Sexism in Sirach?

[Darryl_B]

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.

I would probably give you the “Thread Closed Question Answered” award.

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

Maybe the church and its bible judge us, not the other way around?

The Pharisees found nearly everything Jesus taught to be “nasty.” For goodness sake, after hearing him teach they said “We gotta kill this guy.”

Nothing wrong with discussion, that’s what a forum is for! But if we may challenge the authority of the church as far as what books are inspired or whether its interpretation is correct, are we not the same as heretics, who leave the assembly and start their own churches? If I may open my bible and decide what I “like” and what I “disagree with,” how am I different from Luther, who saw parts of scripture that refuted his errors and just yanked them out of his bible? Remember, he wanted to remove not only the deuterocanonical books but James and Revelation too.

I’m just saying, the bible is not the same as a Belloc book that I can read and say “I disagree with Belloc here but I must agree with his opinion of such and such…”

 

[DelsonJacobs]

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

I was limiting my statements to the way the verse is rendered from the Hebrew as reflected in the NABRE.

When employing the Hebrew the verse reads:

Better a man’s harshness than a woman’s indulgence,
a frightened daughter than any disgrace.

While you are entitled to your view and opinion, I was merely referring to official Catholic sources and what they had to say.

While not dismissing Ben Sira’s limitations due to his perspective from living in a male-oriented society, the exhortations in Sirach 42, particularly regarding the verses 9-14, involve the anxieties of a father in marrying off his daughter.

I offer no personal opinion in addition to this scholarship nor am I seeking to counter your personal views in disclosing it.

 

[Contarini]

I was limiting my statements to the way the verse is rendered from the Hebrew as reflected in the NABRE.

When employing the Hebrew the verse reads:

Better a man’s harshness than a woman’s indulgence,
a frightened daughter than any disgrace.

While you are entitled to your view and opinion, I was merely referring to official Catholic sources and what they had to say.

While not dismissing Ben Sira’s limitations due to his perspective from living in a male-oriented society, the exhortations in Sirach 42, particularly regarding the verses 9-14, involve the anxieties of a father in marrying off his daughter.

I offer no personal opinion in addition to this scholarship nor am I seeking to counter your personal views in disclosing it.

Interesting point about the Hebrew. What does the Hebrew say? Does it support the NAB reading? How?

Edwin

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Interesting point about the Hebrew. What does the Hebrew say? Does it support the NAB reading? How?

Edwin

I presented the text verbatim as it appears in the current 2011 revision of the NAB of Sirach (Ben Sira) 42:12.

The text in Hebrew from the Genizah of the Ezra Synagogue that form what is known as “Codex B” reads:

Better is the wickedness of a man than the goodness of a woman,
And a daughter causing shame pours fourth reproach.

Along with the readings from the portions found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masada text (2Q18) the translators of the NABRE decided for the more ancient Hebrew reading I presented in my post and that can be currently found in the NABRE (they differ slightly from Codex B):

Better a man’s harshness than a woman’s indulgence,
a frightened daughter than any disgrace.

The expression “goodness of a woman” also reads as “wantonness” or “liberality,” and can suggest either sexual inappropriateness or general indulgence to her emotions in daily social interaction. In the first part of the verse Ben Sira could be talking about how it feels to be betrayed by a woman by adultery or even lack of self-control in critical speech about her husband. (It likely refers, however, to indulging her daughter.)

The second half of the text states that a daughter can likewise bring shame to her father if, according to the view of his culture, she is “too educated” in carnal ways. It seems that Ben Sira is of the opinion that better the girl be a bit naïve regarding sexual matters than be a reproach due to disgracing her family through fornication.

I concur with Darryl B that TK421 summed it up nicely when he posted:

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.

My comments were along the same lines because Ben Sira is not commenting regarding fear of a woman’s sexual nature but, as the footnotes to the NABRE regarding this section of Ben Sira state:

Ben Sira considers a daughter to be a source of anxiety to her father, lest she fail to marry, or be defiled, or lest, marrying, she be childless, prove unfaithful, or find herself sterile.–Emphasis added.

Ben Sira is likely speaking from experience from the demands placed on him from his wife and daughter (as well as other women in his life and family circle). The comments are limited to the unique vantage point and the internal anxiety of a man from the demands placed on fathers from the society of his time.

The views expressed are therefore reflective of Ben Sira’s period, not universal to all cultures or all history. Many cultures, ancient and present, do not place such responsibilities on a father nor (sadly) view the loss of an unmarried daughter’s virginity as a reproach to one’s family. Ben Sira’s comments here come from the anxiety that originated from the paradigm of his culture, and therefore regardless if one follows the Greek or Hebrew text, cannot rightfully attribute the expressions to sexism or claim that they reflect universal truths about women.

 

[Leibniz]

I don’t think we should be too quick to dismiss this verse as not reflecting a universal truth about raising daughters. I am not at all an expert at interpreting ancient languages, but I can find an English translation through the USCCB website at usccb.org/bible/sirach/42 .

To the entire section 42:9-14 is added the subtitle, “A Father’s Care for His Daughter”:

9
A daughter is a treasure that keeps her father wakeful,
and worry over her drives away sleep:e
Lest in her youth she remain unmarried,
or when she is married, lest she be childless;
10
While unmarried, lest she be defiled,
or in her husband’s house, lest she prove unfaithful;
Lest she become pregnant in her father’s house,
or be sterile in that of her husband.
11
My son, keep a close watch on your daughter,
lest she make you a laughingstock for your enemies,
A byword in the city and the assembly of the people,
an object of derision in public gatherings.f
See that there is no lattice in her room,
or spot that overlooks the approaches to the house.
12
Do not let her reveal her beauty to any male,g
or spend her time with married women;
13
For just as moths come from garments,
so a woman’s wickedness comes from a woman.
14
Better a man’s harshness than a woman’s indulgence,
a frightened daughter than any disgrace.

It may be true that the literal translation of the Greek word is closer to “goodness” than the “indulgence” shown here, but based on the context, I doubt that it was the message that the Biblical author intended to convey. Remember that words such as “evil” and “hate” in the Old Testament, often attributed to God Himself, have very different meanings than we would use for them today, simply because our language has evolved and become more refined such that we have a much larger vocabulary than the ancients did.

Is there any doubt what the author is writing about there though? Masculine authority and strict discipline is the best way to raise a daughter, and feminine authority is often not up to the task, because married women will often young women and passively allow them to act and dress inappropriately. Many will actually encourage flirty behavior because older women will seek to live vicariously through the younger women. The increased promiscuity of women raised by single mothers, and their willingness to engage in degrading sexual behavior, is so well known that it has become a common social joke and locker room cliche.

True, there are some very tough women out there, and old school nuns have an infamous reputation for weeding out inappropriate behavior, but then again, this can hardly be construed as “niceness” as the author intended. Those nuns are mean for a reason!

Thus, I tend to believe that Sirach 42:14 is indeed pointing us toward a universal truth about the preference for strict male discipline (rather than maternal positivity and indulgence) to raise daughters in a proper way such that bringing shame upon themselves and the whole family is avoided. I know that’s not what the current culture wants us to believe, but I think it’s true.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I don’t think we should be too quick to dismiss this verse as not reflecting a universal truth about raising daughters. I am not at all an expert at interpreting ancient languages, but I can find an English translation through the USCCB website at usccb.org/bible/sirach/42 .

To the entire section 42:9-14 is added the subtitle, “A Father’s Care for His Daughter”:

9
A daughter is a treasure that keeps her father wakeful,
and worry over her drives away sleep:e
Lest in her youth she remain unmarried,
or when she is married, lest she be childless;
10
While unmarried, lest she be defiled,
or in her husband’s house, lest she prove unfaithful;
Lest she become pregnant in her father’s house,
or be sterile in that of her husband.
11
My son, keep a close watch on your daughter,
lest she make you a laughingstock for your enemies,
A byword in the city and the assembly of the people,
an object of derision in public gatherings.f
See that there is no lattice in her room,
or spot that overlooks the approaches to the house.
12
Do not let her reveal her beauty to any male,g
or spend her time with married women;
13
For just as moths come from garments,
so a woman’s wickedness comes from a woman.
14
Better a man’s harshness than a woman’s indulgence,
a frightened daughter than any disgrace.

It may be true that the literal translation of the Greek word is closer to “goodness” than the “indulgence” shown here, but based on the context, I doubt that it was the message that the Biblical author intended to convey. Remember that words such as “evil” and “hate” in the Old Testament, often attributed to God Himself, have very different meanings than we would use for them today, simply because our language has evolved and become more refined such that we have a much larger vocabulary than the ancients did.

Is there any doubt what the author is writing about there though? Masculine authority and strict discipline is the best way to raise a daughter, and feminine authority is often not up to the task, because married women will often young women and passively allow them to act and dress inappropriately. Many will actually encourage flirty behavior because older women will seek to live vicariously through the younger women. The increased promiscuity of women raised by single mothers, and their willingness to engage in degrading sexual behavior, is so well known that it has become a common social joke and locker room cliche.

True, there are some very tough women out there, and old school nuns have an infamous reputation for weeding out inappropriate behavior, but then again, this can hardly be construed as “niceness” as the author intended. Those nuns are mean for a reason!

Thus, I tend to believe that Sirach 42:14 is indeed pointing us toward a universal truth about the preference for strict male discipline (rather than maternal positivity and indulgence) to raise daughters in a proper way such that bringing shame upon themselves and the whole family is avoided. I know that’s not what the current culture wants us to believe, but I think it’s true.

This is the version I’ve been quoting from in my posts. The NABRE is also one of the versions that explains in its footnotes much of what I have been citing in my posts as well (though it’s not the only source I’ve been gathering information from).

Also my statements regarding reflecting a “universal truth” is not about how to care for daughters. I have repeatedly been referring to the language in which women are spoken of by Ben Sira, not in the truths behind the particular words he employed. I have no doubt, nor does the Church, that a careful approach like Torah-observant Ben Sira is necessary for the successful raising of children.

The statements I made regarding what is universal for all eras (or not) has to do with statements from Ben Sira that people often cite as being “sexist.”

To illustrate, Sirach 42:9 and 10 talk about a father’s need to worry over his daughter less she fail to find a husband and reproduce. While reflective of Ben Sira’s culture and time, Christians have developed a different view of chastity and perpetual virginity. So these verses don’t apply universally to everyone of every era in every situation.

Note also Sirach 9:2 and 4:

Do not give a woman power over you
to trample on your dignity.

Do not dally with a [female] singer,
lest you be captivated by her charms.

These verses of Ben Sira are an example of the androcentrism which governed his culture. They are true reflections of what was believed then, but putting women in power over men does not mean they will bring men to ruin. And women who sing are no more evil or righteous than women of other professions today, so men shouldn’t worry that women who sing for a living will be more likely to lead them astray than women of other professions.

These verses have to be read in within the context of the time, let their application be anachronistic. The truths are, as you mention, universal, but their context is not.

I do wish to add that I am surprised to read comments from Catholics who were not familiar with the fact that I was quoting from the NABRE, or that it is available on the USCCB website, and that Ben Sira exists in Hebrew forms far more ancient than the Greek. I was under the impression that my Catholic sisters and brothers on this forum were at least more knowledgeable if not far more advanced than I in matters such as these as I had been away from the Church for a few years in the past.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

And by the way, I meant nothing insulting by what I wrote. I am just a bit confused as people seem quite unfamiliar with some things I was under the impression were commonly understood.

And while I know some despise the NABRE, I was under the impression that people who had such an opinion developed it from familiarity with its contents. This lead to my last few comments on my last post, in case anyone wonders.

I view most on CAF very strong in the faith and very knowledgeable and well-read as well as very confident that their understanding is precise, so I have a bit of difficulty connecting this with an unfamiliarity of what I was quoting.

Otherwise I am still in awe of the great examples of faith I read on CAF from all of you everyday.

 

[Leibniz]

Well I am not really understanding what your problem with Sirach is then.

If you are only concerned with the language and not the meaning of what he wrote, then that would seem to imply that you have no problem at all. But then you go on to say that his writing reflects an androcentrism where people thought things that do not apply to us today–in which case you DO have a problem with his message, and not just his language. Why else would you create the thread?

One of the greatest things about the Book of Sirach is that it is one of the few places that is on the level in explaining how dangerous women can be to men who aren’t on guard, because women can easily trample on the dignity of a man if he lets it happen. One could argue that by including the influences on the cosmopolitan lifestyle of Greeks in Alexandria into his message, the author has more to say about gender relations in modern culture than you will find anywhere else in the Old Testament. The Book of Sirach seems to anticipate the dangerous assaults on masculinity in modern culture better than anywhere else in the Bible. Whereas most of modern culture seems to dismiss masculinity as irrelevant, here the author is telling us just how irreplaceable it is.

If a man lets a woman walk all over him and destroy his honor, then she probably will. That’s the message we need to understand today, as we live in a society that is unrelenting in its anti-Christian attacks on traditional masculinity.

 

[Leibniz]

I confused you for the person who created the original post.

I had his post in mind when I quoted the translation available on the USCCB website. I am really not that interested in translation issues so much as I am with determining what the message is that we should take away from the book.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

This verse has been beaten to death on this forum.

Here is a site SOLELY dedicated to the Hebrew text of Sirach bensira.org/

It should also be mentioned that generally when referring to a righteous person, though “good” can be used “tov” generally when moral righteousness is used its tzadik or chesed. Also, r’a can “wicked” or “evil” referring to morality, it can also mean “woe” like people translate Isaiah 45:7, it can mean bad/woe/evil in a non-moral context as in “God did evil to that city.”

Anyway, here is what I’ve found online to be the Hebrew text of Sirach (Sira in Hebrew)

from Manuscript B 12r:4

מטוב רוע איש מטיב אשה

the translation on this site has it as “better is the evil of a man than to be treated well by a woman.” Then translated the rest of the verse as “And a woman pours out a houseful of reproach.” Then also has a note on the text it seems to explain the verse as saying

טוב רע איש מחפרת מטוב אשה ובת מחרפת תביע חרפה

which they translate as:

“better to be harmed by a man than to be shamed by a woman’s goodness”

Masada IV reads:

טוב רע איש מטוב אשה

The explanation shamed by a woman’s goodness makes sense

 

[Wildgraywolf]

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

True, but you’re not talking about the general sinfulness of man, you’re specifically citing sexism in the book of Sirach. During Sirach’s time what bible was there to make biblical judgments from?

During Sirach’s time and before was the modern understanding of sexism pronounced by God to be a sinful? Did Moses miss that one on the commandments list?

 

[One_point]

There is a protestant who is trying to use these verses to say the book is not inspired.

What do these other verses mean?

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife’s iniquity

 

[Leibniz]

Those are some interesting translations…lol.

Look, like I wrote earlier in this thread, I’m not very interested in ancient languages or translations, and I only turn to commentary about them when I encounter a particularly difficult verse or passage, when even context makes it hard to know what in the world the author intended. So being rather uninterested in the specific details of heated debates about translations, for me, the St. Joseph’s edition Bible (an NAB translation I think) my mother gave me works fine for me, and these are the translations of Sirach I find there:

CHAPTER 22
On Laziness and Foolishness
1 The sluggard is like a stone in the mud; everyone hisses at his disgrace.
2 The sluggard is like a lump of dung; whoever touches him wipes his hands.
3 An unruly child is a disgrace to its father; if it be a daughter, she brings him to poverty.
4 A thoughtful daughter becomes a treasure to her husband, a shameless one is her father’s grief.
5 A hussy shames her father and her husband; by both she is despised.
6 Like a song in time of mourning is inopportune talk, but lashes and discipline are at all times wisdom.

CHAPTER 25
Wicked and Virtuous Women
12 Worst of all wounds is that of the heart, worst of all evils that of a woman.
13 Worst of all sufferings is that from one’s foes, worst of all vengeance is that of one’s enemies:
14 No poison worse than that of a serpent, no venom greater than that of a woman.
15 With a dragon or a lion I would rather dwell than live with an evil woman.
16 Wickedness changes a woman’s looks, and makes her sullen as a female bear.
17 When her husband sits among his neighbors, a bitter sigh escapes him unawares.
18 There is scarce any evil like that in a woman; may she fall to the lot of the sinner!
19 Like a sandy hill to aged feet is a railing wife to a quiet man.
20 Stumble not through woman’s beauty, nor be greedy for her wealth;
21 The man is a slave, in disgrace in shame, when a wife supports her husband.
22 Depressed mind, saddened face, broken heart–this from an evil wife. Feeble hands and quaking knees–from a wife who brings no happiness to her husband.
23 In woman was sin’s beginning, and because of her we all die.
24 Allow water no outlet, and be not indulgent to an erring wife.
25 If she walks not by your side, cut her away from you.

Harsh, but very true. I see nothing wrong with those passages.