[xiphos-users] Xiphos 4.5.0

[Chuck Hast]

I saw the note about the ESV, I look at the sources but do  not see it, is
it available now?

On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 2:17 PM Karl Kleinpaste <karl at kleinpaste.org> wrote:

> On 9/28/26 2:33 PM, Fred wrote:
>
> 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).
>
>
> That behavior is as old as the Sword Project itself.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> 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
>
> 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:
>
> 39- *tc* 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).
>
> "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.
>
> ESV provides a very brief note about this at Mark 9:43, if you have notes
> enabled (as is default):
>
> Some manuscripts add verses 44 and 46 (which are identical with verse 48)
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> xiphos-users mailing list
> xiphos-users at crosswire.org
> https://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/xiphos-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://crosswire.org/pipermail/xiphos-users/attachments/20261003/42ef028c/attachment.htm>