<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/28/26 2:33 PM, Fred wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAF2xExuLVQgnB5C_vxPMyWAfT6g=6WJH=4qTaDJ8WRbc7BNsZQ@mail.gmail.com">One
problem (and it may well not be new) is that (viewing ESV) in Mark
9, one gets to verse 43 and can't use the verse spinner to go
beyond. Prolly all confused because in most texts (of Mark) there
is no verse 44 but there is a verse 45 (as well as 47 but no 46).</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="FreeSerif">That behavior is as old as the Sword Project
itself.<br>
<br>
Xiphos, and other Sword apps, do verse arithmetic to move to the
next/prev verse. This is to say, they add/subtract 1 to the
current verse key. When there is nothing there at the new key,
Sword (and Xiphos) correctly conclude that nothing should happen.
This is actually normal for some Bibles that include only 1
testament, or just (e.g.) Psalms and NT: You can't navigate
Genesis at all in an NT Bible, so it doesn't try.<br>
<br>
In the NT, this is because there are 16 verses that the modern
science of textual criticism has reliably determined were never
part of the original writings, including those 2 verses in Mark:<br>
<br>
Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44,46; 11:26; 15:28;
Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans
16:24<br>
<br>
Modern translations leave these out but often include notes
indicating their absence, and why. A few translations leave quite
extensive footnotes about it. For example, NET Matt 17:20 says
this in its "tc' (textual criticism) footnote #39:</font>
<blockquote><font face="FreeSerif">39- <b><i><u>tc</u></i></b> Many
important MSS (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not
include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer
and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat,
but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes,
“Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if
originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a
wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently
inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that
most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk
9:29” (TCGNT 35).</font></blockquote>
<font face="FreeSerif">"B.M.Metzger" was Bruce Metzger, arguably the
foremost Greek translator of the last century, and his TCGNT
(Textual Commentary on the Greek NT) is a baseline standard
reference.<br>
<br>
ESV provides a very brief note about this at Mark 9:43, if you
have notes enabled (as is default):<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="FreeSerif">Some manuscripts add verses 44
and 46 (which are identical with verse 48)</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="FreeSerif">Of course, the KJV-only crowd likes to whine
loudly about "denying the very word of God" over these removals,
but I regard that as nonsense because Erasmus' Textus Receptus, as
basis for KJV NT, was constructed from only about 7 manuscripts,
none of them older than 12th century, with some parts of those
being highly questionable, yet modern translations derive from
such complete or near-complete manuscript collections as Codex
Sinaiticus, reliably dated to 4th century. The very name "textus
receptus" (the "received text" -- received from whom? one random
intellectual who was creating what we would now call a unified
"critical text apparatus," just like NA28 is today?) is an
arrogant misnomer of huge proportions. As a result, I don't have a
lot of respect for the KJV-only crowd.</font>
</body>
</html>