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

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jonathan Griffiths

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.

Rich DeRuiter

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).

Anthony Etienne

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

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....

Anthony Etienne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/65137#Comment_65137

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