Lexham Old Testament Apocrypha Mis-Numbering

mab · 2025-01-14T21:57:39+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

I have chosen to use this as my standard reference for these books. No problem as to translation so far as I can see. But I did stumble across an issue. When I pressed a link to Sirach 32, the reference landed on Sirach 35 in the Lexham work. The text itself is right for chapter 32 ( I checked with the NRSV) but the number is off. Not sure how this got derailed. Someone at Faithlife needs to look at this issue. I don't use the Apocrypha enough except for cross references.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

All Search query Do different traditions have different chapter/verse numbers for Sirach?

Different traditions do indeed have different chapter and verse numbers for Sirach, also known as Ecclesiasticus. This variation is primarily due to differences in the extant manuscripts and translations. The Syriac text of Sirach (called Bar Sira in Syriac) differs considerably from the Hebrew and Greek versions[1]. The traditional verse numbering is based on the Greek version known as GrII, which contains additional content not present in other versions[1]. As a result, verses that appear to be missing in some versions may actually be GrII readings[1]. Furthermore, in some Greek manuscripts, sections of the text have exchanged places, leading to further confusion in verse numbering[1]. The Syriac translation also omits certain passages and includes expansions, resulting in additional variations in verse numbers[1]. These differences in content and arrangement across various traditions contribute to the discrepancies in chapter and verse numbering for Sirach.
[1] Wido Van Peursen, “Introduction to the Electronic Peshitta Text,” in Leiden Peshitta (Leiden: Peshitta Institute Leiden, 2008), 12.

All Search query: is Sirach 32 in some version actually Sirach 35 in another?

The query about Sirach 32 and 35 can be addressed based on the information provided in the articles. One of the articles mentions that in Sirach 32(35):12, there is a translation of a Hebrew idiom into Greek[1]. This notation suggests that chapter 32 in one version corresponds to chapter 35 in another. Additionally, another article refers to Sirach 32(35):16 when discussing God's response to supplication[2]. These references indicate that there is indeed a difference in chapter numbering between versions of Sirach, with chapter 32 in one version aligning with chapter 35 in another. This discrepancy likely stems from variations in manuscript traditions or different versioning systems used in various translations of the text.
[1] Benjamin G. Wright, “Sirach (Ecclesiasticus),” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken, Bloomsbury Companions (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2015), 413.
[2] Helmer Ringgren, “תַּחֲנוּנִים,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 652.

I doubt there is a bug; I suspect that the verse maps are working well.

Andrew Batishko

Welcome to the wild world of Bible verse mapping. Different Bibles use different numbering schemes in many places.

From the footnote in The Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition at the end of chapter 32 verse 24:

A section of the Greek text, Sirach 30:25-36:16a, is displaced in the ancient manuscripts. This material has been rearranged to correspond with the original order, as reflected in the Latin translation (which was made before the Greek material was displaced) and in the NRSV. However, the chapter/verse numbering remains aligned with Swete's edition, which differs form the NRSV: Swete 34:1-36:16a = NRSV 31:1-33:16; Swete 30:25-40 = NRSV 33:17-32; Swete 31:1-33:13a = NRSV 34:-36:13.

mab

I am happy to read that I am not losing my mind when these differences show up. We've got enough to deal with when OT references vary between Hebrew and English numbering so often. Maybe I was hoping for a respite. 🤓 Thanks for the replies.