I'm like 3 chapters into Sirach and I am stupid annoyed that I've never read it before. Ok that's not true. I am super stoked to be reading it.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Dude what the heck
- Thread starter Slumberfreeze
- Start date
Are you kidding me right now?
Be a father to orphans,
and be like a husband to their mother;
you will then be like a son of the Most High,
and he will love you more than does your mother.
Be a father to orphans,
and be like a husband to their mother;
you will then be like a son of the Most High,
and he will love you more than does your mother.
At this point I'm confident in saying you're missing a book of the bible.
I particularly like Sirach 7:24-25
Hast thou daughters? have a care of their body, and shew not thyself cheerful toward them.
Marry thy daughter, and so shalt thou have performed a weighty matter: but give her to a man of understanding.
Torah instructions around near kinswomen don't specifically list daughters as someone whom it would not be incestuous to take sexually - it is very clear that that is the correct interpretation when a sensible person reads it, but it isn't explicit, meaning someone can twist this to their own dirty ends. But it is interpreted clearly here.
Hast thou daughters? have a care of their body, and shew not thyself cheerful toward them.
Marry thy daughter, and so shalt thou have performed a weighty matter: but give her to a man of understanding.
Torah instructions around near kinswomen don't specifically list daughters as someone whom it would not be incestuous to take sexually - it is very clear that that is the correct interpretation when a sensible person reads it, but it isn't explicit, meaning someone can twist this to their own dirty ends. But it is interpreted clearly here.
Isn't it sad that those of us from Protestant backgrounds struggle to even recognise the name of a book of scripture accepted by the majority of the church for the majority of history? It hasn't even been retained as "worth reading but don't call it scripture", but has been completely thrown out. It's an indictment on the established church that we were raised in.
Oh yeah! I like Sirach, it's a great book... lots of excellent wisdom.
An interesting observation here.
https://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/SIR06.htm
v22 "For wisdom is according to her name, and she is not manifest unto many."
I've seen people argue against poly, saying that there was no mention of poly after the return from Babylon (a statement which I do not assent to). I suppose the point being that the Jews were "cleansed" from that "evil" during their stay. Yet, here is an allusion to poly; in that it dis-implies the legitimacy of a woman being jealous of another woman... even listing such jealousy as the fourth thing he feared, even "was sore afraid" of after the first three things worse than death.
https://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/SIR26.htm
https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren/page/96
v5-6 "There be three things that mine heart feareth; and for the fourth I was sore afraid: the slander of a city, the gathering together of an unruly multitude, and a false accusation: all these are worse than death. But a grief of heart and sorrow is a woman that is jealous over another woman, and a scourge of the tongue which communicateth with all."
Archive.org has a bookscan of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's circa 1851 translation of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) into English.
This version contains Sirach...
https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren/
... this one does not Sirach, but does contain a nice introduction to the Septuagint.
https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1879bren/page/n9
Both bookscans are downloadable in various ebook formats including pdf.
Also ebible (linked above), and Ecmarsh (http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/).
An interesting observation here.
https://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/SIR06.htm
v22 "For wisdom is according to her name, and she is not manifest unto many."
I've seen people argue against poly, saying that there was no mention of poly after the return from Babylon (a statement which I do not assent to). I suppose the point being that the Jews were "cleansed" from that "evil" during their stay. Yet, here is an allusion to poly; in that it dis-implies the legitimacy of a woman being jealous of another woman... even listing such jealousy as the fourth thing he feared, even "was sore afraid" of after the first three things worse than death.
https://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/SIR26.htm
https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren/page/96
v5-6 "There be three things that mine heart feareth; and for the fourth I was sore afraid: the slander of a city, the gathering together of an unruly multitude, and a false accusation: all these are worse than death. But a grief of heart and sorrow is a woman that is jealous over another woman, and a scourge of the tongue which communicateth with all."
Archive.org has a bookscan of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton's circa 1851 translation of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) into English.
This version contains Sirach...
https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren/
... this one does not Sirach, but does contain a nice introduction to the Septuagint.
https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1879bren/page/n9
Both bookscans are downloadable in various ebook formats including pdf.
Also ebible (linked above), and Ecmarsh (http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/).
I have read that Jesus quoted from Sirach very often, but I am not sure I have the scholarly background to prove that out personally. When I did read the book I felt strongly that it was from Adonai. Does anyone have a well reasoned belief that regarding this book that they could share here? I am very wary of using wikipedia's take on any scripture.
My reasoning:
It was contained in the Septuagint, which were the scriptures that Jesus quoted from
==> Therefore Jesus was at least acquainted with the words of Sirach.
Jesus also says things that are not founf in the OT, but are contained in Sirach
So, much like polygamy, I would say not what the proofs are that it should be canon, but what reason is there to have removed it from scripture in the first place.
And the answer is the same. Groups of men who think they know better.
It was contained in the Septuagint, which were the scriptures that Jesus quoted from
==> Therefore Jesus was at least acquainted with the words of Sirach.
Jesus also says things that are not founf in the OT, but are contained in Sirach
So, much like polygamy, I would say not what the proofs are that it should be canon, but what reason is there to have removed it from scripture in the first place.
And the answer is the same. Groups of men who think they know better.
The Apocryphal works as a whole often read as having a particularly Christian character. I can remember the last time I read it finding on a number of occasions passages which I recalled clearly from the New Testament, and had thought were coined by Jesus, Paul etc - but in reality appear to be quotes.
Here is a fascinating list, that I am not endorsing every entry of, but is very interesting to go through.
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/
One argument that seems to frequently come up is..
"It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined son, and the birth of a daughter is a loss." Sirach 22:3 (RSV-CE)
The argument being that it seems rather uncharitable and insulting to women to propose that the birth of a daughter is a loss, and therefore a strike against this text. But, it's not my impression that he is speaking about the birth of a daughter in a general sense, but in the specific case of an undisciplined daughter; as in the same sense as the son in the first part of the verse. Because, in the very next verse he says "A sensible daughter obtains her husband, but one who acts shamefully brings grief to her father.".
She "obtains her husband", her father doesn't have to.. the suitors just show up.
So, an undisciplined son is a disgrace, but he can go off and be gone from his father at no cost to his father. But a shameful daughter might not be able to obtain a high bride-price, and maybe not even obtain a husband at all; unless her father pays a man to take her, and hence the birth of an (eventually) undisciplined/shameful daughter is a loss.