Sirach 24 in NAB and D-R (missing verses?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter SamDash
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SamDash

Guest
I was on newadvent.org looking at the Summa Theologica. There was a reference to Sirach 24:45. I clicked on the link which took me to the Douay-Rheims, chapter 24, which ends with verse 47.

However, in the New American Bible, chapter 24 ends with verse 31.

I thought perhaps this was simply a matter of chapter numbering, but 25:1 in the NAB seems to sync up with 25:1 in the D-R.

Can somebody explain this? Are 24:32-47 somewhere else in the NAB? Are there other similar variances? Are these cataloged/explained somewhere?
 
Most of the problem seems to be the NAB follows a different method of numbering the verses, perhaps its based on the KJV. NAB put more things into a verse making it seem like there’s few verses. There does seem to be a few lines missing from the NAB though.
 
There are multiple numberings in this chapter (the Revised English and the RSV are different from the NAB) and also a couple of verses in the D-R that are noted in the footnotes to the RSV as “other ancient manuscripts add . . .”

The first 23 verses in the D-R are 1-17 in the modern translations. Then it starts to get squirrelly:

The NAB does not have the material that appears as 24 and 25 in the D-R (RSV and REB number it as 18 but relegate it to footnotes).

D-R verses 31 and 34 don’t appear in either of the other two (D-R 32-33 is 22 in the NAB and 23 in the REV/RSV).

NAB ends with verse 31 which correlates to verse 44 in the D-R. D-R 45 is not in any of the new translations. D-R 46-47 are 33-34 in the REB/RSV.

Footnote to the RSV says some ancient authorities add as verse 24 “Do not cease to be strong in the Lord, cling to him so that he may strengthen you, the Lord Almighty alone is God, and beside him there is no other.” which does not appear to correlate with any verse in the D-R version.

Given the overtly Christian content of vs. 34 and 45, these are very likely examples of those places where a scribal gloss got absorbed into the text in some copies, but that’s just speculation on my part as I haven’t researched this and it’s not mentioned in the notes.
 
  • :bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version, Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . .
The Douay Rhiems Version was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin in 1609 . . . *and then revised in 1752 *. . . to make it more readable in English . . . it was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such . . . and insofar as I know it is still the official English Catholic Bible . . . The original Latin translation was accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration through the blessed St. Jerome . . . the Old Testament from the Hebrew . . . the New Testament from the Greek . . . and some of the manuscripts St. Jerome used are no longer in existence . . .

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Douay Rheims Version
was **
*“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” ***The NAB version has neither a saint like St. Jerome . . . who as well as being a saint is a Holy Doctor of the Catholic Church . . . nor the Vicar of Christ’s (the Pope’s) declaration or support . . .

The book of Sirach actually is not included in the King James Version of the **Holy :bible1: Bible **which is used by God’s protestant children today . . . so it is rather doubtful that it had any influence on the NAB translation problem you discovered . . . and the problem in the NAB version you discovered is just one of many that have surfaced re this weak translation . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top