Please check/fix:
http://api.biblia.com/v1/bible/content/LEB.txt.txt?passage=Luke23&style=oneVersePerLine&key=fd37d8f28e95d3be8cb4fbc37e15e18e
This is not an error - it is removed from many versions based upon text criticism - see NRSV, NAB, NET, NJB . . .
Here's the text-critical note on that missing verse from the NET Bible:
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't realize that. Are there other verses like this? Why isn't anything returned for verse 17? Even to say that it's been omitted.
from Wikipedia:
NIV omits
O = omitted in main text. B = bracketed in the main text – The translation team and most biblical scholars today believe were not part of the original text. However, these texts have been retained in brackets in the NASB and the Holman CSB.[30] F = omission noted in the footnote. B+F = bracketed in the main text and omission noted in the footnote.
In some versions, there is a footnote or typographical feature to clarify the status of verse 17. In other versions, all mention of the verse is omitted.
I would prefer a footnote or something like that, since a verse number is skipped.
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't realize that. Are there other verses like this? Why isn't anything returned for verse 17? Even to say that it's been omitted. In some versions, there is a footnote or typographical feature to clarify the status of verse 17. In other versions, all mention of the verse is omitted. I would prefer a footnote or something like that, since a verse number is skipped.
It is almost inexcusable that any Bible textual committee would choose to excise a verse without an explanation. Whether it belongs or does not, it is practically malpractice to not explain the decision and the condition which warranted it to the reader-patient.
A footnote is present in the LEB as below
I think Mikala's point was more about why this information isn't returned through the API
Why isn't anything returned for verse 17?
which is a different issue and something we would need Logos to comment on.
Perhaps there is something special in the way the footnote is coded. Or perhaps the API only returns main text.
I was wrong to say that "In some versions, there is a footnote or typographical feature to clarify the status of verse 17". It is more accurate to say: “In most versions..."
Okay folks - check the facts before getting hot around the collar or spreading misinformation:
From Biblia:
The OP was talking about returns from a Biblia API call on the LEB text.
Who's spreading what misinformation?
I don't know the Biblia API, but one of the parameters was style=oneVersePerLine. Maybe this parameter precludes including any footnote material.
EDIT: OK, here we go.
But I tried http://api.biblia.com/v1/bible/content/LEB.txt.txt?passage=Luke23&footnotes=true... and still there's no footnote explaining the omission of that verse. Hmm...
Specifying style=fullyFormattedwithFootnotes should be the solution, but it does not work now. [*-)]
http://api.biblia.com/v1/bible/content/LEB.txt.txt?passage=Luke23&footnotes=true&key=fd...
adding &fullText=true gets you the indicator for the footnote ... but not the footnote itself. But we're a far afield from the original question of why no verse 17 although we appear to have identified a bug.
Of course one could simply use the most popular and fastest growing (per ABS) version on planet earth. The statistics don't count any other planets. (That'd be the correct version, whose name begins with the match to 'messiah').
Thanks guys. This was helpful. I'll just add in a check in my code to make sure verses aren't omitted, or add in a note for the user if they are. Like -
16 ... text
17 ... (Omitted. Many manuscripts do not contain this verse.)
18 ... text
Thoughts?
@key used in OP: It's not my key (though thanks for checking). It's used in the example post in the API documentation (see: http://api.biblia.com/docs/Bible_Content). If you click the link on that page, you'll see the key used in the browser.
