You’re a paid propagandist for an institution, I get it.

You’re ignoring Muraoka’s warning against the idea that gender in grammar is meaningless: “it should not facilely be taken for granted that Hebrew speakers of the second century B.C. in Palestine thought in these grammatical categories as we are wont to.”

Being in the LXX and a key Qumran text, among other claims, locates Sirach as a vital text in the New Testament lineage.

Qumran was visited before. cf. Hartmut Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus: “there is very good reason to assume that the Karaites at Cairo owed their text of Sirach directly to the ‘cave folk’…”

I said the Christian person is understood as neither male or female, but rather both- the original androgyne. cf. Wayne A. Meeks in “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity.” As he notes, Paul’s “no male or female” language is a clear textual pointer to Genesis 1:27, as if to say “the act of Christian initiation reverses the fateful division of Genesis 2:21–22.”

Male AND female, like God.