Sirach and Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus

  • Thread starter Thread starter JCPhoenix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JCPhoenix

Guest
I’m confused. :confused:

Several weeks ago I was at a retreat and we were referred to the book of Sirach for a particular passage. I had The Jerusalem Bible with me and could not find Sirach. It is a Catholic Bible.

The other day, I picked up my tattered copy of the New American Bible and read from Sirach and I am finding it to be one of my favorite books.

Anyway, then I looked again at the Jerusalem Bible, which is the one I read from most often. It does not have Sirach, but the same book is actually called Eccleasticus.

Then I went back to my New American Bible and found that it has both Sirach and Ecclesiastes, which is not the same thing as Eccleasticus.

My Ignatious RSV Bible also has both Sirach and Ecclesastes, but not “Eccleasticus”.

Can someone help me understand why the books are different?

I know that some Protestant Bibles do not include Sirach, but why the name change, first of all, from Sirach to Eccleasticus, and why is Eccliastes then included in Ignations and NAB, but not New Jerusalem. All my Bibles are Catholic Bibles.

Anyone? :confused:
 
The Douay Rheims translation has some differnet names for a few books. I think it has something to with the fact that it is translated from the Latin. Also, some names in the Bible are different: Noe for Noah and Elias for Elijah come to mind.
 
I understand that there are different names for the books, but my question is why are some Bibles completely different?

My NAB has both Eccliastes AND Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), but my Jerusalem Bible and my Ignations Bible do not have Eccliastes.

The JB calls Sirach “Eccliasticus” and the Ignatious Bible calls it Sirach…the same book.

But only the Jerusalem Bible does not include Eccliastes at all. It is completely eliminated. Why?
 
40.png
JCPhoenix:
I understand that there are different names for the books, but my question is why are some Bibles completely different?

My NAB has both Eccliastes AND Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), but my Jerusalem Bible and my Ignations Bible do not have Eccliastes.

The JB calls Sirach “Eccliasticus” and the Ignatious Bible calls it Sirach…the same book.

But only the Jerusalem Bible does not include Eccliastes at all. It is completely eliminated. Why?
Click to expand...
Well, it should have Ecclesiastes and Sirach/Ecclesiasticus. Count the number of books on the Jerusalem Bible and see if it has 73. It’s possible that it may be named something else.
 
40.png
JCPhoenix:
I already did that. It’s completely absent.
Click to expand...
If this is true, you have a faulty copy and should return it to where you bought it. ALL Bibles (Protestant and Catholic alike) contain the Book of Ecclesiastes.
 
40.png
JCPhoenix:
I understand that there are different names for the books, but my question is why are some Bibles completely different?

My NAB has both Eccliastes AND Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), but my Jerusalem Bible and my Ignations Bible do not have Eccliastes.

The JB calls Sirach “Eccliasticus” and the Ignatious Bible calls it Sirach…the same book.

But only the Jerusalem Bible does not include Eccliastes at all. It is completely eliminated. Why?
Click to expand...
Ecclesiasticus is the Greek name for Sirach, which is it’s Hebrew name. I don’t know what the Hebrew name for the book of Ecclesiastes is.
 
The Hebrew name for Ecclesiastes is “Qoholeth”.

But I checked both my Jerusalem Bible & my paralleel Bible that has the New Jerusalem Bible in it. They both have Ecclesiastes.

My guess is that the Bible is defective. The one folio was not bound into it, & yes, you should be able to have it replaced.

(This is rare, but it does happen…I once had a Bible that had the book of Isaiah in it twice–once in the regular place, & once in with the historical books. They had bound in an extra folio).
 
40.png
Zooey:
The Hebrew name for Ecclesiastes is “Qoholeth”.

But I checked both my Jerusalem Bible & my paralleel Bible that has the New Jerusalem Bible in it. They both have Ecclesiastes.

My guess is that the Bible is defective. The one folio was not bound into it, & yes, you should be able to have it replaced.

(This is rare, but it does happen…I once had a Bible that had the book of Isaiah in it twice–once in the regular place, & once in with the historical books. They had bound in an extra folio).
Click to expand...

My 1970 NAB has an extra folio at the beginning of the Biblical text; and many of the words are printed so close together (it’s printed in two columns, divided down the centre, with notes at the foot) that they run on into each other. Most of the Catholic Bibles I have seen, appear to have defects of some kind - the 1979 Neo-Vulgata misprints arcus as acrus in Zechariah, the 1970 NAB is faulty, and so on. Even the Jewish Publication Society Bible of 1985 has a typo, in Joshua 16.5.​

Modern Bibles are simply not proof-read properly 😦 - with the possible exception of Protestant Bibles: I have yet to find a misprint in them (commentaries are another story). Yet the Bible is of all books the one which, it might be hoped, would be free of blunders

I’m amazed to hear of a Bible missing an entire book ##
 
Another possibility: Maybe it is just in a different location.
I have seen different orders for the same books.

BLESSINGS!
 
JCPhoenix said:
I understand that there are different names for the books, but my question is why are some Bibles completely different?

My NAB has both Eccliastes AND Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), but my Jerusalem Bible and my Ignations Bible do not have Eccliastes.

The JB calls Sirach “Eccliasticus” and the Ignatious Bible calls it Sirach…the same book.

But only the Jerusalem Bible does not include Eccliastes at all. It is completely eliminated. Why?
Click to expand...
If you have this Jerusalem Bible
Its located on page 855

Every Bible has Ecclesiastes

The Ignatius Bible (RSVCE) has on page 601
The Ignatius Bible 2nd edition (RSV2CE) has it on page 511
 
From the entry for “Ecclesiasticus” at newadvent.org/cathen/05263a.htm:

‘’… the book is most commonly designated in the Latin Church as “Ecclesiasticus”, itself a Greek word with a Latin ending. This last title — not to be confounded with “Ecclesiastes” (Eccl.) — is the one used by the Council of Trent in its solemn decree concerning the books to be regarded as sacred and canonical. It points out the very special esteem in which this didactic work was formerly held for the purpose for general reading and instruction in church meetings: this book alone, of all the deuterocanonical writings, which are also called Ecclesiastical by Rufinus, has preserved by way of pre-eminence the name of Ecclesiasticus (Liber), that is “a church reading book”.’’
 
As some have already answered Sirach is the same as Ecclesiasticus

Ecclesiastes is a different book.

There are many books in the Vulgate and Douay Rheims which have different modern names.

1+2 Paralipomenon is 1+2 Chronicles
1+2 Kings is 1+2 Samuel
3+4 Kings is 1+2 Kings
1 Esdras is Ezra
2 Esdras is Nehemiah
Tobias is Tobit
Isaias is Isaiah
etc,etc

I cant remember all the others off of the top of my head but if you go to my link below, you can set the old names or the modern names for the bibles and compare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top