Sexism in Sirach?

[DomSavio2]

Hi everyone,
How are we to interpret Sirach 42:14? “A man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness; women bring shame and disgrace.”

Everything that I’ve read about this says something to the effect of “Well, everyone was sexist back then and this verse is just a result of that sexism.”

An explanation like this is entirely insufficient to me. If we believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, then everything in it, every sentence, every word would have meaning and would convey exactly what God wanted to get across.

I know that this thread is similar to my last one, it’s just that this quote seems like blatant sexism to me.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Here’s what the Haydock Commentary says:

Ver. 14. Better, &c. That is, there is, commonly speaking, less danger to be apprehended to the soul from the churlishness, or injuries we receive from men, than from the flattering favours and familiarity of women. (Challoner) — Josephus (contra Apion ii.) attributes this sentence to Moses, and prefers the worst man to the best woman, as Euripides does in Clement. (Strom. iv.) (Calmet) — But this is ridiculous. — Reproach. This explains what sort of good the woman aforesaid has done; she had fostered the passions of men, and brought them to shame, which all the malevolence of an enemy could not have done. (Haydock) — The company of women is therefore more dangerous, chap. ix. (Worthington)

 

[AbideWithMe]

Here’s what the Haydock Commentary says:

Ver. 14. Better, &c. That is, there is, commonly speaking, less danger to be apprehended to the soul from the churlishness, or injuries we receive from men, than from the flattering favours and familiarity of women. (Challoner) — Josephus (contra Apion ii.) attributes this sentence to Moses, and prefers the worst man to the best woman, as Euripides does in Clement. (Strom. iv.) (Calmet) — But this is ridiculous. — Reproach. This explains what sort of good the woman aforesaid has done; she had fostered the passions of men, and brought them to shame, which all the malevolence of an enemy could not have done. (Haydock) — The company of women is therefore more dangerous, chap. ix. (Worthington)

Those are all pretty pathetic.

 

[DomSavio2]

Yeah thanks for trying but those don’t help me at all. Again, my main problem is that if the Bible is the Word of God, then I have no idea what God is trying to get across with quotes like this which, to me, are obviously sexist and, I would say, untrue. Sin and wickedness is always worse than goodness, regardless of who is sinning or doing good.

 

[TK421]

Uhhh, I read the book of Ben Sira for the first time less than a year ago, and I never remember such a verse popping out at me. I just grabbed my Bible and read the paragraph that it was in, and now I know why it never jumped out at me: there’s zero issue here. The paragraph is talking about father’s being strict with their daughters in order to keep them away from sexual immorality and other sins, and how women can easily undo other women through their example, thus a man’s harshness (the disciplinary father) is better than a woman’s niceness.

I suppose this timeless wisdom can still be unpopular among some postmodernist audiences, but it means exactly what it says.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

… quotes like this which, to me, are obviously sexist and, I would say, untrue. …

A little humility would be in order here. The private individual cannot just take a translation of a document from a completely different culture from centuries ago, read it at face value, and be assured he knows exactly what it is saying or what its significance is. Whether it is inspired or not. It also sounds like you’re unwilling to entertain the wisdom of clergy and scholars who have studied the passage, and would rather have leverage to dismiss the divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Yeah thanks for trying but those don’t help me at all. Again, my main problem is that if the Bible is the Word of God, then I have no idea what God is trying to get across with quotes like this which, to me, are obviously sexist and, I would say, untrue. Sin and wickedness is always worse than goodness, regardless of who is sinning or doing good.

If you don’t understand the history and culture of Sirach’s time you will have difficulty in understanding; especially if you judge an ancient, long dead culture by your 21st. century cultural mores.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Hi everyone,
How are we to interpret Sirach 42:14? “A man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness; women bring shame and disgrace.”

Everything that I’ve read about this says something to the effect of “Well, everyone was sexist back then and this verse is just a result of that sexism.”

An explanation like this is entirely insufficient to me. If we believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, then everything in it, every sentence, every word would have meaning and would convey exactly what God wanted to get across.

I know that this thread is similar to my last one, it’s just that this quote seems like blatant sexism to me.

While claiming that verses like this is “sexism” may be far too anachronistic of an explanation, the Church does teach that the truth of God’s Word does not guarantee a fullness of understanding about all subjects on behalf of its writers.

The Catholic Answers Staff wrote the following:

Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert.–CAF Quick Questions: “Is the Bible’s inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation?”

This means that the Church understands that limited comprehension due to culture and scientific study often comes as part of the “narrative” or context that salvation truth comes wrapped in.

For instance, the Bible writers of both the Old and New Testaments didn’t comprehend or even begin to consider that earth existed in the vacuum of space. Instead of the cosmic vacuum they believed the earth was surrounded by water. (Genesis 1:6-8; 2 Peter 3:5) Scientifically speaking the writers were incorrect about what they believed regarding this.

However, this does not mean the Word of God is false or not without error. Just as we do not know all the facts about the universe today does not stop us from speaking about things within the framework of our limited knowledge. Science may discover something tomorrow that will change the way we speak about the earth and sky, but our limited understanding about the physical universe in no way negates the truths about God that are inspired of the Holy Spirit.

So you are going to find that the Bible is a product of its day enwrapped in the mindset of the culture that produced it. You find the truth of God’s word written in the idiom and limited comprehension of the universe held by its writers.

Now “sexism” is a purposeful act entailing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination against a particular gender. The writer of Sirach was not being malicious or purposefully bigoted and prejudiced against women in his comments. He was speaking in the context of Jewish married life according to the conventions of his day.

Ben Sira’s perspective was likely that of a Jewish husband and father (who had a daughter no less) and was writing about the anxiety men faced in the society of his day. Like Qoheleth’s comments of Ecclesiastes, Ben Sira is writing of his despair in having to raise a daughter and marry her off to someone respectable lest the daughter and his wife make him regret he has not been doing enough or quick enough. Basically he is talking about the potential for getting it from both sides, his daughter and wife, saying something similar to “watch out for nagging” but employing the idiom of his day.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

As a previous post has suggested, I think humility is the key.

We hear all too often these days, comments sprung from a person opening the bible, judging it according to their existing beliefs and preferences, then declaring whether it “passes” or “fails” their test.

No offense, but isn’t this what’s happening here?

I believe we are to approach the bible with the opposite attitude. In other words:

Here I am. This is the bible. Let me learn about God’s Word and maybe I will find that I need to change in order to be in line with it.

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:11)

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Jos 1:8-9)

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4:12)

Or not…

God bless you.

 

[Todd977]

Uhhh, I read the book of Ben Sira for the first time less than a year ago, and I never remember such a verse popping out at me. I just grabbed my Bible and read the paragraph that it was in, and now I know why it never jumped out at me: there’s zero issue here. The paragraph is talking about father’s being strict with their daughters in order to keep them away from sexual immorality and other sins, and how women can easily undo other women through their example, thus a man’s harshness (the disciplinary father) is better than a woman’s niceness.

I suppose this timeless wisdom can still be unpopular among some postmodernist audiences, but it means exactly what it says.

Your answer makes sense. The sacred author is using sarcasm. The phrase “man’s wickedness” does not refer to true wickedness but sarcastically refers to those actions of a righteous man which a fallen world regards as “wicked.” In the same way, the phrase “woman’s goodness” does not refer to true goodness but sarcastically refers to those actions of wicked women which a fallen world regards as “good.” For instance, there are many in the world today who wrongly regard artificial birth control and abortion as good things.

 

[edwest2]

Hi everyone,
How are we to interpret Sirach 42:14? “A man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness; women bring shame and disgrace.”

Everything that I’ve read about this says something to the effect of “Well, everyone was sexist back then and this verse is just a result of that sexism.”

An explanation like this is entirely insufficient to me. If we believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, then everything in it, every sentence, every word would have meaning and would convey exactly what God wanted to get across.

I know that this thread is similar to my last one, it’s just that this quote seems like blatant sexism to me.

The word sexism is not accurate. It is not appropriate to use. It was a recent invention.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

While claiming that verses like this is “sexism” may be far too anachronistic of an explanation, the Church does teach that the truth of God’s Word does not guarantee a fullness of understanding about all subjects on behalf of its writers.

The Catholic Answers Staff wrote the following:

Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert.–CAF Quick Questions: “Is the Bible’s inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation?”

This means that the Church understands that limited comprehension due to culture and scientific study often comes as part of the “narrative” or context that salvation truth comes wrapped in.

For instance, the Bible writers of both the Old and New Testaments didn’t comprehend or even begin to consider that earth existed in the vacuum of space. Instead of the cosmic vacuum they believed the earth was surrounded by water. (Genesis 1:6-8; 2 Peter 3:5) Scientifically speaking the writers were incorrect about what they believed regarding this.

However, this does not mean the Word of God is false or not without error. Just as we do not know all the facts about the universe today does not stop us from speaking about things within the framework of our limited knowledge. Science may discover something tomorrow that will change the way we speak about the earth and sky, but our limited understanding about the physical universe in no way negates the truths about God that are inspired of the Holy Spirit.

So you are going to find that the Bible is a product of its day enwrapped in the mindset of the culture that produced it. You find the truth of God’s word written in the idiom and limited comprehension of the universe held by its writers.

Now “sexism” is a purposeful act entailing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination against a particular gender. The writer of Sirach was not being malicious or purposefully bigoted and prejudiced against women in his comments. He was speaking in the context of Jewish married life according to the conventions of his day.

Ben Sira’s perspective was likely that of a Jewish husband and father (who had a daughter no less) and was writing about the anxiety men faced in the society of his day. Like Qoheleth’s comments of Ecclesiastes, Ben Sira is writing of his despair in having to raise a daughter and marry her off to someone respectable lest the daughter and his wife make him regret he has not been doing enough or quick enough. Basically he is talking about the potential for getting it from both sides, his daughter and wife, saying something similar to “watch out for nagging” but employing the idiom of his day.

The Church tells us that the Bible was written for the people of the time, however, it is the inspired Word of God. It is meant to be just as relevant to us today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

If you don’t understand the history and culture of Sirach’s time you will have difficulty in understanding; especially if you judge an ancient, long dead culture by your 21st. century cultural mores.

The sinfulness of man has not changed in 2,000 years. Cultural morality should be based on Biblical principles.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sirach2v4]

Hi everyone,
How are we to interpret Sirach 42:14? “A man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness; women bring shame and disgrace.”

Everything that I’ve read about this says something to the effect of “Well, everyone was sexist back then and this verse is just a result of that sexism.”

An explanation like this is entirely insufficient to me. If we believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, then everything in it, every sentence, every word would have meaning and would convey exactly what God wanted to get across.

I know that this thread is similar to my last one, it’s just that this quote seems like blatant sexism to me.

The Orthodox Study Bible translates this verse from what they title Wisdom of Sirach, at 42:14:

The evil of a man is better
Than a woman who does what is good,
Yet brings shames and disgrace.

and its commentary on the verse:

“There is a subtle contrast here that can easily be missed. Whereas the churlish baseness of evil male conduct can be vulgar and obscene, the flirtatious seductiveness of a woman can lead to the even more serious sins of fornication or adultery.”

[quotations authorized in the copyright notice]

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

Indeed.

Read Proverbs 5!

 

[DelsonJacobs]

The Church tells us that the Bible was written for the people of the time, however, it is the inspired Word of God. It is meant to be just as relevant to us today.

Peace,
Ed

Yes. The comments I posted are from the Church that said the exact same thing.

In other words, the comments of the text employing Ben Sira’s convention of his day does not negate its value for us at present, but this ancient manner of claiming that women are endowed with a “wickedness” that men do not possess has to be understood in the cultural perspective of a Jewish man of the Diaspora around the time of the Second Temple.

Just as certain expressions like “cool cat” and “far out” are a product of the American 1970s, Ben Sira’s words as literally translated can’t be read as if they are products of American English for the 21st century. They are neither sexism per se, but neither do they give “carte blanche” for men to claim that the Bible is teaching that women possess a literal type of “wickedness” men do not.

Ben Sira merely stated that his wife and daughter could get on his nerves in a way his male friends never did. He did not mean that women were literally more evil than men. But a literal reading could cause some people to think that if the reader also failed to or ignored the study of the idiomatic vernacular of Ben Sira’s day.

 

[Contarini]

Uhhh, I read the book of Ben Sira for the first time less than a year ago, and I never remember such a verse popping out at me. I just grabbed my Bible and read the paragraph that it was in, and now I know why it never jumped out at me: there’s zero issue here. The paragraph is talking about father’s being strict with their daughters in order to keep them away from sexual immorality and other sins, and how women can easily undo other women through their example, thus a man’s harshness (the disciplinary father) is better than a woman’s niceness.

I suppose this timeless wisdom can still be unpopular among some postmodernist audiences, but it means exactly what it says.

You’re probably following the NAB translation. The Greek words are normal Greek words for “goodness” and “badness,” but they could conceivably mean “kindness” and “harshness” respectively. Still, the translation seems a bit far-fetched.

I don’t see what postmodernism has to do with it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes. The comments I posted are from the Church that said the exact same thing.

In other words, the comments of the text employing Ben Sira’s convention of his day does not negate its value for us at present, but this ancient manner of claiming that women are endowed with a “wickedness” that men do not possess has to be understood in the cultural perspective of a Jewish man of the Diaspora around the time of the Second Temple.

Just as certain expressions like “cool cat” and “far out” are a product of the American 1970s, Ben Sira’s words as literally translated can’t be read as if they are products of American English for the 21st century. They are neither sexism per se, but neither do they give “carte blanche” for men to claim that the Bible is teaching that women possess a literal type of “wickedness” men do not.

Ben Sira merely stated that his wife and daughter could get on his nerves in a way his male friends never did. He did not mean that women were literally more evil than men. But a literal reading could cause some people to think that if the reader also failed to or ignored the study of the idiomatic vernacular of Ben Sira’s day.

It’s not about getting on his nerves–he goes on to say “from a woman comes shame and disgrace.”

The text clearly seems to reflect a fear of women’s sexuality and a belief that married women are a bad influence on unmarried girls. I’m sorry, but it’s a nasty passage.

When I first discovered it, it had the same effect on me–is this a reason why Ecclesiasticus really isn’t inspired?

But there are some horrific passages in the Hebrew Scriptures too, like the one where Phineas sticks his javelin into a woman’s belly (the word can mean her sexual organs, and since she’s having sex at the time there’s clearly a grotesque pun being made here) and is praised for it. . . .

So I think the bigger question is what doctrine of Biblical inerrancy will not plunge us into the worst sort of moral relativism, whether we accept the larger or the smaller OT canon!

Edwin

 

[TK421]

You’re probably following the NAB translation. The Greek words are normal Greek words for “goodness” and “badness,” but they could conceivably mean “kindness” and “harshness” respectively. Still, the translation seems a bit far-fetched.

I don’t see what postmodernism has to do with it.

Edwin

If we stick to the particular translation he quoted in the original post, which is a more literal one, here is why it doesn’t give me pause or even comes close to giving me pause: it makes zero sense - absolutely none whatsoever - that Ben Sira would literally mean that the moral virtue of a woman is in some way worse than the moral evil of a man. That after passage upon passage of practical wisdom, including praising the virtuous qualities in a wife and daughter, that all of the sudden, without warning, in chapter 42, near the end of his book, all of the sudden the author says “Oh, by the way, a man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness”. The only reason this is even brought up is because it came out of the Bible, and people are desperately hunting for any remote piece of criticism that they can come up with. If this book, word for word, were pulled out of random novel or piece of poetry, any adult person reading it would be able to instantly catch on that it doesn’t mean that.

Nobody, from St Jerome up to the 21st century, seems to have read the passage in such a way, but yeah, I guess if you want to go there, there is no objective way for me to ‘prove’ that Yeshua wasn’t saying that a woman’s moral goodness is inferior to a man’s moral evil, just as I cannot objectively prove the exact meaning of any number of other verses in the Bible. I can’t ‘prove’ that the man that penned this book didn’t literally believe that a male rapist is morally superior to a faithful wife. It’s just a desperately weak stance to hold is all, that internally doesn’t make any sense with the text.

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi everyone,
How are we to interpret Sirach 42:14? “A man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness; women bring shame and disgrace.”

Everything that I’ve read about this says something to the effect of “Well, everyone was sexist back then and this verse is just a result of that sexism.”

An explanation like this is entirely insufficient to me. If we believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, then everything in it, every sentence, every word would have meaning and would convey exactly what God wanted to get across.

I know that this thread is similar to my last one, it’s just that this quote seems like blatant sexism to me.

Ecclesiastes 7:28.