Sirach 42:14

[JosephWoodard]

Sirach 42:14 is a very difficult text for me.

Douay-Rheims
42:12. Behold not everybody’s beauty: and tarry not among women.

42:13. For from garments cometh a moth, and from a woman the iniquity of a man.

42:14. For better is the iniquity of a man, than a woman doing a good turn, and a woman bringing shame and reproach.

(Douay’s explanatory note on the text)
Better is the iniquity, etc… 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.

Latin text
42:12 omni homini noli intendere in specie et in medio mulierum noli commorari

42:13 de vestimentis enim procedit tinea et a muliere iniquitas viri

42:14 melior est iniquitas viri quam benefaciens mulier et mulier confundens in obprobrium

RSV
42:12. Do not look upon any one for beauty, and do not sit in the midst of women;
42:13. for from garments comes the moth, and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness.
42:14. Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace.

It seems mysogyny is here “inspired by God”. It does not shake my faith, but I would like to know what’s going on here. Is the explanatory note really a correct interpretation? And I suppose I should assume Ecclesiasticus is being hyperbolic.

 

[Mystophilus]

JosephWoodard:

I suppose I should assume Ecclesiasticus is being hyperbolic.

On the other hand, you could assume that the text means what it says until you have intra-textual evidence which makes this impossible.

As far as we know, the Bible was written entirely by men, and so it is not surprising that comparatively few women feature in it at all.

 

[Todd_Easton]

These passages appear in the section which the New American Bible described as “A Father’s Care for His Daughter.” Here’s how the New American Bible translates the passages:12 Let her not parade her charms before men,

or spend time with married women;
13 For just as moths come from garments,
so harm to women come from woment:
14 Better a man’s harshness than a woman’s indulgence,
and a frightened daughter than any disgrace.

The accompanying footnote for this section says:
42, 9-14: The author considers a daughter to be a source of anxiety to her father, lest she fail to marry, or be seduced, or lest, marrying, she be disliked, proved unfaithful, or find herself sterile (9f). He is advised to keep a close watch on her at home, and on her companionship while abroad, lest he suffer on her account among the people (11-14)

 

[JosephWoodard]

That seems a good explanation, but I don’t know if the NAB is giving a good translation there. The translation is substantially different, and really doesn’t looke like the Latin (as far as I know–I’m not a Latin scholar, though). Any other thoughts out there (or Latin scholars)? Does anybody have access to the Navarre Bible commentary on this passage?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

On the other hand, you could assume that the text means what it says until you have intra-textual evidence which makes this impossible.

There is a great deal of intertextual evidence that makes this interpretation impossible. There are many passages in Sirach that speak of a good wife as an incredible blessing. Sirach 40:19, 26:1-4, and 26:13-18 are some of these. Sirach 36:28-30 is particularly courteous toward women, saying that a man without a wife “will become a fugitive and a wanderer.” I think that some of these passages, such as also Sirach 36:26 which says that “a woman will accept any man as a husband,” are making broad statements about things that can be often seen from gender to gender, and which people should consider and keep in mind, though they don’t fit all cases.

I expect that 42:14 was hyperbolic. This book seems to include several cases of hyperbole.

As far as we know, the Bible was written entirely by men, and so it is not surprising that comparatively few women feature in it at all.

Women often didn’t have major political power. Government was passed on from father to son, not mother to daughter. Therefore women often didn’t have all that much role.

However, women do have a significant place in the Bible. The Books of Judith, Esther and Ruth focus principally upon female main characters. The Song of Songs gives man and woman equal prominence. Beyond the heroines of those books, there are many women throughout the other books of the Bible that have major roles. Sarah, Rahab, Mary Magdalene, Rebekah, the Queen of Sheba, the Virgin Mary, and Susannah, to name some of them. There were plenty of villainous women too, like Delilah or Jezebel.

Male characters tend to dominate the Bible, though, because they were the leaders in that culture. Leaders and warriors, they were the major actors in history in those times. Women’s work was more behind the scenes, in the household, making life function for everyone, and the scriptures have many passages that praise her work and virtue.

I think that the women’s lesser activity in the Bible in comparison to that of men is the natural result of them commonly having a less dynamic role in history. Some women are major exceptions, though, and the Bible gets into quite a few of those women.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Here is my translation of the passage, with commentary:

{42:12} Omni homini noli intendere in specie: et in medio mulierum noli commorari:
{42:12} She should not choose to gaze upon the beauty of every man, and she should not choose to spend her time in the midst of married women.

~ This passage is advice concerning how one’s young unmarried daughter should behave, in order to retain chastity. Looking at the attractiveness of every man is harmful to her chastity. So is spending time with married women, who might talk about marital relations, perhaps even in a crass manner.

{42:13} de vestimentis enim procedit tinea, et a muliere iniquitas viri.
{42:13} For a moth goes forth from garments, and iniquity over a man goes forth from a woman.

~ Iniquity pertaining to men, i.e. sins committed because of her attraction to a man, proceeds from a woman. Again, this advice pertains to a young unmarried daughter and is in the context of the previous verse about avoiding sins related to attraction of a young unmarried daughter to men.

{42:14} Melior est enim iniquitas viri, quam mulier benefaciens, et mulier confundens in opprobrium.
{42:14} Yet iniquity over a man is better for her than if a married woman, seeking to benefit her, instead leads her into confusion and disgrace.

~ Yet the iniquity of a man [sins of women pertaining to men] is better than a woman [an older married woman] seeking to benefit [the younger unmarried woman] and yet confusing her to her disgrace.

~ The sense of verse 14 is that even though the problems a daughter might encounter, which are warned against in verse 13, are harmful, there is a worse situation, that of married women influencing your daughter, leading her into confusion and disgrace. This passage is not saying that men’s sins are better than women’s sins. Rather, it is advice as to how to advise and govern a young unmarried daughter. If she hangs around older women, they might think to ‘help’ her by giving her advice about men which is not fitting to someone who is young and unmarried, so instead of benefiting her, they would lead her into confusion and disgrace. In other words, hanging around older married women might corrupt your virgin unmarried daughter, since they might talk about men in a licentious manner.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That seems a good explanation, but I don’t know if the NAB is giving a good translation there. The translation is substantially different, and really doesn’t looke like the Latin (as far as I know–I’m not a Latin scholar, though). Any other thoughts out there (or Latin scholars)? Does anybody have access to the Navarre Bible commentary on this passage?

There are several variants in the Greek of the 42.14 - & several in the Hebrew.​

The English of the Challoner Bible rests on the Latin tradition of the text. This in turn rests upon the Septuagint.

Modern translations OTOH have an advantage over the Challoner Bible & its editions - they are able to refer to the Hebrew text of the book, which was not recovered until rather recently. Until 1896, the book was known only from the ancient Greek & Syriac translations & the translations based on them - in that year, part of the Hebrew was discovered.

• From hope.edu/bandstra/BIBLE/SIR/SIR42.HTM
  **Daughters and Fathers **

9 A daughter is a secret anxiety to her father,
and worry over her robs him of sleep;
when she is young, for fear she may not marry,
or if married, for fear she may be disliked;
10 while a virgin, for fear she may be seduced
and become pregnant in her father’s house;
or having a husband, for fear she may go astray,
or, though married, for fear she may be barren.
11 Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
or she may make you a laughingstock to your enemies,
a byword in the city and the assembly ofa the people,
and put you to shame in public gatherings.b
See that there is no lattice in her room,
no spot that overlooks the approaches to the house.c
12 Do not let her parade her beauty before any man,
or spend her time among married women;d
13 for from garments comes the moth,
and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness.
14 Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good;
**it is woman who brings shame and disgrace. **

As to the content of the text - it looks (mildly) misogynistic to me. It’s not clear either that inspiration & misogyny are incompatible, nor that the sentiment is a guide of life for Christians.

 

[Nita]

There are several variants in the Greek of the 42.14 - & several in the Hebrew.​

The English of the Challoner Bible rests on the Latin tradition of the text. This in turn rests upon the Septuagint.

Modern translations OTOH have an advantage over the Challoner Bible & its editions - they are able to refer to the Hebrew text of the book, which was not recovered until rather recently. Until 1896, the book was known only from the ancient Greek & Syriac translations & the translations based on them - in that year, part of the Hebrew was discovered.

Hi Gottle,

Please correct me if I’m wrong. But, wouldn’t the Septuagint be considered the original and not the Hebrew. I thought the originals of the “apocryphal” books was Greek and not Hebrew.

Nita

 

[Al_Masetti]

Why did they change the author’s name to Sirach, when the Latin isn’t?

 

[lak611]

Why did they change the author’s name to Sirach, when the Latin isn’t?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The usual title of the book in Greek manuscripts and Fathers is Sophia Iesou uiou Seirach, “the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach”, or simply Sophia Seirach “the Wisdom of Sirach”.

From Wikipedia:

The evidence seems to show that the author’s name was Yeshua, son of Shimon, son of Eleazar ben Sira. In the Greek text, the author is called “Jesus the son of Sirach of Jerusalem.”

From the book introduction in the NAB:

The Book of Sirach derives its name from the author, Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirach (Sirach 50:27). Its earliest title seems to have been “Wisdom of the Son of Sirach.” The designation “Liber Ecclesiasticus,” meaning “Church Book,” appended to some Greek and Latin manuscripts was due to the extensive use which the church made of this book in presenting moral teaching to catechumens and to the faithful.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi Gottle,

Please correct me if I’m wrong. But, wouldn’t the Septuagint be considered the original and not the Hebrew. I thought the originals of the “apocryphal” books was Greek and not Hebrew.

Nita

Some are originally in Hebrew, others originally in Greek, & (IIRC) about some there is uncertainty.​

I’m afraid that’s not much of an answer

 

[juliamajor]

Hi Gottle,

Please correct me if I’m wrong. But, wouldn’t the Septuagint be considered the original and not the Hebrew. I thought the originals of the “apocryphal” books was Greek and not Hebrew.

Nita

Sorry there are no 'originals of any biblical texts. there are texts both in greek and hebrew.which is older -i don’t know but in the back of my mind I seem to recall the Greek is older- but I’m not positive.

 

[Nita]

Sorry there are no 'originals of any biblical texts. there are texts both in greek and hebrew.which is older -i don’t know but in the back of my mind I seem to recall the Greek is older- but I’m not positive.

Thanks.
I know we don’t have the originals; was just asking whether the original book had been written in Greek.

Nita

 

[lak611]

Thanks.
I know we don’t have the originals; was just asking whether the original book had been written in Greek.

Nita

No, it was originally written in Hebrew.

According to Wikipedia:

The Wisdom of Ben Sira by Yeshua ben Sira, also known as The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach or merely Sirach, and known by some Christians as Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), is a work from the 2nd Century BCE, originally written in Hebrew. Ben Sirah, a Jew who had been living in Jerusalem, may have authored the work in Alexandria, Egypt circa 180–175 BC, where he is thought to have established a school.[1]

In Egypt, it was translated into Greek by the author’s grandson, who added a preface.

From the book introduction in the NAB:

Written in Hebrew between 200 and 175 B.C., the text was translated into Greek sometime after 132 B.C. by the author’s grandson, who also wrote a Foreword which contains information about the book, the author, and the translator himself. Until the close of the nineteenth century Sirach was known only in translations, of which this Greek rendering was the most important. From it the Latin version was made. Between 1896 and 1900, again in 1931, and several times since 1956, manuscripts were discovered containing in all about two thirds of the Hebrew text, which agrees substantially with the Greek. One such text, from Masada, is pre-Christian in date.

 

[juliamajor]

The text has much to do withe the’ honor and shame
mentality of the ancient mid east. Honor was tied to men- shame to women.Look at muslim countries and you’ll get the picture. There are several authors who specialize in the sociological implications in scripture and how it can help explain some of the texts that we shake our heads at. Jerome Neyrey,Pilch,& bruce Malina all have excellent books on the subject.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

It is a warning to men not to keep the company of women because the company of women is more dangerous to men then the company of other men.

For the obvious reason that there is always a temptation to impurity for men around women.

It is not saying men are better than women, that interpretation is ridiculous the RSV and many other translations are misleading which is why I never use them and I advise you not to either.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Looking at the primary translation of the KJV 1611 sirach 42 says

“better is the churlishnesse of a man, then a courteous woman, a woman I say, which bringeth shame and reproch” in the foot notes it says wickedness is a possible translation of churlishness, at any rate the KJV seems to be a fairer translation/interpretation than RSV.

A book on woman and the bible interprets the verse as:

“better to endure the churlish company of men than to risk one’s heart leading one astray by spending too much time in the company of good but beautiful women” books.google.com/books?id=WC9qz8amF6MC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=endure+the+churlish+company+of+men+than+to+risk+one%27s&source=bl&ots=EGTfW9x9K_&sig=KWxdsM-y83ecPVnmF2ItHIVOir8&hl=en&ei=BxM7S9f0DYeQsgOt3u25BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=endure%20the%20churlish%20company%20of%20men%20than%20to%20risk%20one%27s&f=false

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Here is a great tool for studying Sirach aka Ecclesiaticus

Here is a link to Hebrew manuscript that seems to comment on the meaning of the verse:

Better is the evil of a man than to be treated well by

a woman. ]] And a woman pours out a houseful of reproach. <Better

to be harmed by a man than to be shamed by a woman’s goodness.bensira.org/navigator.php?Manuscript=B&PageNum=23

 

[TimothyH]

This thread is ten years old.