew-vols-1-4-rev-edThe old set should be fixed but the new “revised edition” you would have to purchase if you want the “revisions.”
DAL
0 -
DAL said:
The old set should be fixed but the new “revised edition” you would have to purchase if you want the “revisions.”
DAL
I agree on fixing the old set but I don't know what this revised edition is? From what I can tell, Grace to You nor Amazon sell a "revised edition." I bought my paperback set a while ago (when he finished the full 33 volume set) and my Matthew volume has the content in question so I'm not sure why the resource Faithlife has is different. I'm not fond of spending $50 for the same stuff... not sure what is revised.
0 -
This issue has been most confusing. if I already have the Matthew volumes, will i have to pay for the fixed version?
0 -
Hayley explained in her post that the "missing" text is due to a revision that was made without issuing a new edition.
The original Logos edition of this commentary faithfully reproduces the text supplied to us by the publisher at that time,
When a new edition of any work is released, it has a new copyright, new royalty contract, and completely new electronic files. This means that it is just as labor-intensive to create the Logos edition for a revised work as for the original. It also means that the royalties paid to the publisher are not discounted because there is a Logos version of the original edition.
This all means that there are no savings to be passed onto our customers when we make the Logos version of a revised work.
0 -
Joe
I have several questions as this is very confusing to me
1) Since the revised edition, doesn’t exist in the wild. How will this work when we cite this resource?
2) Has logos tried speaking with moody publishers and asking them if they would just provide the corrected materials? It seems like more of a mistake on their end.
3) In looking at the product page for Matthew. It says it was produced in 2001 but when I joined Logos when L6 came out I don’t remember this commentary set being available, so was Matthew available then went away and came back or when this was produced after L6 were old materials used and Faithlife failed to check to see if newer additions were available?
4) What version of Matthew was brought over with the WORDsearch transition?
5) How many revisions are we actually talking about here in Matthew? Is it just the one section and maybe just the one book should be reproduced? If this revision was made quietly in Matthew are there other versions out of the date? Should Faithlife review all of the old editions to ensure they are correct?
0 -
6) This is just me wondering but I wonder what other book sellers are offering in regards to MNTC. I don't see revised editions on Amazon, Olivetree or Accordance so either they are all selling old versions or they made the revisions without making people repurchase them.
0 -
Joe McCune,
This has all the earmarks of a mistake that was quietly fixed by Moody. I bought the hardback set volume by volume as they were published. my copy has the missing text. There was no earlier paper edition that matches the Logos version
it appears Moody needs to speak up here and clarify this for everyone. Paying 47.00 for a few paragraphs of text that should have been there from the beginning is wrong on some level.
If Moody gave you corrupted files, then, as you have done in other instances like this, new files were provided, and corrections made at no charge to the customer.
0 -
bump
0 -
Any updates on this? This issue is also present in the Hebrews volume
0 -
Mattillo said:
Any updates on this? This issue is also present in the Hebrews volume
You know what the update is. Wait for the 25th anniversary version and buy it to get the missing text from the mysterious edition that didn’t have the text 😂
DAL
0 -
If Moody has revised the commentaries, that's different than them correcting an error in versions I own and I would expect to pay for the newer version. However, if they are simply correcting errors, then I don't think I should have to pay the update.
0 -
Bump
0 -
Bump
0 -
Is not going to get corrected, if that’s what you need to know. They already said it’s something the publisher screwed up.
DAL
Ps. Don’t hold your breath 😁
0
