Where is Sirach 10:21?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IlCajetan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IlCajetan

Guest
I have an NRSV Bible from Catholic Bible Press and I noticed Sirach 10:21 was missing. I checked the Bible app, same thing. Why was it removed/where is it?
 
IlCajetan said:
I noticed Sirach 10:21 was missing
Click to expand...
My wife yesterday brought to my attention some similar “missing” verses from the New Testament. The explanation is quite simple. The verses she mentioned are Matt 18:11 and Luke 9:56. These passages are present in the KJV, and the New American Standard but are missing from the NIV, the RSV and the Good News Bible. These same volumes are also without Sirach 10:21. What happens, very briefly is that as more and more ancient manuscripts are discovered, the most recent translations will reflect what the earliest ones say. Not all publishers will reflect this, but in the case where we notice a discrepancy there is usually a footnote or something in the preface to address this. In the KJV many words are in italics where a source is questionable or it is known that the words were added later. The best of the most up to date versions of most bibles will align with what the earliest texts say, since they are generally (but not always) deemed to be the most accurate to the original source.

Others may have a better and more complete explanation but that is how I understand it at the moment.
 
Last edited:
CelticWarlord said:
In the KJV many words are in italics where a source is questionable or it is known that the words were added later.
Click to expand...
The usual explanation, I believe, is that the italicized word is supplied in English, either to make the meaning clear or simply because English syntax requires it. For example, Jesus’ reply to John the Baptist in Matt 3:15, after John says it ought to be the other way around: In Matthew’s Greek it’s just two words (ἄφες ἄρτι, meaning something like “allow now”), but the KJV adds four extra words, which are italicized:
“Suffer it to be so now.”
 
This is Knox’s translation of v. 21:

21 The proud forgotten, the humble kept in memory; such was the Lord’s will.

If you open the link, you will see that the right-hand column shows this verse is present in the Vulgate, while the left-hand column shows it is missing from the Greek text.

https://www.newadvent.org/bible/sir010.htm
 
Last edited:
IlCajetan said:
Why was it removed/where is it?
Click to expand...
Most modern translations of Sirach are based on the Gottingen critical text by Joseph Ziegler (2nd ed, 1980).

In his critical apparatus for 10:21, Ziegler notes the following:
hab. v. 21 Syh L-694-743
Click to expand...
Which means that v 21 is only found in a late Syriac translation of Sirach (the Syro Hexapla) and a very small selection of late Greek manuscripts (which only contain bits and pieces of Sirach).
 
That’s it basically. As textual criticism evolves, some verses are sometimes not considered any longer as part of the original text, and removed (or relegated to a footnote).
 
I thought it was a conspiracy between “the Vatican” and Zondervan publishers to “corrupt” the true Scriptures found only in the King James Version 1611…

I read that on the Internet so it must be true…

(j/k although you won’t believe how many fall for this or some variant thereof)
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
The usual explanation, I believe, is that the italicized word is supplied in English, either to make the meaning clear or simply because English syntax requires it
Click to expand...
Quite correct. I knew something felt “off” when I added that sentence. Thanks, B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top