Why do you think the verse number 47 was deliberately omitted whereas the verse 46 was maintained although it had the same reference to Jesus’ brothers?
Matthew 12:46
As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.
Why was the following verse not omitted from the manuscripts although it had a more detailed reference to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?
Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude.
Why did the scribes NOT omit the equivalent of the same verse in the other Gospels?
Please answer these questions. You have lots of time to think. If you fail to answer, I shall not call you a man of unsolved mysteries though
The real reason can only be answered by those scribers/or who dictated them to omit it.
I can only give my OPINION. To me:
Omitting so many verses related to brothers could have caused a clear dilemma of alteration/omission when people all of sudden see lots of verses are missing (although in those days, I think, various Bibles were not as easily accessable as they are now).
So scribes/Chruch wanted to omit verses
gradually- the verses which go against Church’s concocted view - so that the vast sheep-like majority who hardly knew few repeated verses (learned/heard in their churches) will not easily found out what game is really being played out of their ignorance and out of not easy access to the Bibles. So omitting the verse 47 was probably the beginning of the gradual process.
( An another example is how the first name of Barabbas was omitted from the early manuscripts of the Gospels.)
For verses you asking why they were not omitted, I think Church amy have thought she can manipulate
the meaning by keeping them. This incident is also mentioned in Mark’s Gospel. So you can see in the following footnote (to mark 6:3) how they are trying to cover up:
**
3 [3] *Is he not the carpenter?: *
no other gospel calls Jesus a carpenter. Some witnesses have “the carpenter’s son,” as in Matthew 13:55. Son of Mary: contrary to Jewish custom, which calls a man the son of his father, this expression may reflect Mark’s own faith that God is the Father of Jesus (Mark 1:1, 11; 8:38; 13:32; 14:36). The brother of James . . . Simon: in Semitic usage, the terms “brother,” “sister” are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters; cf Genesis 14:16; 29:15; Lev 10:4. While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew ah by the Greek word adelphos, “brother,” as in the cited passages, a fact that may argue for a similar breadth of meaning in some New Testament passages. For instance, there is no doubt that in v 17, “brother” is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas.**
But Mark (who is supposedly inspired by the Holy Ghost) apparently understood these very terms
literally, so as per Catholic Bible:
**
On the other hand, Mark may have understood the terms literally; see also Mark 3:31-32; Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56; Luke 8:19; John 7:3, 5.
The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.**
I think now you can see what is really happening in the text/meaning/interpretations of your Bibles.
