Most translations of Ben Sira, often referred to as Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, translate the Greek of that book as it has come down to us, except as the spirit moves. I’m not trying to be facetious. It just isn’t obvious why RSV, NRSV, TEV, NAB, NJB, and REB usually translate Ben Sira from the Greek but sometimes from the Hebrew. Douay and Knox, on the other hand, depend on the Latin.
Isn’t it about time that the Ben Sira tradition in Hebrew as known to us from Qumran, Masada, the Cairo Genizah, and the Talmud be made available in English? The Hebrew tradition differs in emphasis and content from the Ben Sira tradition in Greek, Syriac, and Latin on numerous occasions.
Ben Sira in Hebrew is an important part of the
legacy of Judaism of the interval that separates the composition of the bulk of
the Hebrew Bible from the composition of rabbinic literature and the New
Testament. It is part and parcel of the tradition to which the New Testament,
patristic, and rabbinic literature are indebted and apart from which they are
imperfectly understood. Knowledge of “intertestamental” Judaism’s history of
ideas to which the Ben Sira tradition in Hebrew is a key witness illuminates
the concepts of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism in a way that knowledge of
the Hebrew Bible alone is unable to do.
Below the fold, I present the Hebrew text and
a translation of Ben Sira 44:1-15.
Problems await a project of this kind at
every turn. It is tempting, for example, to translate, not ‘our fathers,’ but
‘our ancestors’ in Ben Sira 44:1. We live in an age in which male-gendered
language puts off or is misread by a growing number people. On the other hand,
no text is an island. The language of this piece and the diction of the
rabbinic “Sayings of the Fathers” and the hymn “Faith of our Fathers” depend on
each other and co-inhere.
Where the tradition of Ben Sira in Hebrew
attests to variant readings, the reading which seems likeliest to be the more
original is translated in the body of the text. In a fully scientific edition in
preparation (not presented here), textual alternatives are cited and discussed in
a series of notes.
The attempt is made to translate into natural
English, preserve co-textual relationships and key rhetorical features, and translate
metaphors with metaphors. It is usually, nevertheless, a word-for-word
translation.
שבח אבות עולם
אהללה נא אנשי חסד את אבותינו בדורותם
רב כבוד חלק עליון וגדלה מימות עולם
רודי ארץ במלכותם ואנשי שם בגבורתם
יעצים בתבונתם וחזי כל בנבואתם
שרי גוים במזמתם ורזנים במחקרתם
חכמי שיח בספרתם ומשלים בשמחותם
חקרי מזמור על קו ונשאי
משל בכתב
אנשי חיל וסמכי כח ושקטים על מכונתם
כל אלה בדרם נכבדו ומימיהם תפארתם
יש מהם הניחו שם להשתענות בנחלתם
ויש מהם שאין לו זכר וישבתו כאשר שבתו
כאשר לא היו היו ובניהם מאחריהם
ואולם אלה אנשי חסד ותקותם
לא ת[כר]ת
עם זרעם נאמן טובם ונחלתם ל[בני בניהם]
בבריתם עמד זרעם וצאצאיהם [בעבורם]
עד עולם יעמד זכרם וצדקתם
לא [ת]מ[חה]
וגו[ית]ם בשלום נאספה [ו]שמם חי לדור ודור
חכמתם תש[נה] עדה ותהלתם יספר קהל
Praise of the Fathers of Old
I will now praise devoted men,
our fathers, of every generation;
whom the Most High assigned great
glory,
majesty, from days of old.
Subduers of the land, each in
his reign,
each of whom gained a name by valor;
counselors, for their insight,
seers of all things in their
prophecies.
Commanders of nations, for their
cunning,
princes, for their penetration;
skilled orators, for their
narration,
poets, for their odes of joy.
connoisseurs of song, for composition,
givers of voice to verse in writing.
Valiant men, sustained by strength,
at ease on their estates,
all of them were honored in
their age,
fame accorded them in their own day.
Some of them left behind a name,
trusted on account of their legacy,
and of some of them, there is no memory,
their name ceased when they ceased;
as though they never were they
have become,
and their children after them.
But the following were devoted
men,
whose prospects have not ceased;
with their seed their goodly
estate is secure,
their legacy, with their lineage.
By their covenants, their seed
has endured,
their offspring, on their account;
their memory will endure
forever,
their faithfulness will not be blotted
out.
Their bodies are laid away in
peace,
their name lives on, age to
age;
the assembly recounts their
wisdom,
the congregation rehearses their
praise.
In a forthcoming post, I will comment on aspects of this
passage.
If Ecclesiasticus is being read as Scripture, then most certainly it should be read in the Greek or Latin, because that is the preserved tradition of Christianity. Ben Sira in Hebrew is an interesting novelty that may shed light on the textual tradition (which is doubtlessly why the (N)RSV uses it) but in its Hebrew version is a bit of a novelty, much as the Hebrew (Shem-Tov) "Matthew".
Moreover, I was under the impression that there is no complete single copy of Ben-Sira, and that the fragments that do exist have numerous discrepancies. The ultimate Talmudic dictum on Ben-Sira is clear: while some "good things" can be extracted from the text, Sanhedrin 100a quotes a number of passages rejected as unworthy of Scripture culminating in a stricture against its study in Sanhedrin 100b. Thus, your praise of it seems rather overstated -- it is a work explicitly rejected by Judaism. While it is a work that obviously some Jews valued (otherwise, why go to the trouble of explicitly banning it) I am unaware of any evidence that it was ever valued by the majority of Jews.
But I am simply stunned by your unsupported assertion that Pirkei Avos "co-inheres" with the passage cited. I wonder if you will justify the assertion in a later post -- I am certainly skeptical that the unique (and rather un-scriptural) style of Pirkei Avos in anyway models this passage.
Now, to a certain extent, one could make an argument that virtually any two literary works "co-inhere" simply because all literature reflects common human values. (For example, one can search for and find parallels between the plays of Shakespeare and the Tale of Genji -- a pair of well known works that were certainly written without either influencing the other. Note that my claim that all literature reflects human values loses none of its force even if one claims that a particular piece of literature was partly or fully divinely inspired.) But can you find anything distinctive in the quoted passage and Pirkei Avos that is not a common point widely reflected by Mediterranean values of the time (for example, a point found only in Jewish literature and not in Greco-Roman literature)? Alternatively, can you find any distinctive Hebrew features between the quoted passage and Pirkei Avos that are not found throughout post-Biblical Hebrew literature?
I must express considerable skepticism that you will be able to answer these questions affirmatively.
Posted by: Iyov | January 08, 2008 at 07:48 AM
Iyov,
your comparison of Ben Sira in Hebrew with Hebrew "Matthew" is off the wall. Scholars regard the fragmentary copies of Ben Sira recovered from Qumran, Masada, and the Cairo Genizah as more or less accurate copies of a work originally written in Hebrew by a mainstream Jew of the 2nd cent BCE. What do scholars say about the Hebrew "Matthew"? The quotation marks are there for a reason.
It has been proven that portions of Ben Sira's work were taken up almost verbatim in the Jewish liturgy. It is well-known that the Talmud contains numerous favorable citations from Ben Sira.
It is beyond question that Ben Sira in Hebrew is a pre-rabbinic work that helped shape what became rabbinic Judaism.
You are certainly free to ignore Ben Sira as we now know it from exquisitely Jewish sources. If you're lucky, you will never read an article by a (Jewish) scholar that points out to you exactly which parts of the liturgy go back to Ben Sira. It would be a shame, wouldn't it, to discover that a passage you love much is taken, in some cases word-for-word, from a work that was "explicitly rejected" by Judaism as you define it.
You misunderstood my point about the word "avot" as found in ben Sira and Pirkei Avot, which, whether you like it or not, is used in the two works in similar ways. My point is about diction in translation. Do you want to continue referring to Pirkei Avot in English as "Sayings of the Fathers," or do you want to switch over to the gender non-specific "Sayings of the Ancestors"?
A case can be made for retaining 'fathers' as such when Ben Sira and Pirkei Avot are translated into English as a way of maintaining a terminological tradition.
In my reflections about canon in the Jewish tradition, I have been careful to be clear about the sense in which a work like ben Sira has been and continues to be appropriated by Jewish tradition. The debate about whether ben Sira ought to be included in what we now call the Tanakh is long over and no one to my knowledge is suggesting that the question should be re-opened. You are setting up a straw man.
If and when a diglot Hebrew-English edition of Ben Sira comes out, it's up to you, Iyov. You can wash your hands of it, or you can put it next to your study edition of the Dead Scrolls, which includes a few fragments of it anyway, alongside of fragments large and small of many, many works that were not preserved by later rabbinic Judaism. True, some of these works were treasured by Jews who joined the movement that eventually became what we refer to as Christianity. Now if that fact means that the works in question, despite their origins, are suspect in your eyes, I feel for you.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to dissuade Christians from reading a translation of Ben Sira from the Hebrew as Scripture, you are late to the game. Anyone who reads Ben Sira now as Scripture in an English translation, whether that be NRSV, REB, NAB, or NJB, is already sometimes reading a translation from the Hebrew. Inconsistently, but nevertheless clearly, modern Christian translators of ben Sira have thought it appropriate to set aside the Greek, Latin, and Syriac in specific instances and return to the hebraica veritas. If a diglot edition of everything we have of ben Sira in Hebrew is published, it is possible that it will serve to expand this tendency.
Why would that bother you?
Posted by: JohnFH | January 08, 2008 at 08:42 AM
I think, John, that you have proved my point precisely. (I will skip over the point that there is no extant copy of Ben Sira -- only tiny fragments which frequently disagree with each other.)
I find many Christians who are careful to distinguish what constitutes and does not constitute Christianity. For example, according to many Christians' account, Mormonism and Unitarianism are not Christianity. I believe you have said as much in one of your posts.
Moreover, Christians are careful to define what counts as heresy and as "orthodox" (lower-case "o") Christianity. For example: Adoptionism, Albigenses, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Docetism, Donatism, Gnosticism, Kenosis, Modalism, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Patripassionism, Pelagianism, Socianism, and Tritheism are not accounted as Christianity. Somehow, Christians are allowed to define what counts and does not count as Christianity, and yet every work with some Jewish relationship counts as equally valid form of "Judaism as [I] define it"?
It would seem that in your open-minded view, there are two forms of Judaism: Talmudic Judaism and non-Talmudic Judaism. In your world view, the former always needs the adjective "rabbinic" to indicate that it is of narrow, benighted scope. Now, perhaps this view might be forgiven if you were referring to tiny sects such as the Kairites (who are really Egyptian Jews and far more Talmudic than they profess) or Falasha. But the truth is the main expositors of "non-Rabbinic Judaism" are groups such as the Subbotniks and the so-called "Messianic Jews."
Indeed, it is only a small step from declaring "Ben Sira" Jewish to declaring "Matthew" Jewish -- in the version of Shem-Tov or in some Greek manuscript.) And indeed, "Matthew" was clearly influenced by Judaism. However, it is not a Jewish book -- it is part of the Christian canon.
If you cannot accept my argument that "Judaism = 'Rabbinic Judaism' " on the basis of the right of Jews to define their own religion (rather than to let Christians define it for them), then accept it simply as a matter of terminology -- it is convenient to have a word to describe the religion that believes that both the Written and Oral Torah were given at Sinai.
When you imply that "Judaism as [I] define it" is just one of a number of "Judaisms" each of which is (presumably) equally valid (and perhaps, you slyly hint, equally viable) you cheapen that religion.
If you will care to look at the Sanhedrin 100b you will see that there is little doubt of the Talmudic view on the matter -- while R. Joseph explains that there are good things we may expound upon, there are many passages which he mocks. These include:
* Do not strip the skin [of a fish] even from its ear, lest thou spoil it, but roast it [all, the fish with the skin] in the fire, and eat therewith two [twisted] loaves.
* A thin-bearded man is very wise: a thick-bearded one is a fool: he who blows away [the froth] from off his glass [of liquor] is not thirsty; he who says, with what shall I eat my bread? — take the bread away from him; he whose beard is parted will be defeated by none.
Should you find sublime inspiration in these passages, then more power to you. If you are certain, despite unambiguous Jewish tradition to the contrary that they were written by a "mainstream Jew" then present your evidence. But how do you defend your definition of certain beliefs as outside the boundaries of "Christianity"?
You will recall that R. Joseph's explanation is a commentary to Mishna 9:1, which defines the boundaries of heresy -- there is no room for ambiguity in this section. "The following have no portion in the world to come ... one who reads uncanonical books...."
You know, Mary Baker Eddy had some good lines in Science and Health, as did Joseph Smith in The Book of Mormon. I am sure that in their time, Nestorius and Pelagius must have had the occasional good quote. However, an inspired line or two hardly makes for a divinely inspired work.
As to the question of whether Christians should read their book of Ecclesiasticus or Sirach in the Latin or Greek or whether (as you put it) they should read "inconsistently" translated works that include a word or two from some fragment of Ben Sira -- well that is a matter of personal choice.
Just don't call the resulting mishmosh Jewish.
Posted by: Iyov | January 08, 2008 at 10:39 AM
By the say, should you wish to point out that the verses I quote (which the Babylonian Talmud says are in Ben Sira) are not to be found in your copy of Sirach, then I simply respond that this is further evidence that we have no "Hebrew Ben Sira" (Israel Levi not withstanding.)
Posted by: Iyov | January 08, 2008 at 11:09 AM
You will discover, Iyov, that Ben Sira is universally considered, by those who have studied the question in depth, to represent mainstream Judaism of his day.
To be sure, we are more aware than we used to be that Judaism in antiquity was a diverse entity, but I have never seen ben Sira presented as anything other than within the bounds of normative Judaism of Jerusalem in the second century BCE.
Qohelet stands out as a more eccentric work than does ben Sira.
If you are not satisfied with these blanket statements, I will be happy to supply you with a catena of quotes along the same lines from the usual scholarly sources. If you wish, I can even limit myself to citing Jewish scholars who so argue. But I can't guarantee that the scholars I cite espouse a variety of Judaism that you feel comfortable with. If you know of a professor at Yeshiva University or wherever who has argued that ben Sira represents an anomalous form of Judaism for his day, let me know. I will be happy to engage the arguments.
Whether you like it or not, most Jewish scholars who contribute to the field of biblical studies regard ben Sira as a bona fide Jewish work, and, with careful qualifications, might also speak of the gospel of Matthew as a Jewish sectarian work.
I'm hoping you can see the distinction here. The gospel of Matthew is a sectarian Jewish work. Its author and the community for which he wrote appear to have accepted Pharisaic halakhah after a fashion, but combined that acceptance with belief in Jesus as the Messiah, something the Pharisees in general found abhorrent.
Ben Sira is not a sectarian work. Some of its parts are less memorable than others; if you want, I can give you a list of statements made by Qohelet that are pretty offensive, too. Because Qohelet is in the canon as Jews and Protestants understand it, believing Jews and Protestants feel an obligation to deal with Qohelet's statements sympathetically.
Or at least I thought that was the case, until James Kugel came along, and started using the Hebrew Bible as a negative foil to the later Jewish tradition of the Talmud and related writings.
Most Christians, a majority of Protestants excluded, feel an obligation to treat ben Sira with respect - in any of the languages and versions in which it is preserved. I notice a number of Jewish scholars doing the same.
To what extent ben Sira is considered to be inspired in the same sense as Qohelet is, or Psalm 37 is, is something that Orthodox and Catholic Christians have one point of view on, many Anglicans and some Protestants, another, and some reformed and conservative Jews, another.
There are, of course, plenty of Protestants and orthodox Jews who regard ben Sira as a pernicious and dangerous work, to be read at the risk of exclusion from the world to come. I hadn't thought you belonged to that category, but maybe you do, and if so, I want to respect your position.
But surely you will also accept that those who have made very different choices, those Jews included who read ben Sira with a sympathetic eye, are within their rights.
I do find it entertaining that whenever I speak positively of and show an interest in a Jewish work like the Septuagint or ben Sira, you get bent out of shape. I think you know I have great respect for Judaism, orthodox Judaism included. But you are asking a lot if you expect me to share orthodox Judaism's antipathies for membra disjecta of its own past and present.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 08, 2008 at 11:44 AM
What's going on here, Iyov? Does Israel Levi belong to your list of kosher Jews, and Moshe Zvi Segal, Zeev Ben-Hayyim, and Elia Samuele Artom do not?
Ben Sira is two-thirds preserved in Hebrew. I could produce a list a mile long of Jewish scholarship which feels comfortable with studying the "Hebrew ben Sira," which you now claim doesn't exist.
You're digging yourself into quite the hole here.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 08, 2008 at 12:01 PM
To summarize:
(1) The Talmud says Ben Sira is heretical.
(2) You claim you have a Hebrew Ben Sira. And you cite the Talmud as evidence of the integrity of that work. But in fact, the Talmud cites verses that are not found in your Hebrew Ben Sira. This calls into question the integrity of your edition.
(3) Christians claim that Gnostic works such as The Gospel of Judas are heretical, yet you would seemingly deny the right of Jews to make similar distinctions with their Scripture.
(4) Christians have historically claimed that they are the possessor of the "true Jewish Bible", the Septuagint, and as part of its persecution of a religious minority, have tried to thrust that Bible onto the Jews, who they claim have corrupted the Hebrew Scriptures under demonic influence.
So, it seems at best insensitive for a Christian pastor to seemingly return to the old line that Christians have the right to define Jewish Scripture: the Septuagint.
In contrast, I say, let Jews define Jewish Scripture, and let Christians define Christian Scripture.
My argument in detail:
John, if a number of secular scholars study a subject (regardless of their religious affiliation), it does not grant religious legitimacy to a topic. As an example, I can cite any number of Christian scholars who have written about Gnosticism. Does that make Gnostic beliefs Christian? One notes that in the resultant fallout from the publication of the English translation of the Gospel of Judas there were any number of religious authorities who went to some length to explain that this was not a work esteemed by Christianity. Indeed, I seem to recall you making some fun of that work (although perhaps my memory is faulty at this point, or perhaps you were only making fun of the hype while regarding the Gospel of Judas with the same respect you accord "Ben Sira".)
Can you cite a religious authority (as opposed to a secular scholar), "Orthodox" or not, who argues for the devotional reading (as opposed to a historical reading) of Ben Sira? Given your rhetoric, one might expect you can provide me a list, well, a "mile long."
(As you are undoubtedly aware, standards for publication and promotion in academia stress novelty and creativity -- and are thus an unlikely guide to religious orthodoxy.)
Now there is a religious community for which Sirach in Greek is a work of devotion. They are called "Christians." And to the majority of them, Sirach is inspired literature. Let us not confuse that community with Jews. Let us not compound the error of historic anti-Semitism by allowing Christianity to define what Jews should believe by claiming the Septuagint is the "correct" version of the Bible for Jews to study.
Now, I want to take you at your word. You write:
Isn’t it about time that the Ben Sira tradition in Hebrew as known to us from Qumran, Masada, the Cairo Genizah, and the Talmud be made available in English?
Well, I've cited you the Ben Sira tradition as it is quoted in the Talmud. And here is the problem -- it includes passages not found in "your" so-called Hebrew Ben Sira.
So let's review where we are. You are claiming a spiritual work that was retrieved from a ... Jewish trash dump in Cairo. (Judaism requires special disposal of non-kosher works that contain the tetragrammaton -- whether they became non-kosher because of wear and tear or because they were heretical.) Now you claim the works retrieved from the trash dump form a coherent whole, but I've given you an example of several Ben Sira quotations (according to the Talmud) that cannot be not found in your Hebrew Ben Sira -- which I think is pretty strong evidence that we do not have a definitive Hebrew Ben Sira.
Now furthermore, I've asked you to present your evidence that Ben Sira was a work of a "mainstream Jew." You've replied by dropping names -- not even article citations, much less actually make the case itself. Certainly, whether I appeal to you as a Biblical literalist or as a scholar, you can see the problem with your stance here.
I have yet to ever meet a Jew who "reads Ben Sira with a sympathetic eye." Indeed, I think it is safe to say that fewer than one Jew in a thousand has even heard of Ben Sira outside of its negative mention in the Talmud. However, should I one day meet one, I will know that they are outside the boundaries of the religion as defined by the Talmud -- which you have sharply criticized in your writings, but is in fact a foundational document of contemporary Judaism -- unlike Ben Sira.
(The Mishna I cite is by no means obscure -- Sanhedrin 9:1 is by tradition reprinted in every copy of Pirkei Avos, which in turn is the most widely distributed portion of the Talmud -- even to the extent of being reprinted in full in the prayer book. It has, if you will, a status equally elevated to that of the Nicene Creed. Well, perhaps you think belief in that creed is optional for Christians.)
Finally, is this a scholarly argument:
If you want, I can give you a list of statements made by Qohelet that are pretty offensive, too.
Please do. Because, my Biblical fundamentalist friend, when you cite such passages, then I will have a chance to explain to you how tradition interprets those passages, and perhaps lead you to a greater respect for that work which you call the Bible.
Posted by: Iyov | January 08, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Iyov,
If it is a point of doctrine for you that Ben Sira is a pernicious and heretical work, such that you are religiously bound to regard it in negative terms, be my guest.
You seem to take pleasure in imputing to me viewpoints I have never expressed. I will let it pass. It doesn't worry me. I am confident that just about anyone who reads this thread will catch on to your tactics.
I am happy to keep the conversation going, regardless.
You ask:
Can you cite a religious authority (as opposed to a secular scholar), "Orthodox" or not, who argues for the devotional reading (as opposed to a historical reading) of Ben Sira?
I never said I could. I said other things, such as "Ben Sira represents mainstream Judaism of his day," and that there are plenty of Jewish scholars that treat ben Sira with respect. The fact is, Iyov, many of my Jewish teachers, including those who are rabbis and thus qualify as religious authorities from your point of view, would not be caught dead speaking as you do with disdain and disrespect for a component of pre-rabbinic Jewish tradition.
So let's be precise about the challenge, and if I can't deliver, I promise to buy you dinner at the kosher restaurant of your choice the next time we happen to attend the same scholarly convention.
It seems to me that all I have to do to prove you wrong is to come up with two or three examples of rabbis, Orthodox or not, who have made positive and sympathetic statements about Ben Sira as a Jewish author. Perhaps you wish to restrict me to rabbis who teach in seminaries as opposed to those who teach at Harvard or Brandeis. I'm ready, Iyov. Let me know if I have misinterpreted you.
I stated:
Ben Sira is not a sectarian work. Some of its parts are less memorable than others; if you want, I can give you a list of statements made by Qohelet that are pretty offensive, too.
You invite me to point out offensive statements in Qohelet, as if there were none, and in the same comment, you label me a biblical fundamentalist. Too funny.
Since you also come very close to defining me as an anti-Semite, confirming by your reactions a version of Godwin's law, I will quote from one of my teachers, Michael Fox, and you can direct your anti-Semitic accusations in his direction. Quotations are from his "A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
"Qohelet has no hope that human action can correct or even alleviate wrongs. He takes a deterministic, passive attitude toward injustice. . . . When faced with governmental corruption and abuses, all he has to offer is lame advice not to be surprised at the sight, because that's just the way things are (5:7). . . . Such resignation is foreign not only to prophecy but also to Wisdom Literature, which demands the pursuit of righteous actions and charity and assumes that the individual can futher social justice; see, for example, Prov. 14:31; 19:17; 22:9, 22; 24:11-12; 29:14; 31:19." (p. 66)
On this particular issue, not a minor one for either a Jew or a Christian, Qohelet is the eccentric one, and Ben Sira is the traditional one. I encourage to read through what we have of Ben Sira in Hebrew and see for yourself.
By the way, I am absolutely convinced that despite this unacceptable aspect of Qohelet's wisdom, his work is a splendid gift from God to both Jews and Christians, and whenever I write and speak about Qohelet, I spend most of my time detailing the perfections of his work.
I'll come up with another example or two in a bit; for the moment, my daughter Anna, who wants me to read for her before going to bed, takes precedence.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 08, 2008 at 08:27 PM
Well, my dear Iyov, I'm back.
Thank you for provoking me to look around for an online quote from an orthodox Jewish source which, it turns out, bends over backwards to give the most lenient interpretation imaginable to the ban on reading Ben Sira you are so concerned to defend. See the post which follows this one.
You asked me to back up my claim that Qohelet contains, though it is part of the canon, offensive statements. I gave one example in which Ben Sira is more in line with the rest of Jewish tradition than is Qohelet. I will now give an example where the two authors are equally offensive from a contemporary point of view.
Ben Sira is famous for its author's misogyny. To be sure, cooler heads have noted (for example, Claudia Camp) that the statements need to be understood as a reflection of the time.
I agree, but according to some, the Bible is supposed to be a timeless book such that God would have protected authors of Holy Writ from making, for example, misogynist statements.
It's a nice theory, but it does not stand up to critical scrutiny.
Take a close look at Qohelet 7:25-8:1a. As Michael Fox notes (see previous comment for reference):
"Despite the valiant efforts of some exegetes, this passage remains irreparably misogynistic. . . . Though there are several uncertainties with this passage, there is no ambiguity about one thing: Qohelet is not defending the honor of women. Qohelet is crabby. He doesn't think too highly of men either, and there's no reason to expect him to have much good to say about women." (pp. 266-67).
See, crabby Iyov, you are in good company. By the way, Qohelet's crabbiness is the flip side of his greatness. He would never have attained his insightful analysis of the absurdity of life if he had had a sunny disposition.
I would also point out that someone who, on the basis of a text like this, feels authorized to be equally misogynist, lacks an adequate hermeneutic.
A sound hermeneutic knows that scripture is to be read in light of all other scripture, and in accordance with the principle of charity. This hermeneutic is not a modern discovery. It is already enunciated by the Fathers in Christian tradition. The rabbis practiced it as well.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 08, 2008 at 10:41 PM
As far as Qohelet is concerned, I think a quick look at the Targum demonstrates how "imaginative" the exegesis had to be in order to render it less disturbing (and no doubt offensive). Qoh 7:25ff was probably less offensive when it was written than it is today, but perhaps it is useful to have it cause us offense when much of the offense elsewhere seems lost on modern readers (OK, perhaps that's not really a valid hermeneutical approach!).
Posted by: Martin Shields | January 09, 2008 at 09:44 PM
I follow you, Martin.
I would want to stress that flawed and very difficult human beings, with rough edges that may include anything from misanthropy (which is what Qohelet was; his misogyny is a function of that) to narcissism, are vulnerable to the perception of existential truths to an extent that better adjusted human beings are not.
Exhibit A: Kierkegaard. Exhibit B: Nietzsche. Exhibit C: Dostoevsky.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 10, 2008 at 04:14 AM
There are 70 ways of reading Torah, John, and none of them lead to a condemnation of Koheles.
Without Ecclesiastes, Shakespeare could not his brilliant adaption of that book, which we conventionally call written Hamlet.Through Hamlet's encounters with his "women" (Gertrude, Ophelia, madness) he finds more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets. To dismiss Hamlet (Ecclesiastes) as misogynistic is to miss a chance to encounter a deep humanity -- one that is universal for the ages.
But if an appeal to aesthetics does not work, then here is a traditional view (not at all original, but still worth quoting). We must read the Bible meticulously -- character by character. And, we must look at the entirety of Shlomo haMelech's writings. We find his two great comments on women (the other being Mishlei 18:22):
מצא אשה מצא טוֹב
He who has found a woman has found good
ומוצא אני מר ממּות את האשה
And find I bitterer than death the woman
These obviously contradict each other, so we must examine them very carefully to resolve them, if we follow the teachings of tradition.
In the former, the perfect form of the verb indicates that the unified soul-essence (Zohar 3:43b, 1:85b), united before birth (Sotah 2a), has been found; the latter uses the active participle, indicating a consciousness only in the present -- almost the definition of a mind obsessed with self-gratification. The moral is obvious.
Further, in the former, the verb ("find") is directly followed by its object ("woman"); in the latter, the subject ("I" is interposed between the two. The search for the latter is most concerned with the search for oneself -- again, self-gratification.
Now, if this strikes you as unnecessary grammatical gymnastics, I ask you -- do you find this explanation more inspiring than saying Koheles was crabby? Which explanation brings you closer to God?
Posted by: Iyov | January 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Very nice, Iyov. You are a fine exegetical gymnast and you have an eminent tradition of the same at your back. Your contextualization of your exegesis within a larger stream of tradition is admirable and adds depth to the whole.
If the explanation that results satisfies you, if not as a statement about what Qohelet had in mind (I doubt you would go that far), at least as a reflection of a divine intention, why should I quarrel with you?
I agree with the result, but I prefer to arrive there by a more direct route, which includes, not condemning Qohelet, but facing up to the limitations of his thought.
Most people would agree that Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche were open to existential truth of a high order precisely because they suffered from things like misanthropy, paranoia, and narcissism. Great art and great insights often depend on a dark flipside in order to emerge. A recognition of these facts is not that unusual. It is just a bit unusual to apply them to a biblical author.
And yes, it draws me very close to God, and inspires me with great hope, to think that God found a use for crabby Qohelet, and brought great good precisely out of the banal evil which afflicts the lives of most human beings.
Posted by: JohnFH | January 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM