THE
"ENEMY" IN ISRAELITE WISDOM LITERATURE
A
Dissertation
Presented
to
the Faculty of
the
Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary
In
Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for
the Degree
Doctor of
Philosophy
by
John Keating Wiles
June
1982
Digitized by Ted Hildebrandt,
Displayed with permission from
Dr. John Keating Wiles
APPROVAL SHEET
THE "ENEMY" IN ISRAELITE WISDOM
LITERATURE
John Keating
Wiles
Read
and Approved by:
Marvin E. Tate (Chairman)
John Joseph Owens
John D. Watts
Date: August 10, 1982
CONTENTS
Page
Chapter
1. Introduction 1
Personal Enemies in the Psalms 3
A Methodology for Investigating
"Enemies"
in the Wisdom Literature 18
Methodological Caveats 22
Contemporary Value of this Study 28
2. Enemy Designations Within the
Wisdom Literature 30
Proverbs 32
The byvx-Group 33
The fwr-Group 35
The religion of the
wicked 36
The demeanor of the
wicked 37
The speech of the
wicked 39
The allies of the
wicked 41
The Neutral Group 45
The Friends and Kinfolk Group 56
The Animals Group 59
Job 61
The byvx-Group 61
The fwr-Group 66
The Neutral Group 72
iii
The Friends and Kinfolk Group 74
The Animals Group 76
Qoheleth 77
The fwr-Group 78
The Neutral Group 79
The Animals Group 80
Sirach 80
The byvx-Group 82
The fwr-Group 87
The wicked in the
cult 91
The wicked and the
economy 92
The wicked at court 93
The wicked and their
speech 94
Wicked friends 94
The wicked and the
family 96
The wicked and
duplicity 99
The wicked and the
fool 100
The Neutral Group 101
The Friends and
Kinfolk Group 105
The Animals Group 109
Wisdom of Solomon 110
The byvx-Group 112
The fwr-Group 114
The Neutral Group 118
iv
The Friends and Kinfolk Group 119
The Animals Group 120
Summary 121
3. Derivative Enemies in Wisdom
Literature 127
Proverbs
129
Foolish Characters as Enemies 130
Righteous Characters as Enemies 138
Wisdom and Yahweh as Enemies 141
Job 146
Righteous Characters as Enemies 150
Satan as an Enemy 156
Yahweh as an Enemy 157
"The Enemy behind the Enemy" 163
Qoheleth 166
Sirach 169
Historical Characters as Enemies 171
Dispositions, Actions and Things
as Enemies 172
Fools and Sages as Enemies 176
Wisdom and the Lord as Enemies 179
Wisdom of Solomon 184
Righteous Characters as Enemies 185
Idolatry as an Enemy 186
Creation as an Enemy 188
Summary 190
v
4. Wise Responses to the Enemy 194
Proverbs 194
Rejection of Enemy Behavior 195
No Anxiety over Enemies 199
Avoidance of the Enemy 201
Securing Actions in the Face of Enemies 206
Gifts work wonders 207
Heed wisdom 208
Fear Yahweh 209
Love for the Enemy 210
Motives for Wise Responses to the Enemy 218
Self-destruction 218
Fate-fixing actor 219
Yahweh as "midwife" 222
Job 227
The Friends 228
Elihu 232
Yahweh 234
Job 235
Response to Satan? 239
Qoheleth 239
"Quietism" 240
Hatred 242
Enjoyment 245
Fear
253
vi
Sirach 258
Hostility 259
Caution 262
Reconciliation 266
Piety 275
Motives behind Sirach's Counsel 278
Death 280
Shame 281
Response to Wisdom 284
Wisdom of Solomon 285
Welcome to Strangers 285
Responses to Idols and Their Worshipers 287
Gentleness
290
Motives behind Responses to the Enemy 293
Summary 296
5.
Conclusion 299
Bibliography 307
Appendices
I. Enemy Designations within the
Wisdom Literature 321
II. Enemy Behavior within the
Wisdom Literature 329
III. Derivative Enemy Designations 350
Abstract 361
Biographical
Data 363
vii
Chapter
1
INTRODUCTION
The wisdom tradition of
way from the dominant Old
Testament attitude toward personal
enemies.
If your enemy is hungry, give him
bread to eat;
and if he is thirsty,
give him water to drink;
for you will heap coals of fire on
his head,
and Yahweh will reward
you.
Proverbs
25:21-22
This instruction, cited by Paul
in Romans 12:20, articulates
an ethic of treating enemies in
a beneficent manner. It is
perhaps the closest the Old
Testament comes to Jesus' com-
mand to love the enemy (Matt.
5:44). A few other passages
in the wisdom literature speak
of treating enemies in a
non-aggressive way.1
Examples of beneficent responses to enemies may be
adduced in other complexes of
Israelite tradition. Exodus
23:4-5 commands one to return
the enemy's stray ox or ass
and to help him lift up his
overburdened beast.2 Narratives
tell of Joseph aiding his
brothers who had conspired to kill
him, to cast him into a pit and
to sell him to the
1 Prov. 16:7; 24:17-18;
Job 31:29-30.
2 S. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commenter on
Deuteronomy (3rd ed.,
p.
250, commenting on Deut. 22:1, the deuteronomic reformu-
lation,
calls the Exodus form of the law "an old-world
anticipation of the spirit of
Mt. 5:44."
1
2
Ishmaelites.3 David
spared Saul's life when he was most
vulnerable.4 In the
latter case, Saul was evidently sur-
prised by David's behavior for
he asked, "If a man finds his
enemy will he let him go away
safe?" (I Sam. 24:19). Each
of these examples may be viewed
as beneficent responses to a
personal enemy.
The wisdom tradition, however, sounds this note most
clearly. The narrative examples
of this ethic may perhaps
be gainsaid since David was not
dealing with a common enemy
but with Yahweh's anointed,5
and Joseph was acting under the
watchful and subtle guidance of
God's providence.6 The
beneficent behavior mandated by
Exodus 23:4-5 is somewhat
oblique for the object of
neighborly consideration is the
enemy's livestock, not the
enemy himself. Why should
3 Gen. 37:18, 24, 28; the
whole story comprises chapters
37,
39-50.
4 I Sam. 24:1-22;
26:1-25. The two stories are doublets
of
the same tradition; see K. Koch, Was Ist
Formgeschichte?
Methoden der
Bibelexegese (3
Aufl., Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener
Verlag, 1974), pp. 163-181.
5 1 Sam. 24:6; 26:9; in
both versions of this saga the
fact
that Saul is Yahweh's anointed is the reason given for
David's
restraint.
6 Gen. 45:4-8; 50:20; G.
von Rod argued that the Joseph
story
is a wisdom tale in "The Joseph Narrative and. Ancient
Wisdom,"
in The Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays,
trans.
by E. Dickens (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966),
pp.
292-300; and in Genesis: A Commentary,
trans. by J.
Marks
(rev. ed.,
p.
435; but see also G. Coats, "The Joseph Story and Ancient
Wisdom:
A Reappraisal," CBQ 35 (1973), 285-297.
3
innocent animals suffer merely
because neighbors had become
involved in some dispute?
Personal Enemies in the
Psalms
Although personal enemies do appear in narrative
materials, law and wisdom
literature, they seem to play a
relatively minor role. With the
individual laments and
thanksgiving songs the enemies
play a major role. They form
one of the three fundamental
components of the lament.7
Furthermore, although the
Hebrew title of the Psalter
(Mylht) is
more properly translated "Praises" there is
a large amount of prayer or
petition (tvlpt);
approxi-
mately one third of the Psalms
are not in fact praises but
laments.8 It is
scarcely surprising, therefore, that
enemies appear so frequently in
the Psalter.
Because of the major role which enemies play in so many
psalms, impressions of Old
Testament attitude toward per-
sonal enemies are most easily
formed on the basis of the
Psalter. When it is examined
with a view toward discerning
how to treat one's enemies, the
results are radically dif-
ferent from the beneficent, or
at least non-aggressive,
7 C. Westermann,
"The Structure and History of the
Lament
in the Old Testament," in Praise and
Lament in the
Psalms, trans. by K. Crim and
R. Soulen (
Knox
Press, 1981), p. 169 (= "Struktur and Geschichte der
Klage
im Alten Testament," ZAW 66 [1954], 44-80).
8 A.
Eerdmans, 1981), 36.
4
responses noted in the passages
above. For example:
Break thou the arm of the wicked and
evildoer;
seek out his wickedness
till thou
find none.
Psalm
10:15
0 that thou wouldst slay the wicked,
0 God,
and that men of blood
would depart from
me,
men who maliciously defy thee,
who lift themselves up
against thee for
evil!
Do I not hate them that hate thee, 0
LORD?
And do I not loathe them
that rise up
against
thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.
Psalm
139:19-229
Little wonder then that many may assume that Jesus'
remark that it was said of old,
"You shall love your
neighbor and hate your
enemy" (Matt. 5:43), is an accurate
quotation of some Old Testament
passage or, at least of
some contemporary Jewish
teaching. Such an instruction is
not to be found in Jewish
scriptures, however, and nothing
like it has been discovered in
rabbinic materials.10 Never-
theless, it is very easy to
understand how readers, critical
or otherwise, could conclude
that such hostility toward
enemies was precisely the teaching
of the Old Testament, and
9 Cf. Psalms 5:11; 7:7,
10; 10:2; 12:4-5; 17:13-14;
25:3;
28:4-5; 31:18-19; 35:1-8, 26; 55:10; 58:7-12; 59:6,
12-14;
69:23-29; 70:3-4; 71:13; 79:6, 12; 83:10-19; 94:2;
109:7-20,
29-30; 129:5-7; 137:7-9; 140:10-12; 143:12.
10 T. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the
Gospels according to St.
Matthew and St. Luke Arranged with
Introduction and
Commentary
(London: SCM Press, 1949),
p.
161.
5
(depending on one's
understanding of biblical authority)
rightly or wrongly so taught.11
Frequency of references to enemies is one factor which
has created a situation in
which studies of enemies in the
Old Testament are focused
almost exclusively on the Psalms.
The second factor in this focus
is the problem that the
enemies are very difficult to
identify. Since the psalmists
most often speak simply of
various enemies and evildoers,
but almost never identify them
explicitly,12 commentators
traditionally suggest various
identities.
Many suggestions have been advanced in efforts to
identify the personal enemies
in the individual laments.
The earliest suggestions are
witnessed in the scattered
historical notes of some of the
psalm titles.13 Of course,
11 Cf. J. Laney, "A
Fresh Look at the Imprecatory
Psalms," Bibliotheca
Sacra 138 (1981), 35-45; F. Hesse,
"The
Evaluation and Authority of Old Testament Texts," trans.
by
J. Wharton in Essays on Old Testament
Hermeneutics, ed.
by
C. Westermann, English trans. ed. by J. Maya (2nd ed.,
The Authority of the Old
Testament
(
Press,
1967), pp. 234-241.
12 Although this is
especially true with regard to the
individual
laments, it is also true in national laments as
in
Psalm 124. In the royal psalms it is equally difficult
to
decide. Who are the enemies in Psalms 18:38-46 and
89:43?
Granted that they are national geopolitical enemies,
but
given the history of the Israelite state, that could be
almost
anybody from
13 Suggested enemies are
Absalom in Psalm 3;
Benjaminite
in Psalm 7; all (David's) enemies and Saul in
Psalm
18; Abimelech in Psalm 34; Doeg the Edomite in
6
most modern scholars reject
these titles as far as any
historical value is concerned,
but the settings in various
situations of David's life
played a major role in attempts
to identify the enemies for
most of the church's history.14
Even after the rise of critical
studies of the Old Testament
and its wholesale rejection of Davidic
authorship in favor
of late dating of the psalms,
historical questions remained
decisive for the identity of
the enemies. The goal was to
reconstruct the historical
occasion in the life of a
psalmist which evoked each
psalm. One component of this
effort were attempts to
identify the enemies. They were
commonly identified as impious
Jews who harassed their
pious neighbors, the psalmists,
frequently in the Maccabean
era.15
Psalm
52; the Ziphites in Psalm 54; the Philistines in
Psalm
56; Saul in Psalm 57; and Saul and the men he sent
to
watch David's house in Psalm 59.
14 Cf. St. Augustine on the Psalms, Vol. I-II,
trans.
and
annotated by Hebgin and Corrigan Westminster, Maryland:
The
Newman Press, 1960, 1961); St. Basil, "Homily on Psalm
7,"
in St. Basil: Exegetic Homilies,
trans. by
(Washington,
D. C.: The
Press,
1963), pp. 175-180; The Commentary of
Rabbi David
Kimhi on Psalms CXX-CL, ed. and trans. by J.
Baker and E.
Nicholson
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973);
J.
Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms,
5 vols., trans.
by
J. Anderson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949); M. Luther,
"Psalm
101," trans. by A. von Rohr Sauer in Luther's
Works
Vol.
13, ed. by J. Pelikan (
House,
1956), 143-224.
15 Cf. J. Olshausen, Die Psalmen (
1853);
C. Toy, "On Maccabean Psalms," Unitarian
Review and
Religious Magazine XXVI, No. 1 (July, 1886),
1-21; B. Duhm,
7
The work of Hermann Gunkel16 was (and remains)
of
pivotal significance for Psalm
study. With his thesis that
psalm poetry was originally
cultic, sociological-
institutional concerns were
destined to be raised. These
new questions were finally to
undermine all attempts to
reconstruct some historical
occasion in the life of a
psalmist which evoked a psalm.
The task became the attempt
to discern the cultic occasion
for which a psalm was com-
posed and, more importantly,
performed.
This attempt led to the recognition (so obvious today)
that compositions were socially
customary and appropriate to
certain situations in life and
out of place in others. If
the various kinds
("forms" or "Gattungen") of psalms were
recognized, then their social
settings could be determined.
The dominant questions
concerned what was typical of various
situations and their
correlative literature rather than what
unique, irrepeatable situation
must be presupposed in order
Die Psalmen (
Siebeck],
1899); but S. Driver, An Introduction to
the
Literature of the Old
Testament
(
(1957),
pp. 387-389; and A. Kirkpatrick, The
Psalms
(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1902) took a more
moderate
view, even allowing for some psalms of Davidic
authorship.
16 H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen
Ubersetzt und Erklart
(5
Aufl., Gottingen: Vendenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1968,
1
Aufl., 1926); H. Gunkel und J. Begrich, Einleitung
in die
Psalmen: Die Gattungen
der religiosen Lyrik
(Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1933); henceforth,
Die Psalmen and Einleitung respectively.
8
to understand a psalm. The
psalms, it was seen, make sense
and "work" for many
people and groups in many historical
settings because they bring to
expression what is typical
rather than unique.
In spite of Gunkel's recognition that psalm poetry
emerged from and belonged to
the cult, however, he remained
a man of his age. He believed
that the psalms present in
the Psalter were in fact
private compositions by and for
(post-exilic) pious groups of
laity and had no living con-
nection with the temple itself.
They were modeled after
psalms which were used in the
(Solomonic) temple, but were
not themselves written for
temple worship. Because of this
belief, Gunkel's handling of
the enemy problem did not
represent any significant
departure from pre-form-critical
solutions.17
Sigmund Mowinckel,18 a pupil of Gunkel,
followed his
teacher in seeing psalms as
cultic compositions, but he
moved one important step. He
maintained that the psalms
actually found in the Psalter
were not free and private
compositions modeled after
earlier cultic compositions, but
were in fact written for and
used in the pre-exilic temple
services. It was not necessary
to reconstruct hypothetical
17 Gunkel, Einleitung, pp. 209-211.
18 S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, 6 Vols. (Kristiania:
In
kommission bei Jacob Dybwad, 191): and The
Psalms in
(Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1962).
9
models based on post-exilic
imitations. The poems of the
canonical Psalter were
overwhelmingly the actual Psalms in
Israel's
Worship, not the psalms in the worship of "'con-
venticles' of pious laymen.”19
If the vast majority of the Psalms were in fact pre-
exilic and not (late)
post-exilic compositions, then
solutions of the enemy problem
along the lines of sectarian
controversies in post-exilic
Judaism were out of the question.
Clearly, Mowinckel had to
explain the enemies differently
than had his predecessors. Early on in his career he offered
the thesis that the
"workers of iniquity" (Nvx-ylfvp)
encountered in the individual
laments, which he understood
primarily as psalms requesting
healing from sickness
(Krankheitpsalmen),20 were sorcerers (and allied demons)
whose curses had caused the
illnesses of the psalmists.21
19 The Psalms in
of
Mowinckel's originally Norwegian work titled Offersang og
Sangoffer which is literally
translated "Song of sacrifice
and
Sacrifice of song" or "Offering song and Song offering";
see
"Author's Preface to the English Edition" of the work,
p.
xxiii. The phrase "'conventicles' of pious laymen" above
is
drawn from the same work, p. 29.
20 Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, Vol. I, 9-12, 98-103;
see
especially
p. 101 where he states, "in Wirklichkeit durften
die
allermeisten individuellen Klagepsalmen Krankheitpsalmen
sein.—Wenigstensiersich
lassen sie sichalle von dieser Annahme
heraus
erklaren.
21 Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, Vol. I, 33-58, 76-133;
see
especially
pp. 76-77 where he states, "Bedeutet awan Zauber,
so
sind die po’ale awan die Zauberer, und diese Auntater
sind
in den betreffenden Psalmen nur eine andere Bezeichnung
der
Feinde, uber die der Beter klagt.” Cf.
also idem.,
10
Some scholars rejected Mowinckel's identification of the
personal enemies with
sorcerers,22 but the perspectives from
which a solution might be
sought (for any problem in the
Psalms) had shifted decisively.
Although he might be disputed
on such points of detail the
disputes were determined by a
new agenda.23 The
most important of the suggestions con-
cerning the identifications of
the enemies have remained
firmly anchored to
institutional and temple activities.
Hans Schmidt24 proposed an alternative to
Mowinckel's
identification of the enemies.
While Mowinckel dealt with
"Zwei
Beobachtung zum Deutung der Nv,xA-ylefEPo," ZAW 43
(1925), 260-262.
22 Cf.
L. Aubert, "Les psaumes dans le culte d'Israel,"
Revue
de Theologie et de Philosophie NS 15 (1927), 224-230;
Gunkel, Einleitung,
pp. 196-211; Birkeland, The
Evildoers
in the Book of Psalms (
1955),
pp. 40-46, henceforth, Evildoers.
23 For example,
Mowinckel's hypothetical New Year Festi-
val
may be rejected only to be replaced by an equally com-
prehensive
Covenant Festival (A. Weiser, The Psalms:
A Com-
mentary, trans. by H. Hartwell
[
or
a Royal
A Cultic History of the
Old Testament,
trans. by G. Buswell
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des
Erziehungsvereins,
1978]).
Scholars seem exceptionally ready to name festivals
which
the Old Testament never mentions and to disregard those
that
it does, at least for the purposes of nomenclature. Are
the
modern names better than those given by the Israelites
themselves?
24 H. Schmidt, Das Gebet der Angeklagten im Alten
Testament (Giessen: Alfred
Topelmann, 1928); and Die
Psalmen (J. C.
B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 754).
11
most individual laments from a
"medical" perspective, Schmidt
dealt with them from a judicial
one. They were uttered by
people accused of a crime and
were connected with some sort
of cultic ordeal; hence the
frequent assertions of innocence
found in the laments.25
On this view the one who laments
would be a defendant while the
enemies would be plaintiffs
or false witnesses. Although
their emphases are different
from Schmidt the judicial
perspective has also been pursued
by Delekat26 and
Beyerlin.27
Harris Birkeland28 brought forth a serious
objection to
all attempts to identify the
personal enemies in the Psalter.
He argued that "the
enemies of the individual were in prin-
ciple identical with those of
the nation, viz. the gen-
tiles."29
Beginning with five individual psalms
which
explicitly identified the
enemies as gentiles (Myvg),
25 For example, Psalms
7:4-5; 17:1-5; 26:1, 4-7, 11.
26 L. Delekat, Asylie und Schutzorakel an Zionheiligtum
(Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1962).
27 W. Beyerlin, Die Rettung der Bedrangten in den
Feindpsalmen der Einzelnen
auf institutionelle Zusammenhange
untersucht (G5ttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht, 1970).
28 H. Birkeland, Die
Feinde des Individuums in der
israelitischen
Psalmearteratur
(
1933);
and Evildoers.
29 Birkeland, Evildoers, p. 9.
12
strangers (Myrz) and peoples (Mymf),30
he maintained
that the enemies in these five
individual psalms were no
different than those in others
of the individual psalms.31
Therefore, the enemies in other
individual psalms must be
foreign foes of the nation of
who opposed the psalmists.
A second factor in Birkeland's argument was that all
royal psalms which mention
enemies32 refer to national
enemies, as well as a number of
psalms in which "I" appears
as a subject but a collective
interpretation is more
likely.33 Corollary
to this is the fact that "I" sometimes
appears in psalms which are
national psalms.34 Birkeland
reached the conclusion that
in more than half of all
I[ndividual] P(salms]
containing enemies, these enemies
must necessarily
be gentiles because it is expressly
stated in
almost all of them, and even in the rest of them
30 Psalms 9:6, 16, 18,
20, 21; 10:16; 43:1 speak of
(M ) yvg; 54:5 speaks of Myrz although there is a
variant
reading Mydz
(see BHS), and the same line appears
in
Psalm 86:14 reading Mydz; and 56:8 speaks of Mymf;
cf.
Kraus, Psalmen; Gunkel, Die Psalmen; Weiser, and
31 Birkeland, Evildoers, p. 14.
32 Psalms 18; 20; 21; 28;
61; 63; 89; 144; I Sam.
2:1-10.
33 Psalms 36; 66; 75; 77;
94; 118; 123; 130; 131.
34 Psalms 44:7, 16; 74:12; 60:11; 83:14.
13
the enemies are fairly
generally recognized as
national enemies.
. . . The situation, then, is that we know
who are the enemies in more than 20
psalms. In
the other half of all I[ndividual] P[salms]
they
are described in the same way. From this fact
only one method of research can be
deduced: we
have to suppose, at least as a
working hypothesis,
that the enemies are of the same
kind in those
psalms in which their identity is
not expressly
stated, as in those psalms in which
it is
expressly stated.35
Birkeland's point that the enemies in five individual
psalms are gentiles must be
granted. The texts are quite
clear. With the royal psalms
likewise the enemies are most
reasonably taken to be national
(although the Israelite
kings did have some problems
with "internal security").
The conclusion that all other
enemies must be identical
because they are described the
same way is, however, not
warranted. The fact that the
psalms were composed and used
in the cult means that the
enemies must have been, capable of
more than one meaning. The
reason that descriptions of
enemies are the same in all the
psalms which mention them
is not because the enemies are
everywhere identical, but in
order that the psalms might not
be restricted to a single
kind of enemy. If the psalms
were to be used in the cult
then they had to be capable of
referring to more than one
kind of enemy.
35 Birkeland, Evildoers, p. 15.
14
A second, consideration which speaks against Birkeland's
conclusion is the fact that
Israelites lamented and gave
thanks for personal events and
circumstances as well as
national. The Old Testament is
perfectly clear at this
point. Jeremiah's laments36
contain descriptions of his
enemies which could appear just
as easily in the Psalter,
yet they are demonstrably not
gentiles; they are the "men of
Anathoth."37
Job's descriptions of his personal enemies do
not refer to foreigners but to
people within his own com-
munity who are his enemies.38
Surely Jeremiah and Job were
not the only ones to describe
their personal home-grown
enemies like kings described
their national gentile enemies.
Finally, the observation should be made that Israelites
were not as doctrinnaire in
their use of the different forms
of psalms as modern scholars
have been. The anachronism of
Hannah uttering a royal song of
thanksgiving (I Sam. 2:1-10)
did not create any apparent
problems of verisimilitude for
the writer(s) of I Samuel.
Evidently Israelites (even
36 Jer. 11:18-12:6;
15:10-21; 17:14-18; 18:18-23;
20:7-13;
20:14-18. Cf. S. Balentine, "Jeremiah, Prophet of
Prayer,"
Review and Expositor 78 (1981),
331-344; W. Baum-
gartner,
Die Klagegedichte des Jeremias (
Topelmann, 1917); P. Bonnard, Le Psautier selon Jeremie
(Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1960); J. Berridge, Prophet,
People and the Word of
God
(Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1970).
37 Jer. 11:21, 23.
38 Cf. Job 6:15-27; 16:10, 20; 19:14-19;
30:1-15.
15
women) were able to use psalms
which were form-critically
inappropriate.39 If
the different forms were mutually
exclusive, then Hezekiah should
have used a psalm which was
more clearly royal in its
orientation (Is. 38:10-20).
Birkeland's identification of
all enemies is reductionistic.
They were (and are) open to
more than a single referent.
The "Myth and
pretation which denies the
possibility of reference to
personal enemies in the
individual psalms. On this view,
the "I" is the king
who suffers and is resurrected in the
39 Some use of royal
psalms by commoners in post-exilic
have
been used and would not have been preserved. Although
it
is historically unlikely that Hannah could have used a
royal
psalm (before there was any royalty in
fact
that she could be portrayed doing so in a pre-exilic
text
means that such use of royal psalms by non-royal
figures
was certainly conceivable during the monarchical
period.
It should also be remembered that, in principle
at
least, the royal psalmists could have reworked pre-
monarchic
individual psalms in order to make them royal.
There
was, after all, a temple in
a
king, and a temple without psalms would be an interesting
phenomenon.
In the case of Hannah's song only the con-
clusion
("he will give strength to his king, and exalt the
power
of his anointed.") requires a royal understanding.
All
the rest of the psalm is perfectly intelligible as an
individual
song of thanksgiving.
40
p.
170; A. Johnson, "The Role of the King in the
Cultus,"
in The Labyrinth: Further Studies in the
Relation
between Myth and Ritual
in the Ancient World,
ed. by S.
Hooke
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935), pp. 71-111.
Cf.
J. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (
Alec
R. Allenson, 1970). His extensive royal interpreta-
tion,
though not the same as the "Myth and
would
essentially rule out personal enemies in the Psalms;
they
would rather be enemies of the king.
16
cultic drama. The enemies,
therefore, cannot be real human
beings, but are rather mythic
powers who attack the god-
king. This position may have
some merit when explicit
mention is made of Sheol as an
active and potent reality,41
but the Old Testament nowhere
speaks of the king playing the
role of any god (certainly not
Yahweh) in a cultic drama.42
One other option which would seem to deny the possi-
bility of reference to personal
enemies is that of Othmar
Keel.43 He
interprets the enemies psychoanalytically as
physical personifications of
the distress of the psalmist.
While their ancient near
eastern neighbors could objectify
their anxieties (Angste) and apprehensions (Sorgen) by
speaking of various gods and
demons,
space for such projections was
limited by Yahweh's intoler-
ance; it was restricted to
Yahweh and the human (and animal)
world. Therefore, the enemies
must be seen much more as
representatives of a sinister world
of evil than
as individuals in our sense. In
order to be able
to describe the evil and hostility with which the
41 Cf. Psalms 18:6; 89:49.
42 Cf. M. Noth,
"God, King, and Nation in the Old
Testament,"
in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other
Essays,
trans.
by D. Ap-Thomas (
1967),
P. 175.
43 O. Keel, Feinde and Gottesleugner: Studien zum
Image
der Widersacher in den
Individualpsalmen
(Stuttgart Verlag
katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969).
17
supplicant found himself confronted
these supply
an abundance of comparisons and metaphors.44
Undoubtedly the enemies in the individual psalms can
function this way45
and, presumably, they could have in
likely be effective if there
were known examples of such
people and actions in the
external world. By way of illus-
tration, the descriptions of
enemies who "dig a pit"46 is
probably to be taken
metaphorically, but it could be used
only because this spoke of a
real danger which even the
legal tradition recognized.47
Laws are not formulated to
regulate metaphorical digging
of pits, but real pits.
This brief survey48 of suggested identities of
the
enemies in the individual
psalms may be summarized in three
44 “ . . . Reprasentanten einer unheimlicher Welt des
Bosen als Individuen im
unserm Sinne. Um die Bosheit and
Feindseligkeit, denen sich
der Beter gegenubersieht
schildern zu konnen, dedarf
dieeser einer Menge von
Vergleichen und Metaphern.” Keel, p. 91.
45 S. Meyer, "The
Psalms and Personal Counseling,"
Journal of Psychology
and Theology
2 (Winter 1974), 26-30.
46 Psalms 7:16; 9:16;
35:7.
47 Exod. 21:33-34.
48 Helpful summaries of
research on the Psalms may
found
in
Criticism, ed. by J. Hayes (
press,
1974), pp. 179-223; R. Clements, A
Century of Old
Testament Study (London: Lutterworth
Press, 1976), pp. 76-
P;
Keel, pp. 11-35; and B. Feininger, "A Decade of German
Psalm-Criticism,"
Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament
20 (1981), 91-103.
18
brief statements. (1) The
enemies are not unique historical
figures or groups, but are
stereotypical and multivalent.
(2) They are sometimes, but by
no means always, gentiles.
(3) Israelites evidently did
have personal enemies whom they
described as the individual
psalms describe the enemies.
A Methodology for
Investigating
"Enemies" in
Wisdom Literature
Note has already been taken above of the fact that
personal enemies seem to play a
relatively minor role in
wisdom literature, as well as
other complexes of Israelite
tradition. Yet, they are
prolific in the Psalms; indeed, at
times the impression may emerge
that the psalmists suffered
from paranoia. Were the sages
oblivious to such folk as the
enemies and their attacks? How
could they notice such
varied phenomena as trade,49
sexual promiscuity,50
etiquette,51 legal
procedure,52 wealth and poverty,53
49 Prov. 20:10; 14, 23;
Sir. 26:29-27:3.
50 Prov. 7:1-27;
23:26-28; 30:20.
51 Prov. 25:6-7; Sir. 30;
31-32:13.
52 Prov. 18:17; 25:7c-10.
53 Prov. 10:15; 11:4, 24,
28; 13:7, 8; 14:21; 16:19;
18:11;
19:4, 17; 22:1, 9; 23:4; 28:6; 30:7-9; Qoh. 5:9-10;
Sir. 4:8-10; 13:24; 14:3-10;
30:16.
19
animal husbandry,54
alcohol abuse,55 and even friendship56
and scarcely mention the
problem of enemies? Was their
social world so different from
the psalmists', or did they
perceive it differently?
This investigation intends to demonstrate that the sages
were in fact aware of the folk
designated and described as
enemies in the Psalms. The
method to be used begins by
noting all the designations of
enemies within the individual
laments, thanksgiving songs and
songs of confidence in the
Psalter.57 The enemy
designations thus determined are then
sought within the wisdom
literature,58 and they form the
54 Prov. 27:23-27.
55 Prov. 23:19-21, 29-35,
56 Prov. 3:28-29; 6:1-5,
29; 11:9, 12; 13:20; 14:20, 21;
16:29;
17:17, 18; 18:19, 24; 19:4, 6, 7; 21:10; 22:11,
24-25;
24:28-29; 25:7c-10, 17, 18, 20; 26:18-19; 27:6, 10,
14,
17; 28:7; 29:3, 5; Job 2-11; 6:14, 15, 27; 12:4; 16:20,
21;
17:5; 19:13, 14, 21; 22:6; 31:9; 42:10; Qoh. 4:4, 9-12;
Sir.
5:12; 6:17; 7:12; 9:14; 10:6; 12:9; 13:21; 15:5;
20:23;
25:18; 37:1-6; 41:18, 21.
57 0f course, individual
judgments may differ on a given
psalm,
but the selections listed below represent a reason-
able
consensus; they form the basis of the enemy designa-
tions
and behaviors gleaned in preparing this study. Psalms
3;
4; 5; 6; 7; 9-10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 17; 18; 22; 23; 26; 27;
28;
30; 31; 32; 34; 35; 36; 7,61; 39; 40; 41; 42-43; 52; 53;
54;
55; 56; 57; 58; 59; 61; E2; 63; 64; 69; 70; 71; 73; 86;
88;
102; 109; 119; 138; 139; 140; 141; 142; 143; cf. Kraus,
Psalmen; Gunkel, Die Psalmen; Weiser, and Anderson at the
passages
listed.
58 See "Appendix I:
Enemy Designations within the
Wisdom
Literature." Lists of enemy designations in the
Psalms may be found in Keel,
pp. 94-98; and L. Ruppert,
20
basis of the discussion in
Chapter 2, "Enemy Designations in
the Wisdom Literature."
A second avenue to the location of enemies in wisdom
literature is to note which
figures are described as enemies
are described in the Psalter.
This involves, of course,
determining how enemies'
actions and dispositions are pre-
sented in the Psalms59
and then locating any of these
actions and dispositions which
appear in the wisdom litera-
ture.60 As will be seen, some figures (such as the
"lord
of anger" in Prov. 22:24)
appear as subjects of these
actions or dispositions who did
not appear in the discussion
of enemy designations. These
new enemies have been called
"derivative enemies,”61
and they form the basis for the
discussion in Chapter 3,
"Derivative Enemies in the Wisdom
Literature."
Following the groundwork laid by locating enemy desig-
nations and folk who act like
enemies within the wisdom
literature, the possibility of
asking after wise responses
to the enemy will emerge. Are
beneficent (Prov. 25:21-22)
Der leidende Gerechte und
seine Feinde: Eine Wortfeldunter-
suchung (Wurzburg: Echter
Verlag, 1973), pp. 7-97.
59 Ruppert, pp. 111-168.
60
See "Appendix II: Enemy Behaviors within the Wisdom
Literature."
61 See "Appendix III: Derivative Enemies
Designations."
21
and non-aggressive62
responses to one's enemy characteristic
in wisdom literature? Or, are
they rather isolated "old-
world anticipation[s] of the
spirit of Matthew 5:44"?63
Are they "unique"
within the wisdom literature as in the Old
Testament in general?64
What presuppositions allow or
demand these, or other,
responses to the enemy on the part
of the wise? Chapter 4,
"Wise Responses to the Enemy," will
address these issues.
James Crenshaw has asked, "How can one determine
what
is distinctive of Israelite
sages in the area of ethics?"65
His question is particularly significant
for this investi-
gation because it is placed in
the midst of a discussion of
the declaration of innocence in
Job 31 where he observes,
"Nothing in the catalog of
vices falls into the category of
distinctive wisdom behavior,
"66 and these vices certainly
include rejoicing over an
enemy's calamity. Such a state-
ment requires that the final
chapter attempt to assess the
62 Prov. 16:7; 24:17-18;
Job 31:29-30.
63 See n. 2 above.
64 H. Ringgren, "byaxA; ‘ayabh; byeOx
‘oyehb;
hbAyxe ‘ebhah," Theological Dictionary of the Old Testa-
ment, tool. I, ed. by G.
Botterweck and H. Ringgren, trans.
by
Willis (rev. ed.,
65 J. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction
(Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1981), p. 15.
66 Crenshaw, p. 15.
22
validity of the opening thesis
of this investigation (on
page 1 above) that "the
wisdom tradition of
in a remarkable way from the
dominant Old Testament attitude
toward personal enemies."
In light of that evaluation it
will be possible to confirm,
modify or reject the initial
thesis.
Methodological Caveats
The methodology outlined above makes a very important
assumption; namely, that the
sages who were responsible for
the wisdom literature of the
Old Testament were Israelites.
They were just as Israelite as
prophets, priests, psalmists,
kings and others in ancient
but it has been disputed.67
As Israelites, they used the
same language as other
Israelites. Undoubtedly, each sphere
of Israelite society used some
technical terms,68 but the
lexical stock used to designate
and describe enemies in the
Psalter is hardly technical.
They are simply Hebrew words
which any Israelite might be
expected to know and use;
67 See G. Wright, The Biblical Doctrine of Man (
SCM
Press, 1954), p. 154, who evaluates wisdom as "lacking
almost
completely in the typically Israelite conception of
society."
68 For example, hls and Hcnml for the
psalmists,
hvhy-Mxn for prophets, tmvy tvm for
judges
or lawgivers, xmF for priests. Interestingly,
attempts
to determine a technical vocabulary for sages have
not
met with a great deal of success; cf. R. Whybray, The
Intellectual Tradition
in the Old Testament (
DeGruyter,
1974).
23
hence, the rationale for the
proposed methodology. The
enemies are not particularly
noticeable in wisdom literature
because they do not tend to
cluster as they do in the Psalms
where they constitute one of
"the three determinant
elements"69 in
the Psalter's most abundantly witnessed
forms. Because the psalmists
used conventional Hebrew to
designate and describe their
enemies, however, the assump-
tion is reasonable that sages
would draw from much the same
lexical stock when they spoke
about the same or similar
folk.
In the cases of the wisdom books of Sirach and the
Wisdom of Solomon, the
linguistic situation is complicated
by the fact that these
documents are known primarily in
Greek. As confessed by Sirach's
grandson, and translator, his
book was originally written in
Hebrew, but the Greek text is
found in the larger canon of
the Old Testament. Hebrew
textual witnesses (none
complete) have been discovered in the
modern period.70
Because of this peculiar situation in
Sirach's textual transmission
the Greek text is used as
primary in this study with
Hebrew fragments used for
69 See n. 7 above.
70
(Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1904); Y. Yadin, The Ben
Sirs Scroll
from
(
of the Book, 1965).
24
illumination where appropriate.
The Wisdom of Solomon was
originally written in Greek and
has been preserved in that
language.71
This linguistic situation requires another step in
locating enemy designations and
behaviors. They will be
determined by sifting through
all the possible translations
of the enemy vocabulary as
witnessed by Hatch-Redpath.72
Because of the vagaries of the
Septuagint's translation
techniques,73 this
procedure does widen the field con-
siderably, but the alternative
of moving from vocabulary
found in the Greek Psalter
directly to Sirach and the Wisdom
71 D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation
with Introduction and
Commentary
(
Doubleday
and Company, 1979), pp. 14-18. Some have argued
for
an original Hebrew (or Aramaic), but their arguments
have
not won much agreement. See E. Speiser, "The Hebrew
Origin
of the First Part of the Book of Wisdom," Jewish
Quarterly Review 14 (1923-24), 455-437;
and F. Zimmermann,
"The
Book Wisdom: Its Language and Character," Jewish
Quarterly Review 57 (1966), 1-27,
101-135,
72 E. Hatch and H.
Redpath, A Concordance to the
Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old
Testament
including the Apocryphal
Books),
with Supplement by-
Redpath
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897, 1906)l and E.
Camilo
dos
Redpath Concordance to
the Septuagint
(Jerusalem: Dugith
Publishers,
Baptist House, n. d.).
73 J. Barr,
"Vocalization and the Analysis of Hebrew
among
Ancient Translators," VTS 16
(1967), 1-11; J. Blau,
"Zum
Hebraisch der Ubersetzer des Altes Testaments," VT 6
(1956),
98-100; P. Katz, "Zur Ubersetzungstechnik der LXX,"
Die Welt des Orients 2 (1956), 267-273; D.
Riddle, "The
Logic
of the Theory of Translation Greek," JBL 51 (1932),
13-30;
J. Rife, "The Mechanics of Translation Greek," JBL
52
(1933), 244-252.
25
of Solomon runs a greater risk
of missing some expressions
which could be important.
Hence, caution must be exercised
in discussing the Greek enemy
designations and descriptions
of behavior.
Related to the linguistic caveat just noted is the fact
that this methodology neither
assumes nor argues for influ-
ence from wisdom on other
spheres of Israelite life nor vice
versa. Common language,
geography and history between
various groups means that they
are related somehow and that
these relations will exert some
kinds of influence, usually
mutual. Claims of influence
from one realm of society on
another realm of the same
society are notoriously difficult
to demonstrate74
because commonalities may be due to the
simple fact that different
groups in the same social system
are in fact part of one single
system. Israelite prophets
(or other groups) may sound
like Israelite sages simply
74 Cf. J. Crenshaw,
"Method in Determining Wisdom
Influence
on 'Historical Literature'," JBL 88 (1969), 129-
142,
for the difficulties in tracing influence from wisdom
to
other kinds of literature; W. McKane, Prophets
and Wise
Men (Naperville, Ill.: Alec
R. Allenson, Inc., 1965), for
an
attempt to trace influence from another sphere upon
wisdom;
for statements on the commonalities between wisdom
and
other complexes of Israelite tradition see M. Tate, Jr.,
A Study of the Wise Men of
Prophets (Th.D. Dissertation,
The Southern-Baptist Theo-
logical
Seminary, 1958), passim, but especially pp. 395-408;
R.
Murphy, "Wisdom--Theses and Hypotheses," in Israelite
Wisdom: Theological
and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel
Terrien, ed. by J. Gammie, W.
Brueggemann, W. Humphreys, and
J..
Ward (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 39-
40;
D. Morgan, Wisdom in the Old Testament
Traditions
(Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1981), is a very good study of
this
problem of the relations between wisdom and other com-
plexes
of Old Testament traditions.
26
because they are Israelite. The
reverse is, of course,
equally true.
Thus far no attempt has been made to define wisdom.
Terms such as "wisdom
literature," "wisdom tradition,"
"wisdom,"
"wise" and "sages" have been used without explicit
definition. This same
phenomenon is often encountered in
studies of wisdom for the
problem of definition is still
awaiting a satisfactory
solution.75 Proposed
definitions
range anywhere from the
convention which simply means to
designate the five wisdom books
of Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth,
Sirach and the Wisdom of
Solomon which are bound together by
a "mysterious
ingredient"76 to definitions in terms of a
system of thought (either
"secular," "religious" or both),77
75 J. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction,
pp.
16-19; cf. idem., "Method in Determining Wisdom Influ-
ence
on 'Historral Literature'"; and "Prolegomena," in
Studies in Ancient
Israelite Wisdom,
ed. by J. Crenshaw
(New
York: KTAV, 1976), pp. 3-5; and B. Kovacs,
Sociological-Structural
Constraints upon Wisdom: The
Spatial and Temporal
Matrix of Proverbs 15:26-22:16, Vol. I
(Ph.
D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1978), 31-.104.
76 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction,
p.
17.
77 Cf., for example,
altestamentlichen
Weisheit," ZAW NS 10 (1933), 177-204;
H.
Schmid, Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit:
eine
Untersuchung zur
Altorientalischen und Israelitischen
Weisheitliteratur (Berlin: Verlag Alfred
Topelmann, 1966);
G.
von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol.
I, trans. by D.
Stalker
(New-York: Harper and Row, 1962), pp. 418-459;
idem., Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972);
1117—Gese,
Lehre
und Wirklichkeit in der Alten Weisheit:
Studien zu den Spruchen
Salomos und zu dem Buche Hiob
27
a pattern of life78
or a sociological phenomenon,79 among
others.80
Most definitions of wisdom, of course, are not one-
dimensional but are varying
combinations of several factors
noted above. This study does
not seek to solve this
troublesome problem. Instead, a
consensus view has been
followed that whatever wisdom
may be, it is certainly to be
found in the books of Proverbs,
Job, Qoheleth, Sirach and
the Wisdom of Solomon.81
One final caveat is in order. That Israelite wisdom
has much in common with similar
phenomena in ancient
and
(Tubingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1958); and Crenshaw, "Method in
Determining
Wisdom Influence on 'Historical Literature',"
78 Cf., for example,
MaKane, Prophets and Wise Men.
79 Cf., for example, R.
Gordis, "The Social Background
of
Wisdom Literature," in Poets
Prophets and Sages:
Essays in Biblical
Interpretation
(
University
Press, 1971), pp. 160-197; and H. Hermisson,
Studien zur
Israelitischen Spruchweisheit (Neukirchen-
Vluyn:
Neukirchzner Verlag, 1968).
80 See Kovacs, Vol. I,
31-104, for a discussion of the
various
ways in which definitions of wisdom have been
formulated;
he discusses thirteen different perspectives
from
which attempts have been suggested.
81Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction,
p.
17; R. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job,
Proverbs, Ruth,
Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
Esther
(
1981), pp. 3-4.
28
immediately self-evident with
wisdom literature than any
other in the Old Testament.
Because of this state of affairs,
it is quite frequent to find
discussions of "Wisdom in
and the Ancient Near
East."82 This study does not pursue the
problem of enemies in the
ancient near eastern texts for
three reasons. First, this
investigator lacks the linguistic
competence to carry out the
task properly. Second, methodo-
logically this restriction
forces the investigation to deal
with
what is commonly true in the
ancient near east. Third,
considerations of space would
prohibit more than a cursory
treatment of the extensive
ancient near eastern literature.
Contemporary Value of
This Study
To say that the contemporary world is pluralistic has
become a commonplace. The
indications seem to be that while
the globe will grow
increasingly smaller due to communi-
cations, travel,
interdependence of economies and many other
developments, its peoples will
become increasingly pluralis-
tic. The "global
village" will scarcely be a village in
terms of shared values,
patterns of living, political
persuasions or religions.
82 The title of Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol.
III,
ed. by M. Noth and Thomas Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1955).
29
This increasing pluralism, of course, brings with it
certain advantages--so the
conventional wisdom goes--
advantages including
opportunities of openness, new percep-
tions of old problems, breakdown
of triumphalisms, to name
a few. The dark side of this
growing situation is that
opportunities for tension,
hostility and enmity also will
rise. One person's now freedom
in a pluralistic world is
another's way of life
threatened. More people are more
likely to have more
opportunities to perceive enemies than
previously.
This study may allow for some reflection on how to deal
with enemies. Perhaps the
historical and cultural distance
of the modern student from the
Israelite sages will offer a
certain amount of
"safe" space in which to experiment
imaginatively with various
stances within the context of
enemies, their attacks and
wisdom. If such proves true in
even a limited way, then the
investigation will have been
personally rewarding. Only the
reader can make that
judgment.
Chapter 2
ENEMY DESIGNATIONS WITHIN
WISDOM LITERATURE
The task of this chapter is to analyse the data
compiled in Appendix I,
"Enemy Designations within Wisdom
Literature." All
occurrences of enemy designations in the
wisdom writings of Proverbs,
Job, Qoheleth, Sirach and
Wisdom of Solomon are listed
there. The following analysis
intends to delineate as many of
the social locations of the
folk branded with enemy
designations as possible. In
addition to social locations,
attention will be directed to
the literary contexts of these
designations for the several
writers-compilers reveal
various perceptions of these folk
through their formal placement
of enemy designations.
One obvious task of analysis is organization. This
discussion will follow the
categories developed by Othmar
Keel and Lothar Ruppert in
their studies of enemies in the
Psalms.1 Both scholars see two fundamental groups which
they designate as the "byvx" and "fwr-groups."
The
first is comprised of virtual
synonyms of byvx ("enemy")
or terms which, although not
synonymous, bespeak simple
1 0. Keel, Feinde und Gottesleugner: Studien zum
Image
der Widersacher in den
Individualpsalmen
(
Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1965); L. Tuppert, Der
leidende
Gerechte und seine
Feinde: Eine Wortfelduntersuchung
(Wurzburg: Echter Verlag,
1973).
30
31
hostility irrespective of moral
or religious stance. The
"fwr-group" is made up of synonyms of fwr
("wicked")
or terms focusing attention on
some moral or religious stance
which issues in enmity. Two
other groups used by both these
scholars are the "family
and friendship group" whereby
enemies are explicitly
designated as either family or friends
and the "animals
group" which speaks of enemies with the
metaphors or similes of animal
figures. Ruppert adds a fifth
category which he calls the
"neutral group." This includes
several words which are
recognizable as enemy designations
only by their appearance in
contexts clearly treating of
hostile figures. Otherwise, the
members of this group may
have nothing to do with enmity.2
Although these categories
of enemy designations were
developed in studies of the
Psalms, they provide a
relatively coherent structure for
this examination of wisdom
literature as well.
2 The problem of the
enemies in the Psalter has a long
history
of study; it is now recognized that the enemies form
an
integral topic in certain forms of psalmody (cf. C.
Westermann,
"Struktur and Geschichte der Klage im Alten
Testament,"
ZAW 66 [1954], 44-80). Hence, it is reasonable
to
include such terms as Mdx, wyx and Mdx-ynb in
a
study such as Ruppert's. In wisdom literature, however,
there
is no such recognition. Therefore, only such
"neutral"
terms as, for example, rz and rw which may be
more
clearly related to enmity and which provide more pre-
cision than would terms such as
wyx have been included.
32
Proverbs
The book of Proverbs contains two basic kinds of
material: longer didactic
compositions (primarily in ch.
1-9) and shorter meshalim (primarily in ch.
10-31). The
many meshalim stand quite independently of one another as so
many "pearls on a
string." With this material, footholds
for analysis are limited to
considerations such as paral-
lelism and syntax within each
individual mashal.3 The
longer didactic compositions,
on the other hand, provide
somewhat greater breadth for
analysis insofar as their very
3 The various
superscriptions (1:1; 10:1; 24:23; 25:1;
30:1;
31:1) as well as certain other phenomena such as the
independent
acrostic of 31:10-31, the dependence of 22:17-
24:22
upon the Egyptian "Instruction of Amenemope" (cf. O.
Eissfeldt,
The Old Testament: An Introduction,
trans. by
P.
Ackroyd [
the
predominance of antithetic parallelism in ch. 10-15 and
synonymous
or synthetic parallelism in 16:1-22:16, and
numerous
examples of catch-word arrangement and other
paronomastic
devices, point to the conclusion that the book
is
in fact an anthology of several collections (cf. U.
Skladny,
Die ältesten Spruchsammlungen in
Vandenhoeck
Ruprecht, 1962]). As "collections" however,
the
contents show no unmistakable signs of intentional
development
beyond that offered by their individual members.
There
seems to be no sure reason why one mashal
should have
led
to the next, except in rare occasions (e.g., 26:4-5).
That there is, or was, some kind of
architectonic
structure
to the book does seem probable (cf. P. Skehan,
"A
Single Editor for the Whole Book of Proverbs," Studies
in Israelite Poetry and
Wisdom
[
Biblical
Association, 1971]), but it is equally probable
that
such a structure is recognizable and exegetically
significant
only in its broadest outlines. Thus, the
"Hymn
to the Good Wife" (31:10-31) forms the conclusion to
the
book in both MT and the Greek text, while 30:1-14 and
30:15-31:9
may occupy different places in the book's
arrangement.
33
length allows for more
development of thought and expres-
sion. They allow for more
connections between various terms
to be drawn or for greater
description of individual terms
to be developed.4
With these fundamental distinctions in
mind, attention may be directed
to the enemy designations
within the book of Proverbs.
The byvx-Group
Of the five references to personal enemies
(byvx, xnvW) in the book of Proverbs, one is a simple
saying,5 two are
admonitions with motive clauses,6 and two
are observations.7
The saying and admonitions are inter-
esting insofar as they provide
an insight into the sages'
4 Of course, a longer
composition may have developed by
expanding
a simple mashal, but McKane's
analysis of the
instruction
genre seems more likely (cf. W. McKane,
Proverbs: A New Approach [
Press,
1970] pp.51-182, 262-412). Even if the older form
critical
explanation is followed, however, the fact remains
that
they cannot be broken up into so many independent
sayings
as can the collections in 10:1-22:16 and 24:23-31:9.
5 16:7.
6 24:17-18; 25:21-22. Of
course, 24:17-18 might be
designated
as part of the larger instruction comprising
22:17-24:22;
cf. McKane, pp. 369-406. Interest is here
focused
on the immediate passage rather than the whole
instruction
so it is more appropriate to consider it an
admonition.
7 26:24-26; 27:6. In view
of the negative jussive
construction
of 26:25 (Nmxt-lx ), 26:24-26 is arguably
an
admonition rather than an observation. The jussive is
subordinated
to the thrust of the observation so it is best
taken
as observation with an admonitory motif.
34
ethic vis-a-vis enemies, but the present discussion is
concerned with the identity of
the enemy. In this regard,
they offer no guidance;
presumably, the enemy in question is
self-evident. With the
observations, however, descriptions
of the enemy are provided.
Hence, these must be examined
more closely.
A hater makes himself unknown with
his lips,
and sets deceit in his
innards;
When he makes his voice gracious, do
not rely
on him,
for seven abominations are in his heart.
Hatred is concealed with guile,
his evil is uncovered in
assembly.
Proverbs
26:24-26
Reliable are the wounds of a friend,
while plentiful are the
kisses of a hater.
Proverbs
27:6
The xnvW of
these two observations is a classic
example of duplicity. The
descriptions are not identical,
but they are coherent.
Fundamentally, this figure is
deceptive. The deception turns
on an interior-exterior
axis. Externally all is
pleasant and gracious, even
affectionate, while internally
the hater is full of deceit,
abominations, guile and evil.
The xnvW disguises
interior reality with speech
and kisses; the means of
falsification in both
observations involve the organs of
speech, A further complication
in recognizing the xnVW
is that his true disposition is
revealed not in the daily
course of events but "in
assembly"; that is, in view of
35
the use of
"abominations" in verse 25, probably a cultic
event.8
The fwr-Group
The "wicked" (fwr) are
the most prominent foes in
the book of Proverbs; the
designation occurs seventy-six
times in the book. Such a large
number of appearances makes
it very difficult to identify
the figure with any precision.
One step in the direction of
clarifying this term is pro-
vided by the poetic form of the
material with its ever-
present parallelism. By means
of parallelism seven expres-
sions may be identified as
synonyms for the wicked: the
"treacherous" (Mydgvb),9 "evil ones" (Myfr),10
"scoffer" (Cl),11 "godless" (Ntbvx ),12 “worthless
witness" (lfylb-df),13 "evildoers" (Myfrm),14
and "unjust man" (lvf-wyx).15 As antonyms, six
8 L. Perdue, Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of
the Views of Cult in the
Wisdom Literatures
the Ancient Near East (Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1977),
p.
161.
9 2:22; 21:18.
10 4:14, 14:19; 24:20.
11 9:7.
12 11:7.
13 19:28.
14 24:19.
15 29:27.
36
expressions appear: "good
men" (MybvF),16
"faithful"
(Mynvmx ),17
"those who keep instruction"
(hrvt-yrmvw),18
the "blameless" (Mymt),19
the
"upright" (Myrwy),20 and, most often, the
"righteous"
(Myqydc).21
It is interesting that the wise do not
appear
as antonyms of the wicked, nor
do any fools appear as
synonyms.
The religion of the wicked. Insofar as the
righteous
are those who stand in a sound,
healthy, proper relationship
to Yahweh,22 the wicked
are those who stand outside a viable
relationship to Yahweh. The
righteous are those who are
declared righteous, while the
wicked are those declared
16 2:20;
14:19.
17 13:17.
18 28:4.
19 2:21;
11:5.
20 2:21;
11:11; 12:6; 14:11; 15:8; 21:18,29; 29:27
(jrd-rwy).
21 2:20;
3:33; 10:3, 6, 7, 11, 16, 20, 24, 25, 28, 30,
32; 11:8, 10, 23, 31; 12:5, 7, 10, 12, 21, 26; 13:5, 9, 25;
14:19, 32; 15:6, 28, 29; 17:15; 18:5; 21:12, 18; 24:15, 16;
25:26; 28:1, 12, 28; 29:2, 7, 16, 27.
22 B.
Kovacs, Sociological-Structural
Constraints upla
Wisdom:
The Spatial and Temporal Matrix of
Proverbs 15:28-
22:16 (Ph.d.
Dissertation, Vanderbelt University, 1978),
pp. 383, 399, 402.
37
wicked.23 These
observations, however, are hardly any aid
in an attempt to delineate the
wicked further. The next
step must be to see how the
wicked reveal themselves.
The wicked have access to the cult, but their partici-
pation is abominable for they
sacrifice with ulterior
motives.24 For them
the cult is a means to some other end
rather than an authentic
expression of non-instrumental
worship. Unfortunately, it is
almost impossible to recog-
nize the wicked by cultic
behavior since the evaluation of
"abomination" is
Yahweh's prerogative.25
The demeanor of the wicked. In terms of their demeanor
the wicked have haughty eyes, a
proud heart, and their face
makes a bold, or perhaps harsh,
appearance.26 In spite of
such bravado, however, the mashal tradition humorously
observes that the wicked flee
when no one pursues; the
righteous under such
circumstances feel confident as a
lion.27
23 H. Schmid, Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit: Eine
Untersuch zur Altorientalischen
und Israelitischen
Weisheitsliterature (
1966),
p. 160.
24 21:27; cf. 15:8.
25 15:8; 21:27 MT reads
simply hbfvt,
but the Greek
reads
bdelugma kuri&.
26 21:4, 29.
27 28:1.
38
The wicked are also recognizable in their behavior
toward others. They overturn
common virtues. A neighbor of
the wicked finds no help from
them for their appetite craves
harm.28 As the
admonition of Proverbs 24:15-16 shows, they
characteristically lie in wait
against the righteous and
their belongings.
Lie not in wait as a wicked man
against the
dwelling of the righteous;
do not violence to his home;
for a righteous man falls seven
times, and
rises again;
but the wicked are overthrown by
calamity. Proverbs 24:15-16
Of course, these signs are often hard to detect until
it is too late to avoid
disaster. Nevertheless, there is
a hint of the wicked person's
distortion; they give them-
selves away by mistreating
their animals.
A righteous man has regard for the
life of
his beast,
but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.
Proverbs
12:10
Their "mercy" then
reveals itself for the cruelty it really
is. Presumably they think they
can get by with such
behavior toward animals since
"dumb beasts" are seldom ever
known to talk back to their
master.29
28 21:10.
29 The wicked are clearly
not students of the Torah,
else they would know of
Balaam's ass, Num. 22:28.
39
The speech of the wicked. The appearances in the
mashal
literature indicate that the greatest danger posed by
the wicked is their speech.
Their mouth conceals violence
and is perverted;30
they are like springs bubbling forth
harm and injury.31
If wisdom is the "art of steering,"32
then the "steering"
of the wicked is deceitful.33 No wonder
towns can be overthrown by
their mouth.34
The words of the wicked lie in wait
for blood,
but the mouth of the upright delivers men.
Proverbs
12:6
Their very words are bloody
ambushes!
Most likely, the danger posed by the speech of the
wicked is related not to common
gossip but to the legal
setting where false or
distorted speech and counsel can
quite literally destroy others.
At least three sayings
clearly presuppose the judicial
life of a community.
A wicked man accepts a bribe from
the bosom
to pervert the ways of
justice.
Proverbs
17:23
A worthless witness mocks at
justice,
and the mouth of the
wicked devours
iniquity. Proverbs 19:28
30 Prov. 10:6, 11, 32.
31 15:28.
32 W. Zimmerli, "The
place and Limit of Wisdom in the
Framework
of the Old Testament Theology," Scottish
Journal
of Theology 17 (1964), 149.
33 12:5.
34 11:11.
40
The violence of the wicked will
sweep them
away,
because they refuse to do what is just.
Proverbs
21:7
A fourth saying also probably
reflects a legal setting when
it observes that the wicked
"brings shame and reproach."35
The most dangerous social position for the wicked is
clearly in the circles of high
authority. Such wicked
authorities are named as
"ruler" (lwvm)36
and "ministers"
(Mytrwm).37
Again, it is interesting that expressions
such as "counselor" (Cfvy) and "wise men" (MymkH) do
not appear. The danger posed by
wicked rulers and ministers
is that they are responsible
for the administration of
justice,38 and it is
noted that
A righteous man knows the rights, of
the poor;
a wicked man does not understand such
knowledge.
Proverbs
29:7
Thus the wicked may be characterized generally as those
who stand outside a valid
relationship to Yahweh. Their
35 13:5; on wyxby as "to bring
shame" see P. Ackroyd,
"A
Note on the Hebrew Roots wxb and wvb," JTS 43
(1942),
160; cf. 27:11 where JrH reflects a legal
setting.
36 28:15; 29:12; cf.
29:2, 16.
37 29:12.
38 H. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in
the Old Testament and
Ancient East,
trans. by J. Moiser
41
worship is inauthentic and
their bravado false. They over-
turn normal values of
neighborliness and common decency, and
they wreak havoc in the
judicial life of the community by
their malevolent speech and
outright distortion of the legal
system. They are able to do
such things because they func-
tion at the highest levels of
government and society.
The allies of the wicked. Of course, the wicked
have
much in common with others who
stand as obstacles to the
system of justice. The mashal literature mentions several
kinds of undesirable witnesses:
"lying" (Mybzk),39
"worthless" (lfylb) "gratuitous" (MnH),41 and
"false witnesses" (Myrqw-df).42 Such witnesses are
deceptive,43 they
breathe out lies ,44 and others are often
enticed by their lips.45
Some "violent folk" (smH wyx) appear who seek to
"entice" (htpy) their friends into "a way that is not
good."46
Another passage speaks expansively of sinners
39 21:28.
40 19:28.
41 24:28.
42 6:19; 12:17; 14:5;
19:5, 9; 25:19.
43 12:17.
44 6:19; 14:5; 19:5, 9.
45 24:28.
46 16:29.
42
(MyxFH) who
seduce (htp) simple youth to join them
in a life of banditry.
My son, if sinners entice you,
do not consent.
If they say, "Come with us, let
us lie in
wait for blood,
let us wantonly ambush the innocent;
like Sheol let us swallow them alive
and whole, like those who go down to
the Pit;
we shall find all precious goods,
we shall fill our houses with spoil;
throw in your lot among us,
we will all have one purse"--
my son, do not walk in the way with
them
hold back your foot from their paths;
for their feet run to evil,
and they make haste to shed blood.
For in vain is a net spread
in the sight of any bird;
but these men lie in wait for their
own blood,
they set an ambush for their own lives.
Such are the ways of all who get
gain by
violence;
it takes away the life of its possessors.
Proverbs
1:10-19
The final verse reveals that these sinners are all
those who make inordinate and
expedient profit (fcvb
fcb).47
Related characters are those who rob their own
parents (vmxv vybx lzvg)48 and the
"workers of
iniquity" (Nvx-ylfvp) who are dismayed when justice
is done.
47 1:19; cf. 15:27. These
characters may also stand
behind
the false weights and measures (20:10, 23) which
create
profits so quickly and unfairly. At any rate,
someone
very much like them is responsible.
48 28:24.
49 21:15.
43
Likewise dangerous to the legal system are the
"lying
tongue" (rqw Nvwl)50 and the
"treacherous"
(Mydgvb)51
who are unreliable and untrustworthy.52
Yahweh will ruin their words.53
Of course, such false words
and speakers would present
little problem in the long run
were it not for the fact that
An evildoer listens to wicked lips;
and a liar gives heed to a mischievous
tongues
Proverbs
17:4
Eager hearing of false reports
is ultimately just as
damaging to the judicial system
and community health as the
false reports themselves.
In the less specific and more common realm of daily
life such false speech is also
encountered and abhorred.
"Lying lips" (rqw-ytpW) are an abomination to Yahweh
and are used to conceal hatred.54
The lying tongue can be
used to gain wealth, fleeting
though it may be,55 or it can
50 6:17; 12:19.
51 2:22; 11:3, 6; 13:2,
15; 21:18; 22:12; 23:28; 25:19.
52 25:19.
53 22:12.
54 10:18; 12:22; cf.
26:24.
55 21:6.
44
work in conjunction with the
"flattering mouth"
(qlH-hp) for
the ruin of its hated victims.56
A few other designations which belong most appropri-
ately in the fwr-group seem to have little, if anything,
to do with worship, speech or
the judicial setting. Two
sayings are interesting in that
they are naming formulae:
The haughty, arrogant
man--"scoffer" is
his name--
who acts with overreaching pride.
Proverbs
21:24
Whoever plans to do evil,
to him they shall call, "Lord of devices!"
Proverbs
24:8
The proud and overbearing (Myxg) also belong to the
fwr—group.
Proverbs 15:25 gives little indication as to
their identity apart from the
contrast with the widow whose
boundaries Yahweh protects. The
term seems to be used with
somewhat greater clarity in
Proverbs 16:19 where it may
refer to victorious warriors
who "divide spoil."57
The final member of this group of enemies is one who
oppresses (qwvf) the poor.58 Of course, there always
exists the danger that members
of the social strata above
the poor will take advantage of
them in innumerable ways
56 26:28.
57 0n llw
qlH cf.
Gen. 49:27; Exod. 15:9; Judg.
5:30;
Isa. 9:2; 53:12; Psalm 68:13; BDB, p. 323; KBL,
p.
305f.
58 Prov. 14:31; 22:16; 28:3.
45
(a situation no less true in
mashal-users,
however, were not so enamored by a romantic
view of the proletariat that
they neglected to note that the
poor sometimes oppressed one
another.60
The Neutral Group
The concept of the "stranger" (rz) is particularly
interesting because of its
ambiguity. This figure is not
always a negative one; at times
it is precisely the stranger
who praises the wise.
Let a stranger praise you, but not
your mouth,
a foreigner, but not your lips.
Proverbs
27:2
The difficulty with strangers is that they are an
unknown quantity. One can never
know for how long they
might be in the community. Most
likely their customs are
unusual and unconventional.
Perhaps their values, always
much more difficult to detect,
are likewise unconventional.
Hence, financial transactions
with them ought to be avoided
completely.61
The word rz,
however, may not always carry an ethnic
sense. It may refer to one who
is an "outsider" from the
59 14:31; 22:16.
60 28:3.
61 11:15; 20:16; 27:13.
46
perspective of the mores of the
community.62 This may be
the case with the
"stranger" mentioned in Proverbs 6:1 where
it is paralleled by
"neighbor" (fr). Here again, though,
the point at issue is still
financial dealings with such
persons.
The "strange woman" (hrz hwx) is a problem
peculiar to Proverbs. She was
clearly a troublesome figure
for the circle(s) responsible
for Proverbs 1-9, not to
mention latter day
commentators. At least four interpre-
tations have been proposed: a
common prostitute, a cult
prostitute, the unfaithful
(foreign) wife of a Hebrew, and
Astarte or some other fertility
goddess.63
The first appearance of this figure is in Proverbs
2:16-19 which is part of an
instruction comprising the whole
62 L. Snijders, "The
Meaning of rz in the Old Testa-
ment,"
OTS 10 (1954), 63f., 78, 79.
63 Kovacs, p. 252; cf. G.
Bostrom, Proverbastudien die
Weisheit and das Fremde
Weib in Spr. 1-9
(
Gleerup,
1934); McKane, pp. 264-288, 314-320, 326-331, 334-
341,
365-368; B. Lang, Die weisheit Lehrrede:
Eine
Untersuch von Spruche
1-7 (
be
werc erlag, 1972), pp. 87-99; Perdue, pp. 146-155;
J.
Burnham, Women in the Book of Proverbs (Th. M. Thesis,
The
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1956), pp. 56-81;
M.
Tate, Jr., A Study of the Wise Men of
to the Prophets (Th.D. Dissertation,
The Southern Baptist
Theological
Seminary, 1958), pp. 355-360; N. Habel, "The
Symbolism
of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9," Interpretation
26
(1972),
131-157; H. Ringgren, Word and Wisdom:
Studies in
the Hypostatization of
Divine Qualities and Functions in
the Ancient Near East (Lund: Hakan Ohlssons
Boktryckeri,
1947).
47
chapter.64 Verse 16 introduces the "strange
woman" from
whom the pupil will be
delivered if he heeds the words of
the teacher.65 Verses 17-19 describe this woman as one
who forsakes the companion of her
youth
and forgets the covenant
of her God;
for her house sinks down to death,
and her paths to the
shades;
none who go to her come back
nor do they regain the
paths of life.
Proverbs
2:17-19
This woman is evidently unfaithful to her marriage.
The use of hyhlx (her God) rather than hvhy (Yahweh)
is striking since the latter is
characteristic of Proverbs
1-9. Yet, the God in question
must be Yahweh who was a
witness to the covenant between
a man and the wife of his
youth.66 Whoever falls prey to this woman is led
inevitably
to involvement "with her
in her estrangement from
society. . . . They take a
journey to the land of no
return."67
64 As McKane, pp.
278-279, notes the adherence of this
chapter
to the instruction genre is rather loose; there are
no
imperatives, and it lacks "concrete, authoritive instruc-
tion
on specific matters." Nevertheless, "the formal
structure
of the Instruction is the key to the analysis of
this
chapter."
65 Note the Mx
(if)
clauses of vv. 1, 3 and 4 on which
the
zx
(then) clauses of vv. 5 and 9 are conditioned.
66 Mal. 2:14; otherwise,
the "covenant" may refer to the
commandment
against adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18)
which
belonged to Yahweh's covenant with
67 McKane, p. 288.
48
The instruction of Proverbs 5 is wholly devoted to the
issue of adultery. The masculines
of verses 9, 10 and 17
(MyrHx, yrzkx, Myrz, yrkn) are troublesome.
Are these associates of the
"strange woman"? Or, do
liaisons with her lead to ruin
at the hands of these
foreigners? The difficulty
stems in part from the fact
that the aim of the instruction
is to warn against promis-
cuous behavior. What
"descriptions" there are occur in the
motivations (vv. 3-6, 9-14) and
the rhetorical question of
verse 20 which, from a formal
standpoint, are subordinate
parts of the chapter. More
important are the descriptions
of the joys of the young man's
wife which are integrally
related to the imperatives and
jussives (vv. 15, 17-19)
essential to the instruction
genre.68 Most likely the
chapter has in view
adulteresses in general who are typified
by the "strange
woman."
Although the "strange woman" (hrz hwx) does not
appear in the instruction of
Proverbs 6:20-35, the passage
is often interpreted in
association with her, primarily on
the basis of the appearance of
the "foreign woman"
(hyrkn) who
is parallel to the "strange woman"
68 McKane, pp. 1-10.
49
elsewhere.69 In Proverbs 6:24 the parallel designation is
"evil woman" (fr twx).70
The issue may, of course, be complicated if verses 20-
35 are not unitary but
composite.71 On literary grounds,
however, few good reasons can
be produced for excluding any
verse from the passage. The
instruction genre is char-
acterized by imperatives and
jussives as in verses 20, 21
and 25, and reasons why such
advice should be followed as in
verses 22-24 and 26-35.72
It seems much more likely,
69 Prov. 2:16; 5:20; 7:5.
70 BHS proposes to emend frA ("evil") to fare ("neigh-
bor")
on the basis of the Greek reading of upandrou
(cf.
also v. 29, MT reading vhfr twx and Greek
reading
gunaika upandron); another suggestion by BHS
is
to emend fr twx to hrz hwx, on the basis of
Prov.
7:5. The latter suggestion has no textual support
while
the former represents only a different vocalization
of
the same consonantal text. MT should probably be read
since,
as McKane, p. 328, notes, "the expression would have
to
be ‘eset re’aka."
71 R. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs: The Concept of
Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9 (
1965),
pp. 48-49, excludes vv. 23, 26-31 and 33-35 on
(unconvincing)
literary critical grounds. Bostrom, pp.
143f.,
cited by McKane, p. 328, argues that vv. 20-26 should
be
dealt with separately from vv. 27-35. His reasons are
evidently
ideological, at least to Judge from McKane's
observation
on p. 329: "Bostrom would perhaps not have
argued
the lack of unity in vv, 20-35 so rigidly if he had
no
had the special concern of advancing his theory of the
‘issa zara. She is promiscuous in
a context of cultic devo-
tion
(this is his theory), but the description of adultery
in
vv. 27-35 cannot be fitted into such a framework, and so
it
must be separated cleanly from the ‘issa
zara passages."
72 See McKane, p. 3; cf.
J. Crenshaw, Old Testament
Wisdom: An Introduction (
p.
21, who argues concerning this passage, "when he wants
50
therefore, that verses 20-35
are in fact a unity warning
against the foreign (v. 24)
wife of a neighbor (v. 29) who
commits adultery.
In the three passages relating to the "strange
woman"
which have been examined, the
interpretation which has
seemed most cogent is that she
is an unfaithful foreigner
married to an Israelite.
Proverbs 6:26 excludes the inter-
pretation of her as a common
prostitute (hnvz) for
her
price is a man's life rather
than a mere loaf of bread. The
references to her in Proverbs
2:16-19; 5:1-22 and 6:20-35
contain nothing which demands
any cultic perspective.73 An
unfaithful foreigner married to
an Israelite would fit each
of the passages.
The instruction of Proverbs 7:1-27 contains the last
explicit reference to the
"strange woman." The didactic
narrative of verses 6-23
describes her making a pitch to an
to
make his point decisively this sage quotes a proverb."
Whybray's
rigid use of grammatical person as a literary
critical
criterion leads him astray. The questions of
vv.
27-28 and 30 are certainly not addressed to some third
party
but to the "my son" of v. 20.
73 So also Perdue who
remarks concerning 2:16-19 that
"the
identity of the 'Strange Woman' in this context as a
prostitute
or temple harlot (is) only a suggestive possi-
bility"
(p. 147); concerning 5:1-22 that "the text contains
nothing
that would allow us to decide whether she is to be
regarded
as a prostitute for hire or a temple priestess"
(p.
148); and concerning 6:20-35, "she is easily identified
as
an Israelite adulteress" (p. 149).
51
unsuspecting youth.74
The reference to sacrifices
(Mymlw-yHbz) and
vows (yrdn) in verse 14 is, of
course, cultic and may indicate
that her invitation to
sexual intercourse is a cultic
invitation. Such an inter-
pretation is dependent upon
translating verse 14b in a
future perfect tense:
"Today I shall have fulfilled my
vows."75 Yet,
the Hebrew probably translates more
naturally, "Today I have
fulfilled my vows.76 If this
translation be correct then she
is claiming that she has
performed her cultic duties and
now seeks the young man
(ostensibly) to share her peace
offerings. The communion
meal is then a pretext.
Verses 6-7 of this didactic narrative pose another
possible cultic reference. The
Hebrew text presents the
wisdom teacher77
looking out the window of his house
74 On ytp see Chapter 3 below.
75 So Perdue, p. 149; cf.
McKane, pp. 221, 339; R.
Scott,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: Introduction,
Translation,
and Notes (
1965),
p. 64.
76 Taking the perfect
verb ytmlw
"to represent
actions,
events, or states, which although completed in the
past,
nevertheless extend their influence into the present"
(G-K
106g). Cf. RSV, KJV,
77 Perdue, p. 149, states
that "these verses describe
either
'Mistress Wisdom' or the 'Strange Woman'." In fact,
they
describe either the "strange woman" (so LXX) or the
wisdom
teacher who is the antecedent of the first common
singular
forms in vv. 1-2 and 24 while "Mistress Wisdom"
speaks
she refers to herself in first person, not third;
is
referred to as a third person in v. 4. When Wisdom
52
observing (ytpqwn) the disastrous encounter between
the young man and the
"strange woman." The Greek text,
however, reads third person (parakuptousa), and
thereby presents the
"strange woman" looking out the
window.78 This woman
who "looks out the window" has been
connected with the fertility goddess
Aphrodite
parakuptousa
of
Cyprus.79 If the Greek text
is followed
then the "strange
woman" must be identified as
a sacral priestess or a devotee of a
fertility
goddess who dresses in her sacral
garb and
takes to the streets in order to
induce
young man to join her in fertility rites.80
Following the Greek text does make a cultic interpre-
tation quite likely, but should
the Greek text be preferred
cf.
1:22-33; 8:1-36; 9:5, 11. If this were a ech
of
"Mistress
Wisdom" 7:4 would read, "Say to me, ‘you are my
sister,'
and call insight your intimate friend."
78 The full Hebrew text
of vv. 6-7 translates,
For in the window of my house,
through my
window-lattice I have looked
down,
and I saw among the simple;
I perceived among the youthful
sons one
without
sense.
The
Greek text, on the other hand, translates,
For out of the window of her house
into the streets she
peeped out,
she would see him among the simple
youth,
a young man lacking
sense.
79 So Perdue, p. 149,
following Bostrom and W. Albright,
"Some
Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom," VTS 3
(1955),
10.
80 Perdue, p. 149.
53
to MT? In light of two factors,
preference of the Greek
seems doubtful. First, the
character of the Septuagint
Proverbs is such that
the greatest caution should be
exercised in
employing LXX to elucidate or emend
difficult
portions of MT. To use LXX in these
circum-
stances in order to recover an
"original" Hebrew
text is in fact to invent a Hebrew
text which
never at any time existed. . . "For the
explanation of minor deviations in
the LXX
Proverbs from MT textual criticism
has, indeed,
very little help to afford, and any
arguing
which neglects the translator as a
creative
factor is very likely to lead astray."81
In this case the Hebrew is not
difficult to read or under-
stand at all. The best reason
to follow the Greek text may
well be the desire to find
cultic dimensions in the picture
of the "strange
woman."82
The second factor which argues against reading with the
Greek text against the Hebrew
follows from this character
of the Greek text. Its
translator(s) may have been fol-
lowing an exegetical tradition
which allegorically
81 McKane, pp. 34-35; in
the last sentence of the above
citation
McKane is quoting G. Gerlemann (cf. G. Gerlemann,
"The
Septuagint Proverbs as a Hellenistic Document," OTS 8
[1950],
15-27; and Studies in the LXX, III: Proverbs
(
Prov.
7:6 under his category, "Where the deviation of LXX
from
MT derives from exegetical presuppositions or from a
striving
after what are thought to be more fitting senti-
ments
than those expressed by MT."
82 The Syriac evidently
agrees with the Greek (see BHS),
but
it may have been influenced by the LXX; cf. Eissfeldt,
pp. 699-700.
54
actualized the warnings about
the "strange woman."83 This
exegetical move may be seen at
really refers to "all
powers which could estrange the member
of this brotherhood."84
Not only at
tion current but in Greek
speaking Judaism as well. The
Greek text of Proverbs 2:17-19
evidences this when it
translates the Hebrew hrz hwx ("strange woman") by
kakh
boulh ("bad
counsel”), and "the 'Madam Folly' in
Proverbs 9 LXX receives
features of the strange woman . . .
which she did not possess in
the Hebrew version."85
The objection might well be raised here that these
examples of allegorical
actualization of the "strange woman"
are simply updating what was
already very much like
83 Lang, p. 89, "erst vom zweiten vorchristlichen
Jahrhundert an haben wir
Belege fur eine allegorigische
Aktualisierun der
Warnungen vor dem fremden Frau.”
84 Lang, p. 90, ". .
. alle Krafte, die das Mitglied der
Bruderschaft dieser
entfremden konnten."--Lang
is referring
to
4 Q 184 in J. Allegro, ed., Discoveries
in the Judaean
Desert of the Jordan V (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1968).
82-85;
see Lang, p. 89, n. 7 for further bibliography.
85 Lang, p. 90, ". .
. erhalt die 'Frau Torheit' in
Spr 9 LXX Zuge der
fremden Frau . . . . die sie in der
hebraischen Version
nicht besass."
These new features that
Lang
mentions are the additions to Prov. 9:18 which derive
from
5:15-18. The additions translate,
but turn away, do not delay in the
place,
lest you set your name
upon her;
for this would pass over a strange
water
and overflow a strange
river.
But keep away from a strange water,
and do not drink from a
strange spring,
so that you may live a long time,
and life might still be
bestowed upon you.
55
allegory. The objection loses
force, however, when it is
noted that another writer who
lived in the same milieu and
stood squarely in the
mainstream of the wisdom tradition did
not follow this exegetical
procedure. Sirach's translator
rendered his grandfather's
Hebrew hrz hwx ("strange
woman" ) as gunaiki etairizomenon ( "loose woman,"
Sir.
9:3 ) and as gunaikoj etairoj ("a woman who is a harlot,
"
Sir. 41:22).
This should not be surprising for Sirach's grandson was
simply following the ancient
wisdom tradition's warnings
against promiscuous sexual
behavior. Such warnings are
common in ancient near eastern
wisdom literature, especially
in the instruction genre, as
far back as Ptah-Hotep.86 The
"strange woman" in
Proverbs 1-9, even chapter 7, is best
taken as a heightened
presentation of a woman who presents
a particularly alluring appeal
for the folly of illicit
sexual relations. The warning
is against adultery with her,
not her foreign status nor her
cultic affiliation.
Only one mashal
seems to refer to the "strange woman."
A deep pit is the mouth of strange
women (tvrz)
with whomever Yahweh is
angry, he will
fall there.
Proverbs
22:14
86 See J.
Hotep,"
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to
the Old
Testament, by J. Pritchard (2nd
ed.,
56
The difference, of course, is
that only here does the
figure appear in the plural. It
is possible that this
saying is older than the
development of the stock figure of
the "strange women"
found in Proverbs 1-9. The warning is
against foreign women in
general.87 The limitations of the
simple two line mashal exclude any extended description.
The Friends and Kinfolk Group
Although the mashal
literature generally shows a great
sensitivity to the positive
value of friends and kinfolk and
offers guidelines for
maintaining and enhancing such rela-
tionships,88 it also
notes the fact that there are times
when friends and relatives may
become enemies.
This is often the case with the poor.
All the brothers of a poor man hate
him;
how much more are his friends distant
from him.
Proverbs
19:789
87 So also McKane, p.
571.
88 R. Cook, The Neighbor Concept in the Old Testament
(Ph.D.
Dissertation The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary,
1980), pp. 143-147; cf. H. Wolff, Anthropology
of
the Old Testament, trans. by M. Kohl
(rev. ed., Phila-
delphia:
Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 185-191.
89 The last line of this
verse does not seem to make
sense
as it is in MT: hmh-xl Myrmx Jdrm.
Literally
translated, "Pursuing words not they" or reading
the
Qere, "Pursuing words to him they." Scott, p. 115,
reads
"hu’ meraddep, ‘omrehem lo hemah,"="When
he follows
them
they speak angrily to him." B. Gemser, Spruche
Salomos
(Tubingen:
Mohr, 1937), pp. 58, 59, reconstructs a Hebrew
text
of 4 lines based on the LXX; hardly a plausible
57
Evidently, there are those friends
who avoid such entangle-
ments with the poor, because
they are likely to get too
involved and lose their
cherished autonomy.90 Of
course,
it is more difficult for blood
relatives to desert their
poor kin, but hate is still an option. As
noted earlier,
the essence of hating is an
interior-exterior disparity.91
Another economic context where friends may become
enemies devoid is in connection
with suretyship. Only a person
wholly devoid of sense would
continue in a relationship of
surety, especially in the
presence of a neighbor who could
later act as witness to the
proceedings.92 At such times
the neighbor might as well be a
"stranger," one who stood
beyond the bounds of the
community standards.93
The judicial setting is another area where friends
become enemies. After all, the
judicial arena is in reality
endeavor.
H. Ringgren, Spruche Ubersetzt und
Erklart
(Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962), p. 77, indi-
cates
the omission of this line with an ellipsis and a note
commenting,
"MT: "wer Worten nachjagt,
nicht sie, ' ist
unverstandlich:" Likewise, Mckane, pp. 240, 52., omits
the
line.
90 Cf. also 14:20; 19:4.
91 Such self-centered
behaviors are not always practiced
by
friends, nor are brothers always of more help than a
friend:
"There are friends who make themselves out to be
friends,
but there is a lover who cleaves beyond a brother"
(18:24).
92 17:18.
93 6:1; cf. Snijders, p. 84.
58
simply an institutionalized
form of controversy. Its goal
is to remove the adversary
proceedings from the common daily
life of the community so that
they can be dealt with in a
relatively safe environment and
the participants reinte-
grated into the life of the
community.94 To avoid legal
proceedings, therefore, is to
avoid the unpleasant reality
of friends acting as
adversaries.
What your eyes have seen
do not hastily bring
into court;
for what will you do in the end,
when your neighbor puts
you to shame?
Argue your case with your neighbor
himself,
and do not disclose another's
secret;
lest he who hears you bring shame
upon you,
and your ill repute have
no end.
Proverbs
25:7c-10
Another observation notes that
one's case always looks good
at first, but the
cross-examination of a friend poses a
nameless hazard.
He who states his case first seems
right,
until the other comes
and examines him.
Proverbs
18:17
A final opportunity for a shift from friendship to
enmity should be mentioned. One
admonition warns against
too much
"neighborliness," lest one's welcome be exhausted.
Let your foot be seldom in your
neighbor's
house,
lest he become weary with you and hate you.
Proverbs
25:17
94 W. Clark,
"Law," in Old Testament Form
Criticism,
ed.
by J. Hayes (San Antonio: Trinity University Press,
1974), p. 103.
59
The Animals Group
Animals used as metaphors for hostile figures appear in
Proverbs. Whenever these
metaphors are used to point up the
threatening or dangerous
characteristics of the referent,
they occur in connection with
some royal personage.95
Another enemy metaphor
concentrates attention on the dis-
gusting behavior of a fool who
is like a "dog returning to
his vomit,"96
while on yet another occasion the reference is
quite simply to a dog as a dog.97
Job
The book of Job opens with a story about a righteous
man whose piety was tested by
God at the prodding of one of
the "sons of God,"
the Adversary. Job's piety is vindi-
cated,98 but his
suffering continues. In the midst of this
suffering Job's three friends,
Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar,
come to console him. The
encounter between these four is
contentious as Job complains
that his suffering does not
correspond with his piety, and
the friends urge him to
repent. When the three friends
fail to bring about Job's
95 19:12; 20:2; 28:15; in
a non-threatening use, empha-
sizing
courage, the righteous are compared to a lion (28:1).
96 26:11.
97 26:17.
98 Job 1:22; 2:10.
60
repentance a young man, Elihu,
appears who argues against
Job. The last figure to appear
in this discussion is Yahweh
who asks Job a series of
overwhelming questions to which Job
can only respond in humble
submission to the divine majesty.
The book closes with Yahweh's
affirmation of Job, condemna-
tion of the three friends and
restoration of Job's family,
friends and property, even
"more than his beginning"
(42:12).
The narrative setting of the book of Job which is pro-
vided by the prologue (ch. 1-2)
and the epilogue (42:7-17)
occasionally allows an
identification of the enemies as
characters in the
"dramatized lament."99 The speeches of
the poetic dialogue (3:1-42:6)
which form the bulk of the
book allow greater opportunity
for description of the
enemies than any of the forms
in Proverbs. This formal
distinction, however, must not
be pressed overly much for
Job's friends, as well as Job
himself, are often simply
repeating what has become
orthodox doctrine. A more impor-
tant formal consideration is
the fact that Job's speeches
are modeled after the
traditional laments while those of
his friends are disputations
and indictments.100 These
99 C. Westermann, The Structure of the Book of Job:
A Form-Critical Analysis, trans. by C. Muenchow:
(Phila-
delphia:
Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 8ff.
100 Westermann, The Structure of the Book of Job, pp.
10,
17-25.
61
forms, especially the lament,
typically include mention of
enemies. More frequent
appearance of the enemies may,
therefore, be expected.
The byvx
The book of Job utilizes a fuller complement of words
belonging to the byvx-group. Whereas Proverbs used only
byvx, xnvW and xnWm, this
poet uses these three
words101 as well as Mmvqtm,102
rc103 and
NFWh.104
The most frequently used of these is NFWh,
but it appears only in the
prologue and always refers to the
heavenly adversary who indicts
Job's piety. Otherwise,
these words are most often
found in Job's speeches.105
101 byvx in Job 13:24; 27:7;
33:10: xnvW
in 8:22;
34:17;
xnWm
in 31:29.
102 20:27; 27:7.
103 6:23; 16:9; 19:11.
104 1:6, 7 (2x), 8, 9, 12
(2x); 2:1, 2 (2x), 3, 4, 6, 7.
105 byvx in 13:24 and 27:7, if
the latter belongs to
Job;
the transmission of the "third cycle" of speeches is
consistently
judged to be corrupt with no agreement as to
its
reconstruction; cf. Westermann, The
Structure of the
Book of Job; R. Gordis, The Book
of Job: Commentary, New
Translation and Special
Studies
(
Theological
Seminary of
Introduction,
Translation, and Notes (3rd ed., Garden City,
although
found in an Elihu speech, should really be attrib-
uted
to Job as it is an allusion to 13:24. Mmvqtm in
27:7;
rc in 6:23; 16:9; 19:11; xnWm in 31:29.
62
Three times Job is simply referring quite stereo-
typically to his human enemies.106 In all of these places
the hostile figure is
nondescript, but it appears that the
adversary of Job 6:23 could
refer to a legal adversary;
this possibility is raised by the
references to offering a
bribe (v. 22) and to ransoming
Job (v. 23). The hostile
figures of Job 27:7 and 31:29,
on the other hand, are more
probably not legal adversaries.
In the case of the former
this is so because the content
of Job's wish is that the
enemy-opponent come to be as the wicked-unrighteous
(fwrk
//
lvfk) not that they become the wicked-
unrighteous which would be the
case in a legal setting.
With the latter there is simply
not enough material to
warrant a judgment.
Although it is commonly said that God is Job's
enemy,107 the
evidence is somewhat more subtle. In actual
fact, if the enemy designations
found in the Psalms are
taken as the best witness to
enemy vocabulary, it is only
at Job 16:9 that Job explicitly
refers to God as his
106 6:23: 27:7; 31:29.
107 G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (
Press,
1972), p. 217, which Crenshaw, p. 109, cites in
agreement.
Cf. Westermann, The Structure of the Book
of
Job, p.
45.
63
adversary (rc).108 Thus, only a single time in the entire
book is God named as the enemy.
In two passages Job radically re-orients the enemy
vocabulary. He claims that God
has made him, Job, an enemy.
Why do you hide your face
and count me for your
enemy?
Job
13:24109
He has kindled his wrath against me
and counted me as his
adversary.
Job 19:11
It is, of course, not surprising at all to find
reference to enemies in the
lament form which is the pre-
dominant genre of all Job's
speeches.110 Ordinarily a
lament will contain questions
about "why" or "how long" God
intends to neglect, or cause,
the supplicant's distress.
Furthermore, a significant
theme in the situation of dis-
tress is often the enemies'
attacks. In Job's laments,
however, the attacks of the enemy111
are separated from the
one who is made to be the
enemy, the lamenter. This seman-
tic contradiction between the
perpetrator of the attacks
108 Even here, some would
take this to refer to the
human
enemies who are the subject of vv. 10f.; Pope, p. 123;
but
cf. Gordis, pp. 176f.
109 Cf. 33:10.
110 Westermann, The Structure of the Book of Job, p. 31.
111 Cf. 13:25, 27; 19:6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 22.
64
(God) and the putative enemy
(Job) is at the heart of Job's
suffering.112
The significance of this semantic contradiction is
pointed up by the fact that
enemy (byvx) is a unilateral
designation. However intense
the hostility may be, the
other is always the enemy while
the protagonist is never
designated as such. Of course,
it is logical to assume that
most often enmity is a
bilateral affair (i.e., he is my
enemy, and I am his enemy), but
the linguistic usage does
not conform to such an
assumption.
Psalm 139:21-22 is the clearest example of this. It is
clear that the psalmist is at
enmity with Yahweh's enemies
from the verbs of verses 21-22a
which are first person
singular.
112 This contradiction in
Job's situation was also noted
by
the rabbinic interpreters: "He (i.e., Job) blasphemed
with
a tempest, as it is written, 'For he breaketh me as
with
a tempest' (Job 9:17). Job said to God, 'Perhaps a
tempest
passed before you and caused you to confuse Job
(‘Iyyob)
and enemy (‘oyeb),." rwx bytkd JrH hrfsb
Hvr xmw Mlfv lw ynvbr vynpl rmx ynp vwy
hrfwb
:byvxl bvyx Nb jl JlHtnv jynpl hrbf
rhfs
Baba
bathra I, 16a. The passage goes on to
record three
rejoinders
by God to the effect that he made no such error
at
all. The rabbis were simply using the age-old device of
puns
in their discussion of Job. It may be that the Joban
poet
as well was trying to pun upon the name with 13:24 and
later
33:10; 19:11 would then be based upon the pun of 13:24
by
simply substituting rc for byvx (i.e., bvyx). The
name
bOy.xi
could be formed from the root byx in which case
it
would 15e construed in a passive sense on the analogy of
dOl’y; cf. Gordis, pp. 10-11;
M. Noth, Die Israelitischen
Personennamen im Rahmen
der Gemeinsemitischen Namengebung
(Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1928), p. 11.
65
Do I not hate them that hate thee, 0
Yahweh?
And do I not loathe them that rise up
against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred.
Psalm
139:21-22a
Verse 22b, however, shifts to
third person (although RSV
retains the first person) and
reads, "They have become
enemies to me" (yl vyh Mybyvxl). The only exception
to this linguistic usage is
found in Exodus 23:22 where
Yahweh promises, "I will
be an enemy to your enemies"
(jybyvx-tx
ytbyx).113
Thus, the unique character of Job's situation with
Yahweh is pointed up by his
peculiar linguistic usage. He
sees himself as a
"reckoned" (bwH) enemy
of God, reckoned
by God and thereby factually an
enemy. Yet, he is not the
one who is behaving as an
enemy; God behaves as an enemy.
Job's situation is that of
(innocent) victim while God's
behavior toward Job is that of
an enemy. Linguistically,
Job cannot bring himself to
say, "I am an enemy of God."114
He can only ask, "Will you
reckon me for your enemy?"
(13:24), or make the outrageous
claim, "He has reckoned me
for himself as his enemies"
(19:11).
113 The exceptional
character of this usage is further
pointed
up by the fact that this is the only appearance of
the
root byx
as a finite verb.
114 lxl
byvx ynx or
lxl byvx ytyyh
or lx-tx ytbyx.
66
Outside Job's speeches the designations of the enemies
from the byvx-group appear only in a speech of Bildad
(8:22)115 and in one
by Elihu (34:17).116 Elihu
adds a new
dimension to this vocabulary.
In a rhetorical question he
speaks of one who hates not
someone but rather something
(Fpwm).
Enmity has been depersonalized by being con-
strued as a relationship
between a person and a principle.
Elihu is now giving a lecture.117
The fwr-Group
The wicked (fwr)
appear twenty-five times in the
book of Job. They are mentioned
by each of the major
figures in the book.118 That the wicked are those who stand
outside a sound, healthy
relationship to God in Job as in
Proverbs is indicated by the
prominent relationship to the
"profane" or
"godless" (JnH),119
the "unjust" (lyvf,
115 Otherwise, Bildad
mentions in 8:20 "evildoers"
(Myfrm) and, antithetically,
the "blameless" (Mt).
116 hmmvqtm
in 20:27
(Zophar) is used verbally
rather
than substantively; its subject is Crx.
117 Westermann, The Structure of the Book of Job,
p.
140.
118 Job in 3:17; 9:22,
24; 10:3; 16:11; 21:7, 16, 17,
28;
24:6; 27:7, 13; Eliphaz in 15:20; 22:18; Bildad in
8:22;
18:5; Zophar in 11:20; 20:5, 29; Elihu in 34:18;
36:6,
17; and Yahweh in 38:13, 15; 40:12.
119 20:5; cf. 8:13; 15:34; 27:8; 34:30; 36:13.
67
lvf),120
the "ruthless" (Cyrf),121
the "workers of
iniquity" (Nvx-ylfvp) ,122 and the "evildoers"
(Myfrm).123
Standing in opposition to the wicked are
the "blameless" (Mt).124
The nature of the forms in Job allows further observa-
tions which confirm the
religious content of this desig-
nation. Whereas in Proverbs (at
least in 10:1-22:16 where
the Myfwr are most prominent) the context is limited to
short sayings, in Job there are
speeches. Thus, it often
occurs that a major portion of
a speech begins by mentioning
a group under one designation
and concludes by referring to
the same group under another,
but essentially synonymous,
designation.125 Such
formal considerations require
120 16:11; 27:7; cf.
18:21; 31:3.
121 15 :20 ; 27:13; cf.
6:23 where Cyrf is parallel to
rc.
122 34:8; cf. 31:3;
34:22.
123 8:20.
124 8:20; 9:22.
125 For example, 8:11-22,
which begins with rhetorical
questions
concerning a well-known plant image (cf. Psalm 1;
Jer.
17:5-8) and concludes with an assurance to the blame-
less
and promise of destruction to the wicked; 15:(17-19)
20-35
which begins with the designations "wicked" and
"ruthless"
(fwr
// Cyrf
) and concludes with "company of
the
godless," and "tents of bribery" (JnH tdf //
dHvw-ylhx); 18:5-21 beginning with the wicked and
ending
with the "unjust" and "he who does not know God"
(lvf
// lx-fdy-xl).
68
broadening the range of
synonyms which may be ascertained by
strict parallelism to include
other significant designations
such as the "evil
man" (fr),126
"those who forget God"
(lx-yHkvw),127
the one who is "not innocent"
(yqn-yx),128
and the "one who does not know God"
(lx-fdy-xl).129
A similar broadening of the range
of antonyms on the basis of
these formal considerations
requires the inclusion of the
"righteous" (qydc),130
the "innocent" (yqn),131 the "afflicted" (ynf),132
"poor" (ld),133 "needy" (Nvybx),134 "lowly"
(Mynyf-Hw),135
"widow" (hnmlx),136
"orphan"
126 21:30.
127 8:13.
128 22:30; on the
particle see Gordis, p. 252, and
Pope,
p. 169, who take it as the negative particle known in
Ethiopic,
Phoenician, rabbinic and modern Hebrew and per-
haps
even biblical Hebrew at Sam. 4:21 (7):23
129 18:21.
130 22:19; 27:17; 36:7.
131 9:23; 22:19; 27:17.
132 24:4, 14; 34:28;
36:6, 15.
133 34:19, 28.
134 24:4, 14.
135 22:29.
136 24:3.
69
(Mvty),137
"dying" (Mytm),138
and "wounded"
(llH).139
For the most part, the various synonyms for the wicked
present the same picture noted
in Proverbs. There are,
however, new developments.
Bildad offers Job the assurance
that "the tent of the
wicked will be no more" (8:22b) which
is a quite traditional
affirmation. Atypical of this kind
of affirmation is the use of xnvW
(hater)
in the
parallel stich (8:22a).
Those who hate you will be clothed
with shame,
and the tent of the
wicked will be no more.
Job
8:22
This is the first example in
wisdom literature of an
apparent identification between
the hater (xnvW) of
the byvx-group and the wicked.
A second synonym which represents something hitherto
unspoken in the wisdom
literature is the socioeconomic
identification of the wicked as
"nobility" (bydn).140
Related to this is the antinomy
between the wicked and the
137 24:3.
138 24:12, revocalizing with
BHS to Mytime
139 24:12.
140 21:28; 34:18; cf.
also jlm,
rw,
fvw
and
rybx in
34:18, 19, 20.
70
underprivileged.141
The examples of antithetic parallelism
between the wicked (rich) and
the poor (righteous) occur
primarily in two places: Job's
speech in chapter 24 and
Elihu's speeches in chapters 34
and 36.142
In each of these cases the opposition of the wicked and
the afflicted is the result of
the forms which make up the,
speeches. The Elihu speeches
all make use of the
humiliation-exaltation hymnic
motif which is familiar from
the psalm tradition of
He pours contempt upon princes
and makes them walk in
trackless wastes;
but he raises up the needy out of
affliction,
and makes their families
like flocks.143
Psalm
107:40-41
Job's speech in chapter 24 consists of quite a long
description of the distress of
humanity following his
141 Cf. the antonyms ynf in 24:4, 14; 34:28;
36:6,
15;
Nvybx
in 24:4, 14; ld in 34:19, 28; Mvty, in
24:3;
hnmlx
in 24:3; Mytm
in 24:12; MyllH
in
24:12; Mynyf-Hw in 22:29; Myrysx in 3:18;
Hvk-yfygy in 3:17
("victims," Gordis, pp. 28, 38).
142 Eliphaz's speech in
22:29 appears to have a note
similar
to Elihu's remarks if the RSV is followed, but it
seems
better to follow Gordis, pp. 242, 252, and translate
MT
as it stands: "When men are brought low you will say,
'Rise
up,' and he who has been humbled will be saved."
Cf.
Pope, p. 164, who translates, "When they abase, you
(i.e.,
Job) may order exaltation; and the lowly of man he
will
save." The verse belongs in the context of Eliphaz's
promise
that if Job would repent (bvw, v. 23) then he
would
be one of those righteous folk upon whose merit
others
could receive favor; Gordis, pp. 251f.; Pope, 168.
143 Cf. Psalms 33:10-17;
76:5, 9, 12; 113:5-9; 145:14,
19-20;
146:7-9; 147:6; and I Sam. 2:4-8.
71
lamenting "why" of
verse 1. Such a description of distress
is integral to the laments of
the Psalms.144 Thus, this new
identification of the wicked in
opposition to the lower
classes of the socio-economic
scale is due to the use of
traditional forms, not to any
new thoughts on the nature of
the wicked.
In fact, this claim for the social location of the
wicked is a quite logical
outcome of their religious stance,
their lack of a proper
relationship to God. Elihu recog-
nizes that God strikes these
mighty folk because they turned
aside from behind him and did
not comprehend his ways so
that they made the cry of the
poor to come to him.145 The
socially oppressive nature of
the wicked is hardly a
genuinely new development in
wisdom material. Rather, it
is a simple outcome of the
fundamental defect of the wicked:
they stand without a proper
relationship to God.
A third factor is introduced by Elihu which is really
a new dimension in designations
of the wicked. Elihu
predicts that "men of
understanding" (bbl-ywnx) and
the "wise man" (MkH-rbg) will say:
Job speaks without knowledge;
his words are without insight.
144 For example, Psalms
5:9-10; 6:6-7; 10:1-11; 12:1-4.
145 Job 34:24, 26-28.
72
Would that Job were tried to the
end,
because of answers like146
wicked men.
For he adds rebellion upon his sin,
among us he claps (his
hands),
and multiplies his words
to God.
Job
34:35-37
Job is accused by Elihu of
being a wicked man because of his
foolish speaking. Unlike the
material in Proverbs, Elihu
here hints at an identification
of the wicked with char-
acteristics which normally
apply to the "fool."
Thus the book of Job presents substantially the same
picture of the wicked as is
found in Proverbs. The identi-
fication of the wicked as those
who oppress the lower
classes in society seems to be
a change. This alteration,
however, is due entirely to the
traditional forms used in
the composition of the
speeches; it is not a specifically
wisdom theme but a theme of
psalmody used by a wisdom
writer. The parallelism between
a term of the byvx-group
and the wicked is a new note in
the wisdom tradition, but
it occurs only once in an
assurance which could be quite at
home in the Psalter. The most
significant new dimension is
the implicit identification of
the wicked with the fool
which Elihu introduced.
The Neutral Group
Only two times does the term rz ("stranger") appear
In the book of Job. The first
appearance (19:15) refers to
146 Reading ywnxk
instead of ywnxb; see BHS.
73
the "outsider" who is
unknown in the community; it is
parallel to the
"alien" (yrkn). It
is as such an out-
sider that Job's maidservants
reckon him. Once again, Job's
complaint is phrased in such a
way that he himself is
designated by a frequent enemy
designation. Job finds
himself in the situation of an
enemy.147
The other appearance of the stranger is at Job 19:27.
Whom I shall see for myself
and my eyes shall see148
and not a stranger.
My kidneys are spent within me.
There is some question as to
whether the "stranger" should
be taken to refer to God149
or to some other person instead
of Job.150 If the first option be accepted, then Job is
wishing for the day when he
will behold God as his Redeemer
(v. 25) and not as the divine
stranger who presently con-
fronts him. More probably,
however, rz,
should be taken
147 Cf. 13:24; 19:11;
33:10 and the discussion above on
the
byvx in
Job.
148 Emend vxr to vxry; yod has been lost through
haplography;
cf. G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob (
Das Buch Hiob (Tubingen: Mohr, 1937),
p. 46.
149 So apparently Pope,
p. 139.
150 So Gordis, pp. 198,
207; cf. also Holscher, p. 46;
Fohrer,
p. 322; and E. Dhorme, A Commentary on
the Book of
Job, trans. by H. Knight
(London: Nelson, 1967), p. 286,
who
leave their comments almost as ambivalent as MT on the
identity
of the rz,
but on careful reading seem to favor
this interpretation.
74
merely at another ("mit dem er nichts meter zu tun hat"151)
who might see God although Job
himself would be unable to
do so. In this case, the
"stranger" is no enemy but simply
some anonymous third party.152
The sense is then. "my eyes
shall see, and not someone
else's."
The Friends and Kinfolk Group
Only in Job's speeches are terms for friends and
kinfolk used to designate
enemies. Job claims that his
"brothers" (MyHx) have become treacherous,153 his
"friends" (vyfr) scorn him,154 and his
"kinfolk" and
"close friends" (Myfdymv Mybvrq) have
failed
him.155 Indeed, Job
19:13-19 is a veritable lexicon of
friendship and household
designations.
He has put my brethren (yHx) far from me,
and my acquaintances (yfdyv) are wholly
estranged
from me.
My kinsfolk (ybvrq) and my close friends
(yfdymv) have failed me;
the guests (yrg) in my house have for-
gotten me;
my maidservants (ythmxv) count me as a
stranger;
151 Fohrer, , p. 322.
152 Cf. the similar use
of rz in
Prov. 27:2;
jyp-xlv rz jllhy. The LXX clearly take the passage
in
this sense: a o ofqalmoj mou eoraken kai ouk alloj.
153 Job 6:15; cf. 19:13.
154 16:20; cf. 12:4.
155 19:14.
75
I have become an alien in
their eyes.
I call to my servant (ydbfl), but he gives
me no
answer;
I must beseech him with
my mouth.
I am repulsive to my wife (ytwxl),
loathsome to the sons of
my own mother
(ynFb
ynbl)
Even young children (Mylyvf) despise me;
when I rise they talk
against me.
All my intimate friends (ydvs
ytm) abhor
me,
and those whom I loved (ytbhx-hz)
have turned
against me.
Job
19:13-19
It is quite significant that
designations from this
particular group appear to
refer to enemies only on the
lips of Job. This motif is
well-known from the laments of
the Psalter.
It is not an enemy who taunts me--
then I could bear it;
it is not an adversary who deals
insolently
with me--
then I could hide from him.
But it is you, my equal,
my companion, my
familiar friend.
We used to hold sweet converse
together;
within God's house we
walked in fellowship,
Psalm
55:13-15156
This motif is one of the most
fitting which the writer uses.
Job 19:13-19 expansively describes the alienation from
his social milieu which Job
experiences as a result of God's
hostile actions toward him
(19:6-12). Otherwise, these
designations drawn from the
friends and kinfolk group point
to the three friends of the
dialogue.157 These three
156 Cf. also vv. 21-22
and Psalms 31:11; 41:9.
157 Job 6:14f. (cf. the
explicit identification in
v. 21); 12:4 (Gordis, p. 136);
16:20; 19:21.
76
friends had come to comfort Job
(2:11), but their words of
consolation misfired. They
could only offer disputation
which finally leads to outright
indictment (Job 22).158
This is why Job is so
confounded that he cries out to his
friends to have pity on him
(19:21) and asks how they would
comfort him with nothings
(21:31). Rather than playing the
proper role of comforters,
Job's three friends have moved
toward a legal role. They have
become Job's accusers.159
The Animals Group
Eliphaz uses the "lion" (hyrx), the "fierce lion"
(lHw), the
"young lions" (Myxybl), the
"strong lion"
(wyl) and
the "whelps of the lioness" (xybl-ynb)160
as metaphors for those who
"plow iniquity" and "sow
trouble.161 Otherwise
in Job the animals mentioned refer
to real animals with no
metaphorical significance
intended.162
158 Westermann, The Structure of the Book of Job,
pp.
9ff.
159 On the legal forms in
the book of Job see L. Kohler,
"Justice
in the Gate," postscript to Hebrew
Man, trans. by
P.
Ackroyd (London: SCM Press, 1956), pp. 158-163.
160 4:10-11,
161 4:8.
162 30:1; 38:39.
77
Qoheleth
The "riddle"163 of Qoheleth appears
to go back at least
to Jamnia164 if not
to the apologetic epilogist of Qoheleth
12:9-13. Although he claims to
have set for himself the
task of investigating
everything that happens "under the
heavens" (1:13), he never
mentions any of the enemies from
the byvx-group. Nor does he ever present friends or
family members as enemy
figures.
Even when Qoheleth mentions enemies from other cate-
gories the nature of his style
seems to trivialize them.
His style, largely prose,
consists of "essays" which fly
in the face of hitherto
accepted conclusions. Where
Qoheleth uses sayings which
sound as if they might well
stem from an ongoing tradition,165
he nevertheless uses them
in such a way as to neutralize
their heuristic function.
"Even though a wise man
claims to know, he cannot find it
out" (8:17). Qoheleth
would probably pass the same judgment
on all his interpreters. At any
rate, at least a minimal
illumination of his occasional
remarks on those who may be
enemies must now be sought.
163 A. Wright, "The
Riddle of the Sphinx:. The Structure
of
the Book of Qohelet," CBQ 30 (1968), 313-334.
164 Eissfeldt, p. 568.
165 J. Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qoheleth
(Berlin:
Walter deGruyter, 1979), pp. 132f. Cf., for
example, Qoh. 4:5, 13; 7:5;
9:16a, 17, 18a; 10:2, 3.
78
The fwr-Group
The wicked are most often found in antithesis to the
"righteous" (qydc).166
They are also found in antithesis
to those who "fear before
God" (Myhlx-ynplm xry).167
Quite simply, Qoheleth is
denoting by these terms the same
religious and ethical types
already noted in Proverbs.168
In one example the righteous and the wicked stand at
the head of a series of
antithesis.
. . . one fate comes to all, to the righteous
(qydc) and the wicked (fwr), to the good
(bvF) and the evil (fr),169 to the
clean
(rhvF) and the unclean (xmF), to him who
sacrifices (Hbvz) and him who does not
sacrifice (Hbvz-vnnyx). As is the good
man (bvF) so is the sinner (xFvH); and he
who swears (fbwn) is as he who shuns an
oath (xry-hfvbw).
Qoheleth
9:2
These persons are not
synonymous, of course, but they do
form two coherent groupings for
Qoheleth. His point in this
series of antitheses is simply
to drive home the contention
166 3:17; 7:15; 8:14;
9:2.
167 8:12, 13.
168 R. Whybray,
"Qoheleth the Immoralist," in Israelite
Wisdom: Theological and
Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel
Terrien, ed. by John G. Gammde,
Walter A. Brueggemann,
Humphries
and James M. Ward (
Press,
1978), p. 195.
169 frlv has fallen out of MT,
but the LXX read
kai
t& akaqart&.
79
that one fate comes to all.170
Hence, these pairings are
simply conventional, a
concession to his audience. Had
Qoheleth been seriously
concerned with delimiting the
meanings of the wicked and the
righteous, he might well have
chosen less traditional
pairings.
The only other word from the fwr-group which
Qoheleth uses is
"oppressor" (qwvf). The
observation
is made that these oppressors
had power on their side while
their victims had only tears.
Again I saw all the
oppressions that are
practiced under the sun. And,
behold, the tears
of the oppressed, and they had no
one to comfort
them! On the side of their
oppressors there was
power, and there was no one to
comfort them.
Qoheleth
4:1
The Neutral Group
Among the neutral terms used to designate enemies, only
rw
("prince") is used by Qoheleth.171 The ambiguity of
the designation is demonstrated
particularly well by its
appearance in Qoheleth. He
pronounces a woe to the land
because her king is a boy and
her princes feast in the
morning. In the very next
breath, however, he pronounces
a blessing upon the land whose
king is the son of freedmen
170 The point is made
again in 9:3a, "This is an evil in
all
that is done under the sun, that one fate comes to all."
171 10:16, 17.
80
and whose princes feast in the
time,172 for strength and not
for revelry.
Woe to you, 0 land, when your king
is a child,
and your princes feast
in the morning!
Happy are you, 0 land, when your
king is the
son of free
men,
and your princes feast
at the proper time,
for strength, and not
for drunkenness.
Qoheleth
10:16-17
These aristocrats, king and
prince, could be friend or foe.
The Animals Group
Only once does Qoheleth refer to animals which are used
as metaphors for hostile
figures. Qoheleth 9:4 mentions the
living dog and dead lion as
literal animals in a "better
than" saying which may
intend to undergird his preference
of life over death, even a life
of vanity. After all, he
argues, "a living dog is
better than a dead lion."
Sirach
A kindred spirit to those whose legacy is found in
Proverbs is encountered in
Sirach. The formal considera-
tions noticed in Proverbs are
more appropriate here than
anywhere else in the wisdom
literature. In fact, the same
two distinctions, short
independent sayings and longer
didactic compositions, which
are found in Proverbs are also
172 Cf. 3:1-9.
81
present in Sirach.173
He is a self-conscious heir to the
sages who stand behind
Proverbs.
All this does not mean that Sirach is simply redundant
compared with Proverbs. There
are clear signs that he
stands at a later, more
sophisticated place in the wisdom
tradition's history. Not the
least of these signs is the
self-identification and
attribution of the book.
Instruction in understanding and
knowledge
I have written in this
book,
Jesus the son of Sirach, son of
Eleazar,
of
who out of his heart
poured forth wisdom.
Sirach
50:27
Sirach's more abundant use of the longer didactic poems
(which appear to be his
favorite medium)also indicate a
development beyond earlier
sages. Even when he uses inde-
pendent sayings, they are much
more likely to be arranged
topically rather then being
scattered throughout the book
as in Proverbs.174
In comparison with Proverbs, Sirach
shows a development toward
schematization and a desire to
cover all the bases on a
certain topic. Other signs of
Sirach's development include
his survey of
173 Cf. Sir. 24:30-34;
51:13-30.
174 For example, 14:3-10
is a series of seven sayings
(vv.
3, 4, 5, 6-7, 8, 9, 10) each one of which could stand
independently
with complete clarity. They are found
together
because they all deal with the topic of the miser.
In
Proverbs seven sayings dealing with miserliness would
more likely be found in seven
different places.
82
in the "Hymn to the
Fathers" (44:1-50:24), the recognition
that wisdom is revealed in the
Torah (24:23-27: 39:1-5) and
the more frequent appearance of
prayer forms, learned no
doubt from the Psalms.
The byvx-Group
The primary Greek word which translates byvx is
exqroj.175 As the major Greek word it will be the
starting point of this
discussion. The Greek text of Sirach
uses exqroj thirty-four times.176 Clustering around this
word are most of the other
designations belonging to the
byvx-group.177 Only the designations "hateful man"
(mishtoj
anqrwpoj),178
"the one who reviles a friend"
(o
oneidizwn filon),179 and the "adversary"
175 Exqroj is used to translate byvx 246 times;
otherwise,
exqroj
translates rc (34x), rrc (9x) ,
xnvW (7x) rvw (6x), brx, yvg, rf, and xbwm
(2x
each), and hbyx, lkx, rz, tm, tmc (hi.)
Mvq (hith.) and fr (once each). The Hebrew
byvx is
also
I translated by upenantioj (11x), exqra and
exqrainwn (2x each), and diwkontej,
ekqlibwn,
exqreuwn, qlibontwn and polemioj (once each) .
176 5:15; 6:1, 4, 9, 13;
12:8, 9, 10, 16(2x); 18:31;
19:8;
20:23; 23:3; 25:7, 14, 15; 27:18; 29:6, 13; 30:3, 6;
33(36):7,
10; 37:2; 42:11; 45:2; 46:1, 5, 7, 16; 47:7;
49:9;
51:8.
177 Anqesthkotaj (46:6); antidikon (33 [36]: 6[7]);
exqran (6:9; 37:2); paresthkotwn (51:2); upenantiwn
-ouj (23:3; 47:7).
178 20:15.
179 22:20.
83
(satanan)180
are not found in contexts which also mention
the exqroj ("enemy").
Several times the enemies are simply mentioned inci-
dentally, but little information
may be gleaned concerning
the identity of the enemy. For
example,
He who teaches his son will make his
enemies
envious,
and will glory in him in
the presence of
friends.
Sirach
30:3181
In cases like these the wholly
expected antithesis between
"friend" (filoj) and enemy is present,182 but little
else
is forthcoming. The same
problem obtains even in the cases
that mention a person's
becoming the "laughinstock of his
enemies,"183
for it is difficult to decide how that could
narrow the range of the enemy's
identity. It is also true
of the "adversary"
(21:27) whom the "godless man" (asebhj)
curses; in what manner or place
is this one an adversary?184
180 21:27.
181 Cf. 6:4; 18:31; 19:7;
25:7; 30:6; 42:11.
182 19:8; 30:3, 6.
183 6:4; 18:31; 42:11.
184 Satan (=NFW) may, of course, be the
personal
name
of the devil (cf. I Chr. 21:1), but here it seems more
natural
to translate simply "adversary" meaning someone's
human
opponent. Cf. J. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus
(
Cambridge
University Press, 19741, pp. 109f., "It is
unlikely
that Ben Sira uses 'Satan' as a personal name in
the
sense of the head of cosmic evil powers. . . . Ben
Sira, . . . shows no knowledge
of any independent evil power
84
Another group of passages which provide little help in
clarifying the enemy are the
prayers which Sirach composed.
The lament of Sirach 22:27-23:6
refers to "adversaries"
(upenantwn),
"enemy" (exqroj),
"haughty eyes"
(meterismon
ofqalmwn),
and the "shameless soul"
(yux^
aneidei)
while that of Sirach 33(36):1-17 prays
for
(eqnh
allotria),
the "adversary" (antidikon), the
"enemy" (exqroj) the "survivor" (s&zomenoj), "those-who
harm your (i.e., God's)
people" (oi kakountej tou laou sou),
and the "rulers of the
enemy" (arxontwn exqrwn). The
thanksgiving song of Sirach
51:1-12 similarly refers to
deliverance from the
"slanderous tongue" (diabolhj
glwsshj),
"lying lips" (xeilwn ergazomenwn yeudoj), "bystanders"
(paresthkotwn),
"gnashings of teeth" (brugmwn
etaimon),
"hand of those seeking my
life" (xeiroj zhtountwn thn yuxhn
mou),
"fire" (puroj) ,
"belly of Hades" (koiliaj %dou),
"unclean tongue and lying
word" (glwsshj akaqartou kai
logou
yeudoj),
"enemies" (exqrwn) and
"proud"
(uperhfaniwn). In
each of these three passages there is
in
the universe." N. Peters, Das Buch
Jesus Sirach oder
Ecclesiasticus (
handlung,
1915), pp. 176f., "Der Satan ist
genannt als
eigene schwache and
verderbteWale des-Minschen (vgl. Jak,.
1,
14f.) Damit ist naturlichdie teuflische Versuchung
nicht
absolut-ausgeschlossen."
85
a wealth of enemy designations,
but they are just as
stereotypical and imprecise as
those encountered in the
Psalms.185
The identification of the enemies, however, is quite
clear in at least one section
of Sirach: the "Hymn to the
Fathers" (44:1-50:24). In
every case a particular histori-
cal enemy of
The historical figures named
are Moses' enemies (45:2),
Joshua's enemies (46:1-6), the
congregation who opposed
Caleb and Joshua (46:7),
Samuel's enemies (46:16), David's
enemies and the Philistines
(47:7) and God's enemies in the
days of Ezekiel (49:9). Their
enmity consisted solely in
hostility to
God.
Otherwise, "friends" appear who are, or soon
will be
enemies.186 Occasion
to discuss these "friends" will arise
somewhat later within the
context of further remarks from
Sirach on the topic of
friendship. For now, however, it is
sufficient to note that these
passages make explicit the
identification between friends
and enemies. Proverbs
185 For example, "my
foes" ( yrc) in
Psalm 3:2; "those
who
speak a lie" (bzk-yrbvd) in Psalm 5:7; "lying
lips"
(rqw-ytpW) in Psalm 31:19; and "those who
seek
my life" (yyH-ywqbm) in Psalm 35:4.
186 5:15; 6:9; 12:8, 9,
10, 16; 20:23; 22:20; 27:18;
37:2.
86
indicates such an
identification by construing "friends" as
the subjects of verbs which
characterize enemy behavior.
Sirach identifies
"friend" with "enemy."
One final note on the identity of the enemies of the
byvx-group
is sounded in regard to loans, surety and
alms.187 Cases of
credit extended often lead to credit
abused which, in turn, makes an
enemy. Sirach advises
entering such arrangements with
the utmost caution because
of their great risk; indeed,
interpersonal risk appears to
be more threatening to Sirach
than financial risk. On the
other hand, almsgiving is a
life-securing action; it could
act as one's champion with the
enemy.
Store up almsgiving in your
treasury,
and it will rescue you
from all affliction;
more than a mighty shield and more
than a
heavy spear,
it will fight on your
behalf against your
enemy.
Sirach
29:12-13
Thus, the economic arena
provides the possibility of
gratuitous enmity and security.
Sirach 20:15 is also set in the economic sphere when
it speaks of one who
"lends today and asks it back tomorrow;
such a one is a hateful
man." In itself this presents
nothing new or unusual, but the
identity of the one who so
behaves is important. He is a
hateful man, but he is also
187 29:6, 13.
87
a "fool" (afrwn, v. 14). This correlation between enemy
and fool is the most explicit
encountered in any of the
wisdom literature thus far. Job
was accused by Elihu of
being a wicked man because of
his speaking without knowledge
or insight. Sirach tightens the
identification by describ-
ing a fool (vv. 14-15c) and clinching
his saying with "such
a one is a hateful man"
(v. 15d).
The fwr-Group
The designation fwr, from
which this category of
enemies takes its heading, is
complicated in Sirach by the
fact that three words rather
than one are commonly used by
the LXX to translate it. Most
often, fwr is rendered by
asebhj
("ungodly, profane").188 The other two words which
frequently translate fwr are amartwloj
("sinner" )189
and anomoj ("lawless").190 it is,
therefore, not
188 Asebhj translates fwr; otherwise, it is
used
to render JnH
(6x); lysk and xFH
(5x each);
rvz (3x) and lyvx, Nvx, lfylb-Nb, smH,
drm, zylf, fwp, ffr (hi.), hfr and tHw
(hi.)
once each.
189 Amartwloj translates fwr; otherwise, it
renders
(h)
fwr (14x);
fwr
(twice) ) and JnH,
wrH and fr (once each).
190 Anomoj translates fwr
31x.
otherwise, it trans-
lates
fwr and
Nvx
(5x each); fwp (4x); hfwr and
lydb, llh, dz, xFH, Nvcl, hrs,
lvf, Nnf
(po.),
Cyrf,
hymr,
xvW,
tHw
(hi.), hmz,
hbfvt and tfwrm (once each). fwr is also
translated by adikoj 3x; amartanein and ponhroj 2x
88
surprising to find the Greek
text of Sirach using these
words interchangeably, in
synonymous parallelism or desig-
nating the same or related
characters within the same
context.191
These three major designations from the fwr-group
appear sixty-three times within
the book of Sirach.192 The
field of words in this category
is enlarged further by
several expressions which
appear in synonymous parallelism
or the near context. Related on
contextual grounds are the
adikoj
("unjust," 40:13),193 allotrioj
("other,"
11:
34),194 diglwssoj ("two-tongued," 5:9),195
kakourgoj
each
and once each by adikein, adikia, adikwj, anhr,
asebeia, asebein, dunasthj, qrasuj,
kataoikazein,
paranomoj and sklhroj.
191 Thus, asebhj is related to amartwloj at 7:16, 17;
9:11,
12; 12:4, 5, 6, 7; 19:11; 39:25, 27; 41:5, 6, 7, 8,
10,
11 and to anomoj
at 16:1, 3, 4; 31(34):18, 19; 39:24.
Amartwloj is related to anomoj at 21:9, 10; 39:24, 25,
27;
40:10.
192 Asebhj at 7:17; 9:12; 12:5, 6;
13:24; 16:1, 3;
21:27;
22:12; 31(34):19; 39:30; 40:15; 41:5, 7, 8, 10; 42:2;
amartwloj at 1:25; 2:12; 3:27; 5:6, 9; 6:1; 7:16;
8:10;
9:11;
10:23; 11:9, 21, 32; 12:4, 6, 7, 14; 13:17; 15:7,'9,
12;
16:6, 13; 19:22; 21:6, 10; 23:8; 25:19; 27:30; 28:9;
29:16,
19; 35(32):17; 36(33):14; 39:25, 27; 40:8; 41:5, 6,
11;
anomoj
at 16:4; 21:9; 31(34):18; 39:24; 40:10; 49:3.
Also
entering the picture at this point is the verb
amartanein used substantively at
10:29; 19:4; 38:15.
193 Cf. 17:14; 27:10;
32(35):18 and the verb adikein
used
substantively at 4:9.
194 0therwise appearing
at 8:18; 9:8; 21:25; 21:8, 25;
23:22,
23; 29:18, 22; 33(36):3; 35(32):18; 39:4; 40:29(2x);
45:18;
49:5.
195 Also 5:14, 15.
89
("scoundrel," 11:33),196
loidoroj ("railing,"
22:8), para-
bainontej
("transgressors," 40:14),197 ubristhj
("insolent,"
8:11)198 and uperhfanoj (
"arrogant"
11:30).199
Although designations belonging to this category appear
in abundance the sheer number
of their usage is not neces-
sarily helpful. It is true, of
course, that
Good is the opposite of evil,
and life the opposite of
death;
So the sinner is the
opposite of the godly.
Look upon all the works of the Most
High;
they are likewise in
pairs, one the
opposite of the other.
Sirach
36(33):14-15
Such statements, however, are
of little value in determining
who the "sinner" may
be,200 though they are expected to be
the opposite of the
"godly."
At one point the "days of lawless men" is dated
to the
reign of Josiah (49:13). It was
in their time that he
196 Cf. 30:35(33:27) and
the related words kakoj at
20:18
and kakoun
at 33(36):8 where they are used sub-
stantively.
197 Cf. 10:19; 19:24;
23:18 and paranomoj at 16:3.
198 Cf. 32(35):18 and ubrij at 10:6, 8; 21:4.
199 Cf. 3:28; 13:1,20;
15:8; 21:4; 23:8; 27:15, 28;
34(31):26;
35:32)08; 51:10 and the feminine uperhfania
at
10:7; 15:8; 51:10.
200 Cf. 1:25; 3:27, 28;
5:6; 7:1, 16, 17; 8:10; 9:11,
12;
10:6, 7, 8, 23, 29; 11:21; 15:7, 12; 16:6, 13; 17:14;
19:22;
21:6, 9, 10, 27; 22:12; 25:19; 27:10, 27, 30;
34(31):26; 38:15; 39:24, 25,
27, 30; 40:8, 10; 41:11; 42:2.
90
"strengthened
godliness." In this case the lawless ones are
probably to be identified with
any or all of the idolatrous
priests who ministered to other
gods in
cult prostitutes, the priests
in
other cultic functionaries whom
Josiah purged.201 Such an
historical identification is
limited to this single notice.
Designations from the fwr-group
appear three times
in prayers which are modeled
after forms found in the
Psalter: an individual lament
(22:27-23:6), a community
lament (33[36]:1-17) and an
individual song of thanksgiving
(51:1-12). In each of these, as
in the Psalms, enemies are
designated by terms drawn from
the byvx- and fwr-
groups as well as the more
neutral group. The most striking
difference from the Psalms is
found in the individual lament
where the burden of the plea is
for deliverance from one's
own shortcomings which provide
the occasion for the triumph
of external enemies. The more
dangerous enemies in this
prayer are one's own mouth,
lips and tongue (22:7), thoughts
and mind (23:2), eyes (23:4),
evil desire (23:5), and
gluttony, lust and shameless
soul (23:6). The other two
passages present no different
picture of enemies than would
be expected in similar contexts
in the Psalter.
201 II Kgs. 23:5, 7, 20; 11 Chr. 34:3-7.
91
The wicked in the cult. Enemies belonging to the
fwr-group
do, however, appear in contexts which provide
more help in identifying their
social locations. As in the
earlier mashal literature of Proverbs, so also in Sirach the
wicked are occasionally found
within the cult.
If one sacrifices from what has been
wrongfully
obtained,
the offering is
blemished;
the gifts of the lawless are not
acceptable.
The Most High is not pleased with
the offerings
of the
ungodly,
and he is not
propitiated for sins by a
multitude of
sacrifices.
Sirach
31(34):18-19
These are the wicked who obtain
their sacrifices from the
property of the poor or by
shorting an employees wages.
The passage goes on to accuse
them of murder.202
As with sacrifice, so also with
praise:
A hymn of praise is not fitting on
the lips
of a sinner,
for it has not been sent
from the Lord
For a hymn of praise should be
uttered
in wisdom,
and the Lord will
prosper it.
Sirach
15:9-10
Conversely, the Lord will
accept favorably a prayer of the
humble; he will deliver him and
execute judgment on the
unmerciful, the nations, the
insolent and the unrighteous.203
Related to these enemies within
the cult are those who
violate the accepted norms of
the wise. These are the
202 Sir. 31(34):20-22.
203 32(35):17-21.
92
"transgressors" (parabainontej). Specifically these are
people who transgress the law
or the commandments.204 Once
a specific commandment,
"Thou shalt not commit adultery"
(Ex. 20:14), is in view. There
is mention of a man who
"transgresses from his
bed" (Sir. 23:18). That adultery
should be singled out is not at
all surprising for this had
long been a concern of the
sages.
The wicked and the economy. Another sphere of life
which is fertile ground for the
growth of these enemies from
the fwr-group is that of the community's economy.
Sirach
advises discretion in the
matter of almsgiving.
If you do a kindness, know to whom
you do it,
and you will be thanked
for your good deeds.
Sirach
12:1
The point in such discretion is
that one might give alms to
the good but not help the
sinner. Helping sinners is bor-
rowing trouble for one's
return. is double in evil for all
the good.205 A
similar discretion is advised in cases of
surety. One should help a
neighbor, but the watchword is,
"Beware!" Caution must
be practiced since a "sinner will
overthrow the prosperity of his
surety."206 From the
side
20410:19; 19:24.
20512:1-7.
206 29:14-20; in
Proverbs, of course, all surety was to
be avoided like the plague; cf.
Prov, 6:1-5; 17:18.
93
of the one in need, however,
the life of a beggar is to be
avoided. Begging may be sweet
in the mouth of the shame-
less, but by the time it
reaches his stomach it causes
indigestion (40:28-30).
More dangerous than the wicked needy who often become
enemies are the proud rich. The
rich would exploit others
as long as they could, only to
deride and forsake them in
the end.207 Humility
is disgusting to a proud man just as
a poor man is to a rich man.208 Of course, such wicked
rich folk are ultimately doomed,209
but in the meantime they
may be quite dangerous.
The wicked at court. Sirach also notes the wicked in
the legal realm of the
community. Sometimes sinners judge
a case, and the counsel of
Sirach is against sitting with
such a body (11:9). The role
advised is that one should
deliver the injured party from
the power of the wrongdoer
and not be timid in judgment
(4:9). As a defendant the
sinner would shun reproof,
while as a plaintiff he would
simply shop around for a
decision "to his liking"
(35[32]:17).
207 Sir. 13:1-7.
208 13:20; cf. v. 24.
209 21:4; 40:12-15; cf. 14:3-10.
94
The wicked and their speech. A crucial component
of
the legal system is people's
talk, and Sirach has quite a
lot to say on the subject. Most
of his remarks, however,
appear to refer more generally
to common conversation rather
than the more limited judicial
setting. A "babbler"
(glwsswdhj) is
feared by a whole city.210 Sinners
often
meet their nemesis in their own
speech which comes back to
them with a vengeance.211 The talk of "proud men"
(uperhfanwn) could
even lead to bloodshed; their swearing
could "make one's hair
stand on end" (27 :14-15). "Slander"
(diabolhn) and
"false accusation" (katayeusmon) are
among phenomena worse than
death (26: 5).212 False and
malicious speech is so
dangerous that Sirach urges his
audience to curse the
"whisperer" (yiquron) and
the
"deceiver" (diglwsson). "Slander" (glwssh trith)
has been the cause of many a
downfall, and the tongue can
be more dangerous than a sword.213
Wicked friends. Friendship is likewise a sphere where
one might encounter the wicked.
Sirach 12:8-18 shows this
210 9:18; cf. 8:3.
211 23:7-15; cf.
20:18-20; 27:28.
212 This numerical saying
is 3+1; the first three items
are
slander, a mob and false accusation. All three are
worse
than death. The fourth item is apparently a wife
"envious
of a rival" (v. 6).
213 28:13-26.
95
reality admirably by its
structure. Verses 8-12 and 16-18
refer quite naturally to the
"enemy" (vv. 8, 9, 10, 16)
whose "wickedness" (ponhria, v. 10) tarnishes all who
touch it like rusting copper.
All this could have been said
quite as easily in Proverbs.
There is an interesting step
in Sirach in the central
section of verses 13-15.
Who will pity a snake charmer bitten
by
a serpent,
or any who go near wild
beasts?
So no one will pity a man who
associates
with a
sinner
and becomes involved in
his sins.
He will stay with you for a time,
but if you falter, he
will not stand
by you.
Sirach
12:13-15
By placing the remarks about
associations with snakes, wild
beasts and the sinner in the
center of this passage there
is an implicit identification
of the "enemy" (exqroj) with
the "sinner" (amartwloj). This
is the first occasion
where a wisdom writer using a
wisdom form has come so close
to equating the enemy with the
wicked.
Such dangers in friendship make it encumbent upon
Sirach to urge caution in
choosing one's companions.
A sinner would disturb friends
and inject enmity among
folk who were at peace.214 "Rascals" (ponhreumenoi) are
about who are full of deceit
(19:26). Hence, one simply
could not bring just anybody
home for dinner. The "crafty"
214 28:8-12,
96
(dolioj) and
"proud" (uperhfanoj) are like
spies or decoys
in a cage. They are not
trustworthy. Such a "scoundrel"
(kakourgoj) is
always devising harm.215 Unfortunately,
neither can one simply get up
and leave an "insolent fellow"
(ubristhj)
"lest he lie in ambush against your words"
(8:11). It is the task of the
wise never to fall in with
such characters in the first
place.
The wicked and the family. Friends and neighbors
certainly present dangerous
incarnations of the wicked, but
more dangerous still are those
encountered in one's own
household. Apart from the
wickedness within a person's own
self,216 the
greatest vulnerability is known at home. The
"household slave" (oikethj) may be a scoundrel, but there
is always recourse to the
"racks and tortures" to deal with
that contingency (30:35[33:27]).
The closer relationships,
however, are more troublesome.
Childlessness is preferred
to ungodly children; a tribe of
lawless men could devastate
an entire city (16:1-5).
Forsaking and angering one's
parents make one equivalent to
a "blasphemer" (blafhmoj)
and cursed by the Lord (3:16).
Sirach reserves special ire for the "impudent
daughter"
(qraseia) who
disgraces her father and husband (22:5).
215 11:29-34.
216 See the lament in
22:27-23:6 and the discussion
above.
97
Indeed, special instruction is
given to
Keep strict watch over a headstrong
daughter,
lest, when she finds
liberty, she use it
to her hurt;
Be on guard against her shameless
eye,
and do not wonder if she
sins against you.
As a thirsty wayfarer opens his
mouth
and drinks from any
water near him,
so she will sit in front of every
post
and open her quiver to
the arrow.
Sirach
26:10-12
The danger does not always arise from the children for
offspring are also vulnerable
to their parents. The chil-
dren of sinners start life with
at least two strikes against
them. They grow up around the
haunts of the ungodly, and
their inheritance is already
doomed. Hence, they blame an
ungodly father since they
suffer reproach because of him
(41:5-7).217
A man's most intimate relationship, marriage, occasions
both his highest blessing and
security (26:1-4)218 and his
most devastating enemy.
Any wound, but not a wound of the
heart!
Any wickedness, but not
the wickedness
of a wife!
Any attack, but not an attack from
those who
hate!
217 41:5-13 deals with
the legacy of the good and the
ungodly.
Part of the ungodly's legacy is the destruction
of
their offspring as indicated above. There is nothing
explicitly
advised for the children who might wish to
mitigate
such an inherited vulnerability, but it is best
to
assume that Sirach would have included such unfortunate
youth
in his invitation to instruction (51:23-30).
218 Cf. 26:13-18.
98
Any vengeance, but not
the vengeance of
enemies!
There is no venom 219 worse
than a snake's
venom219
and no wrath worse than
an enemy's wrath.
Sirach
25:13-15
Such is the introduction to Sirach's discourse on the
evil wife (25:16-26). The
discourse itself is rather longer
than material found in
Proverbs, but in the main it is not
appreciably different.220
Only verse 24 sounds a new note:
woman is responsible for sin,
"and because of her we all
die." The introduction,
however, associates the evil wife
with "those who hate"
(misountwn) and the
"enemies"
(exqrwn221). Such a close relationship of enemy vocabu-
lary from the byvx-group and the friends and kinfolk
group is a new development in
the wisdom tradition.
219 The Greek text reads kefalh(n); the Hebrew texts
(
[
Scroll from
Commentary [
the
Shrine of the Book, 1965].) have lacunae at this point.
The
translator probably confused the common wxr I
("head")
with the rare wxr II
("poison"). Cf. Peters,
pp.
213f.
220 The same may be said
for 26:5-9 or 23:22-27.
221 Peters, p. 214, takes
exqrou
of v. 15b to be a
"Vertikale Dittographie!" from v. 14;
hence, he translates
"und kein Zorn ist schlimmer, als Weibeszorn"
(qumon
gunaikoj). His reading creates a nice inclusio
for
the 'introduction, but it would also be an even clearer
example
of "Vertikale Dittographie"
than what he is
correcting since gunaikoj is the final word in v. 13.
99
That Sirach was a misogynist can scarcely be doubted,
but that ought not prevent
observation of the times he shows
animosity toward the
shortcomings of men. The adulterer who
"transgresses from his
bed" (23:18) has already been noted.
It should now be added that
this transgressor is mentioned
as the third (and climactic)
character in a two-three
numerical saying (23:16-21).
Indeed, for all Sirach's
bluster against women, he still
likens the unmarried man
to a "robber" (l^st^) whom no one will trust (36:26-27).
The wicked and duplicity. Sirach's most perceptive
designation of the enemies
belonging to the fwr-group
is
that they are
"double-tongued" (diglwssoj).222
Such a
characterization of enmity was
already seen in Proverbs
26:24-26 although there it was
used of an enemy belonging
to the byvx-group. Sirach is speaking of the amartwloj
who clearly belongs to the fwr-group. The double nature
of the sinner is not limited to
the tongue. His whole
conduct is divided; he
"walks upon two ways."223 Such
duality is the very essence of
enmity whether it is evalu-
ated as simple hostility or as
moral opposition.
Sirach's presentation of enemies belonging to the
fwr-group
then makes some advances, or at least
222 O
amartwloj o diglwssoj
in 5:9, 15; simply
diglwssou in 5:14; cf. 28:13.
223 Epibainonti
epi duo tribouj, 2:12b .
100
differences, from earlier
wisdom literature. He still sees
these folk in the cult, the
economy, the courtroom, among
friends and in the family as
his predecessors did. He does,
however, clarify and sharpen
some of the perceptions by
drawing words from the
family-friendship group, the fwr-
group and the byvx-group into closer proximity to one
another. Thus, without ever
saying that a wife is an enemy
he nevertheless orients the
discourse on the evil wife
(25:13-26) toward that
perception. Similarly, his compo-
sition technique in chapter
12:8-18 centers his reflections
on the enemy-friend around a
brief remark about the sinner.
These shifts, however, are not
completely surprising because
they simply pursue notions
which were already present in
earlier wisdom materials.
The wicked and the fool. The genuinely new notes
in
Sirach's presentation of the
enemies of the fwr-group
are
the few times when he pairs
such designations with words
commonly used to signify
another negative figure in the
wisdom tradition: the fool.
Sirach quite easily parallels
"foolish men" (anqrwpoi asunetoi) with "sinful men"
(andrej
amartwloi, 15:7) or he places a "moron" (mwrou)
in the same league with an
"ungodly" man (asebouj,
22:12);224 both are
mourned a lifetime rather than the
224 Cf. also 22:11.
101
customary seven days. He can
likewise compare the "sinner"
(amartwloj) with
the "stubborn minded" (kardia
sklhra,
3:27).225 In earlier wisdom literature the enemies from
any group were not paralleled
with fools.
Conversely, where one would expect to find antonyms to
amartwloj,
asebhj,
or anomoj to be something like
dikaioj or dikaisounh Sirach uses eusebhj
("godly,
pious).226 Another significant antonym of the fwr-words
is "those who fear the
Lord" (oi foboumenoi kurion)227
which is an age-old wisdom
ethic. Twice the "intelligent"
(sunetoj) is
used as an antonym, once to the amartwloj
(10:23) and once to the fula anomoj (16:4). As with
synonyms so with antonyms,
earlier wisdom literature did
not parallel the wicked
antithetically with the wise.
The Neutral Group
Although the "stranger" (allotrioj) may be mentioned
quite innocuously by Sirach
(21:8), he is primarily a
225 Cf. also 3:26.
226 The most frequent
antonym of fwr is, of course,
qydc which in turn is most often translated by the
LXX
with
dikaioj (192x). Eusebhj is used only 4x by the
LXX
to translate qydc; within Sirach, however, it
appears
at 11:17, 22; 12:2, 4; 13:17, 24; 16:13; 23:12;
27:11,
29; 28:22; 36(33):14; 37:12; 29:27; 43:33.
227Cf. 2:15, 16, 17; 15:1, 19;
21:6; 35(32):14, 16.
102
negative figure.228
Several times the stranger is obviously
a foreign nation (eqnh allotria).229 Other times the
stranger is simply someone who
is unknown and therefore
ambiguous; one could not trust
such unknown quantities.230
The stranger might also be the
man by whom one was cuckolded
(23:22-23) or the person to
whom one was beholden for the
necessities of life.231
The ambiguities of the strangers are due to the fact
that they stand outside the
peer group of the protagonist.
They are not properly qualified
and duly certified members
of the social group in
question. This is clearest when
"Dathan and Abiram and
their men and the company of Korah"
228 As
in 8:18, 9:8, 11:34; 21:25; 23:22, 23; 19:18, 22;
33(36):2; 39:4; 40:29(2x); 45:18; 49:5. allotrioj at
35(32):18 stems from the confusion of r and d; the Hebrew
text (cf. Levi) reads dz but the
translator read rz.
Whereas allotrioj is primarily negative (eteroj is
primarily innocent; cf. 11:19, 31; 14:4, 15, 18; 30:28
(33:19); 35(32):9; 41:20; 42:3; 49:5. Its only negative
usage occurs at 11:6 where it is noted that "illustrious
men have been handed over to the hands of eterwn." B* S
157 545*, however, read etairwn; similar
confusion
appears at 14:4; 42:3; and Wisd. 14:24. L-248 provides
corroboration that these "others, companions" are in
reality
enemies by its reading of exqrwn. See J. Ziegler, ed.,
Sapientia
Iesu Filii Sirach (
Auprecht, 1965),
229
Sir, 29:18; 33(36):2; 39:4; 49:
230
8:18; 11:34.
231
29:22; 40:29. The "dependent one" on 29:21-28 is
designated a paroike (vv. 26,
27; cf. v. 24) which
probably translates rg or bwvt. There are, unfortu-
nately, lacunae in the Hebrew
texts.
103
are designated as allotrioi (45:18). In relation to the
wise, the allotrioi are likewise those who do not share
the discretionary, prudential
ethic which is so charac-
teristic of wisdom. These
"strangers-outsiders" are
tantamount to fools (21:22-25).
The "powers that be" are also ambiguous figures
to
Sirach. They may be either
dangerous or beneficent.
An undisciplined king will ruin his
people,
but a city will grow
through the under-
standing of
rulers.
Sirach
10:3
Any arrogant ruler is hated by
both God and humanity, and it
is for their very injustice,
insolence and wealth that
"sovereignty passes from
nation to nation." Indeed, "The
Lord has cast down the thrones
of rulers and has seated the
lowly in their place."232
It hardly need be said, of course,
that the rulers of any people
who are anti-Israel are to be
deemed enemies.233
Because such ambiguous people are in fact powerful,
Sirach advises against becoming
involved in controversy with
them; one might fall into their
power (8:1). The "rich"
(plousioj) are
to be avoided for similar reasons; their
232 10:7, 8, 14.
233 33(36):10; 46:18,
104
resources could be overwhelming
(8:2).
A rich man does wrong, and he even
adds
reproaches;
a poor man suffers
wrong, and he must
add
apologies.
Sirach
13:3
A rich man who is a liar is, of
course, hated (25:2). It is
conceivable (barely) that a
rich man might be blameless, but
who is he? (31:8-9). In the
idealized past of
sacred history there were
"rich men furnished with resources,
living peaceably in their
habitations" (44:6), but in the
empirical present peace between
rich and poor is unnatural
(13:18)234—unless
they share a common glory in the fear of
the Lord (10:22).
Groups of people are occasionally threatening in Sirach,
but when they are, they are
usually characterized more pre-
cisely as groups of
traditionally negative types.235 Of
course, groups may also be
mentioned in ways which have
little or no bearing on the
problem of enmity.236 In Sirach
26:5, however, a group, or a
formation of a group (ekklhsian
oxlou), is
ranked along with the slander of the city and
234 Cf. 13:19-23.
235 Plhqei
amartwlwn
in 7:16; teknwn
sunagwgh
axrhstwn, in 16:l (cf. v. 3); sunagwgh
amartwloun
in
32(35):21;
and sunagwgh kore in 45:18.
236 Oxloj at 7:7; plhqoj
at 5:6;
6:34; 7:7, 9, 14;
31(34):19;
36(33):11; 42:11; 44:19; 51:3; sunagwgh at
1:30;
4:7; 24:23; 34(31):3; 41:18; 43:20; 46:14; and
ekklhsia at 15:5; 21:17; 23:24; 24:2;
30:27(33:18);
34(31):11; 38:33; 39:10; 44:15;
50:13, 20.
105
false accusation. Such are
worse than death, only to be
surpassed by a wife
"envious of a rival" (26:6).
Two other ambiguous characters could be revealed as
enemies: the "helper"
(bohqwn) and the
"counselor"
(sumbouloj). The
helper might be one who loaned to
another in need (29:4) or one
to whom a petitioner looked
to no avail in a time of
distress (51:7). They could,
however, as easily be one's
enemy who was merely feigning
the helping role (wj bohqwn, 12:17). Some counselors
give counsel "in their own
interest" only to cast a lot
against another. Therefore, one
has to be cautious in
choosing such a person
(37:7-9). A counselor should be
"one in a thousand"
(6:6). The danger of counselors cannot
be completely avoided for it is
only God who has no need of
one at all (42:21). Humans are
always vulnerable to this
necessity.
The Friends and Kinfolk Group
Every friend will say, "I too
am a friend";
but some friends are
friends only in name.
Is it not a grief to the death
when a companion and
friend turns to enmity?
Sirach
37:1-2
The phenomenon of enemy-friends is oft noted in
Sirach.237 Fair weather friends are quite dangerous
because
237
The designations of these characters are filoj at
5:15; 6:6, 9, 10, 13; 12:9; 13:21; 19:13, 14, 15; 20:23;
22:20, 21, 22(2x); 36(33):6; 37:1, 2, 4, 5, 6; plhsion at
106
they are seldom recognized
until one is in some kind of dis-
tress and a true friend is
needed. These "friends" would
not "stand by [one] in the
day of trouble" (6:8).238 They
may be compared to a stallion
which "neighs under everyone
who sits on him"
(36[33]:6). Therefore, friends must be
acquired through testing. Once
acquired, a person has to be
on guard toward them (6:7, 13).
The blame for the shift from friendship to enmity might
rest on either party or on
social circumstances, for friend-
ship is a reciprocal
relationship within a concrete social
setting. If a friend, becomes
an enemy it could be one's own
fault.
A man may for shame make promises to
a friend,
and needlessly make him
an enemy.
Sirach
20:23
A person might simply act
ignorantly and thereby become an
enemy (5:15), or a friendship
might be destroyed (just as
an enemy destroyed people) by
acts of duplicity such as
reviling, arrogance, revealing
confidences and a treacherous
blow.239 Of course,
a "fool" (mwroj) has
only himself to
blame when "those who eat
his bread" (oi esqonej ton
arton
autou) speak
unkindly of him (20:17).
10:6;
19:14, 17; 27:18, 19; 28:2; 31(34):22; etairoj at
37:2,
4, 5; and oi esqontej ton arton autou at 20:17.
238 Cf. vv. 9-12,
239 22:19-22; 27:16-21.
107
In spite of one's own best intentions and personal
integrity, however, there still
remains the possibility that
a friend might become an enemy.
There is a friend who changes into
an enemy,
and will reveal a
quarrel to your disgrace.
Sirach
6:9
A neighbor might, by an
unintentional slip of the tongue,
bring forth the possibility of
enmity (19:16). More
malicious neighbors and friends
might cause injury,240
feign friendship only for their
own selfish advantage,241
or they may have been an enemy
all the time and only
appeared to be friends.242
Sirach also reveals that the shift from friendship to
enmity might be due to the social
context.243 The rich have
friends who steady them through
the minor mishaps of life.
The humble, on the other hand,
are roughly treated even when
they fall and deserve genuine
sympathy and aid (13:21-23).
Related to the wealthy are the
observations that friends
240 10:6; 28:2.
241 6:7; 37:5.
242 12:8-18.
243 Certainly Sirach does
not intend that the social
environment
necessarily overwhelms people; he is perceptive
enough
to observe, however, that some social settings might
well
predispose people to behave a certain way, but this
observation does not constitute
a kind of social determinism.
108
become enemies in times of
adversity.244 The friendship
might also turn to enmity
because some third party in the
social equation is guilty of
slander (19:13-15). In that
case the turn of affairs, which
might have been avoided, is
tragic indeed.
Enemies within the family have already been encountered
among the folk belonging to the
fwr-group. They are
ungodly sons (16:1-5), the ungodly
father who brings re-
proach upon his children (41:7)
and the evil wife (25:13-26).
Of these three it is the evil
wife who exercises Sirach the
most.
Unfortunately, Sirach does not provide much information
which would clarify what
constitutes an evil wife. Most
often he simply mentions her or
warns against her.245
Occasionally, however, glimpses
of one who is a "chatterbox"
(glwsswdhj) may
be seen. She may be beautiful and wealthy
and support her husband, or she
may not please him or follow
his direction. Other possible
characteristics of the evil
wife include envy of a rival,
drunkenness or harlotry.246
The evil wife receives so much opprobrium for Sirach
because of his misogynistic
bias. Woman is the origin, or
244 6:7, 9-12; 12:8-9;
37:4-5.
245 24:13, 16, 23, 25;
42:6; cf. 7:26; 9:1; 25:17, 19;
42:12-14;
47:19.
246 25:20-22, 23, 26; 26:6, 8, 9; cf.
23:22ff.; 9:9.
109
at least the occasion, of sin
and death (25:24). Her good-
ness is worse than a man's
wickedness (42:14). Nevertheless,
he makes some quite positive
observations about women; at
times, it might be enough to
"turn a girl's head."247 Most
likely, for Sirach, it is not a
matter of a program of
either misogyny or feminism,
but rather of recording those
potential threats which the
wise would certainly try to
avoid or, at least, mitigate.
The Animals Group
The "lion" (lewn) is
mentioned several times by
Sirach. Three times it simply
intends the animal itself.
In the "Hymn to the
Fathers" the lion is named as one of
David's playmates (47:3). Twice
it is used literally, but
proverbially, to make some
point about how the rich treat
the poor248 or the
horrors of living with an evil wife.249
As a simile or metaphor the lion is sin which lies in
wait for the workers of
iniquity (27:10). "Its teeth are
lion's teeth, and destroy the
souls of men" (21:2). Like:
wise, vengeance lies in wait as
a lion for the proud man from
247 7:19; 25:1, 8;
26:1-4, 13-18; 26:26-30(22-26); 40:19,
23.
248 They are treated
"just as" (outwj) lions prey on
wild
asses; 13:19.
249 Sirach prefers
cohabitation "with a lion and a
dragon" to living with an
evil wife; 25:16.
110
whom mockery and abuse issue
(27:28). The tongue is a
danger greater than the sword,
and whoever is enslaved by it
will find it "sent out
against them like a lion" (28:18-23).
Finally, one who is a
"faultfinder" (fantasiokotwn) with
his household is as dangerous
as a lion in his home
(4:30).250
Wisdom of
Solomon
Wisdom of Solomon is the only example of wisdom litera-
ture which had its origin in
the diaspora. Most likely it
is of Egyptian provenance,
probably
late pre-Christian era.251
The Hellenistic influences on
the writer are palpable, yet he
is just as clearly Jewish.252
250 4:29 speaks of one
who is "reckless in speech"
(qrasus
en glwss^)
and may, therefore, orient the lion-
faultfinder
of v. 30 toward the dangers of speech. It seems,
however,
that 4:20-5:3 is a series of independent admoni-
tions,
each dealing with various ways of avoiding evil and
shame
(4:20). If this analysis be correct then the lion-
faultfinder
of 4:30 ought to be perceived apart from the
reckless
speaking of 4:29; both are simply shameful evils
against
which Sirach warns.
251 W. Deane, The
Book of Wisdom (
Press,
1881), pp. 7:35); P. Heinisch, Das Buch
der Weisheit
(Munster:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1912),
pp.
XIX-XXIII; E. Clarke, The Wisdom of
Solomon (
The Wisdom of Solomon: A
New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (Garden City, New Tork: Doubleday
and
Company,
1979), pp. 12-14, 20-15; Eissfeldt, p. 602.
232 J. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom
and Its Consequences (
p.
154.
111
The whole work was originally
written in Greek and used many
Hellenistic rhetorical devices;253
so many, in fact, that
Jerome commented that its style
was "redolent of Greek
eloquence."254
Where the simplest unit in previous wisdom writings was
the two line sentence, the
author of the Wisdom of Solomon
uses "the classical Greek
period, which he ordinarily rounds
off with an inclusion."255
These are the building blocks of
the composition which has been
formed into a unity by the
author.256 This unity has been accomplished by two
primary
devices: "flashback"
and thematic coherence.257 Therefore,
characters mentioned explicitly
in one passage may well be
implicit in others.
253 Winston, pp. 14-18;
see Chapter 1, n. 71.
254 Winston, pc 15.
255 Reese, p. 123.
256 The unity of the book
has been questioned by some
commentators; cf. F. Feldmann, "Zur Einheit des
Buches der
Weisheit," Biblische
Zeitschrift 7 (1909), 140-150;
P. Beauchamp, "Le salut corporal des justes et la
conclusion
du livre de la Sagesse," Biblica 45 (1964), 491-526,
especially
p. 500. The arguments of Reese, pp. 122-145,
and
Winston, pp. 12-14, however, that the book was written
by
a single person albeit over a long period of time (cf.
P.
Skehan, "The Text and Structure of the Book of Wisdom,"
Traditio
3 [1945], 1-12) seem convincing.
257 Reese, p. 123; by
"flashback" Reese means "the
frequent
repetition of significant ideas in similar
phrasing"
(e.g., Wisd. 10:6-7 and 4:4-6). He compiles
45
examples of the device in pp. 125-140.
112
The byvx-Group
Once again the predominant Greek word from this
category is exqroj ("enemy").258 Associated with this,
designation is found the
"oppressor" (qlibwn),259
"over-
powering ones" (katisxuontwn),260 the "foe" (polemioj),261
the "rage" (qumoj)262 and the "opponent" (upenantioj).263
Most often these designations
refer to
enemies, known from scripture,
who were "most foolish, and
more miserable than an
infant" (15:14). For Wisdom the
cardinal enemy in
Other historical enemies
mentioned are the enemies of
Jacob,265 the
Canaanites266 and perhaps Amalek.267 Once,
referring to the fiery serpents
in the wilderness, the rage
258 5:17; 10:12, 19;
11:3, 5; 12:20, 22; 15:14; 16:4, 8,
22;
18:5, 7, 10.
259 5:1; 10:15.
260 10:11.
261 11:3.
262 16:5; 18:21; 19:1.
263 11:8; 18:8.
264 10:15-21; 11:5-14;
15:18-16:22; 18:5-19; undoubtedly,
this
preoccupation with the Egyptians is due to the author's
Alexandrian
setting.
265 10:9-12.
266 12:3-22.
267 11:5.
113
of wild beasts which God sent
against
(16:5).
Wisdom 5:17, part of a passage dealing with the con-
trasting fates of the righteous
and the ungodly, mentions
God's enemies, who are also
called the "madmen"
(parafronaj). Occasionally, an agent of God appears
who is designated by enemy
vocabulary. Thus, God's anger
is once directed against
plished the death of
"warrior" (polemisthj, 18:15).270
The conventional usage of byvx (=exqroj 271) within
the Psalms and especially the
historical literature of the
Old Testament is in reference
to
268 5:20; the
"ungodly" which properly belongs to the
fwr-group will be discussed in connection with that
category
below; it may be noted now, however, that these
are
also identified with
10:20;
11:9; 16:16, 18.
269 Cf. Num. 17:6-15.
270 Two further terms,
the "adversaries" (anqesthkotwn,
Wisd.
2:18) and the "one who despises wisdom and instruc-
tion"
(sofian . . . kai paideia o ecouqenwn, 3:11),
which
properly belong to this category will be dealt with in
the
discussion of the group below since they are here used
only
with reference to the "ungodly" (asebeij).
271 Cf. the statistics on byvx-exqroj in n. 175
above.
114
enemies,272 so that
the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon
simply followed the lead of
scriptural sources. This usage
is likely the earliest in the byvx-group.273 What is
interesting about these
designations in Wisdom is their
antithetic relation to a few
designations which indicate a
positive religious stance. In
Wisdom the enemies oppose
race,"274
"holy men"275 and the "righteous."276
At this
point, the writer has exhibited
a shift from Sirach where
the designation
"righteous" does not occur in enemy
contexts.
The fwr-Group
Wisdom uses asebhj
("ungodly") more often than any
other designation belonging to
this category.277 Occa-
sionally amartwloj ( "sinner" )278
appears and anomoj
272 Cf. H. Ringgren,
"byx ‘ayabh;
byeOx ‘oyebh;
hbAyxe," ‘ebhah,” Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testa-
ment, ed. by G. Botterweck
and H. Ringgren, trans. by J.
Willis,
Vol. I (rev. ed.,
214-215.
273 Ruppert, pp. 8-13,
104-105.
274 10:15.
275 10:17.
276 10:20; 16:7, 23;
18:7; cf. 5:15.
277 1:9, 16; 3:10; 4:3,
16; 5:14; 10:6, 20; 11:9; 12:9;
16:16,
18; 19:1; cf. also asebeia and o asebwn in 14:9.
278 4:10; 19;13; cf. also
amartanwn in 14:31 and
amartia
in
1:4; 10:13.
115
("lawless")279
as well, but these two do not appear with
nearly the frequency found in
Sirach. A check of possible
Greek translations of enemy
designations belonging to the
fwr–group
yields several other terms which most naturally
occur in the same contexts.
These include the "unrighteous"
(adikoj)280
those who "trivialize another's labors"
(aqetountwn
touj po nouj autou),281 badness"
(kakia),282
"accursed race" ( sperma . . .
kathramenon)283
"evil" (ponhria)284
and "lying mouth"
stoma
. . . katayeudomenoj).285
These members of the
fwr-group
issue in three categories or understandings of
the "wicked."
The most obvious understanding of these folk is that
their wickedness, is a moral
and religious stance. They are
279 17:2; cf. also ek
. . . anomwn . . . teknwn
in
4:6;
anomhmatwn, in 1:9; anomia in 5:23 and paranomoj
in
3:16.
280 3:19; 4:16; 10:3;
12:12; 14:31; 16:24; cf.,also
adikia in 1:5; fqeggemenoj
adikia in
1:8 and adikou ghj
in
16:19.
281 5:1.
282 2:21; 4:11; 5:13;
7:30; 12:2; 16:14; cf. also kak'o5-
in
15:6; 16:8; kakopragia in 5:23 and kakotexnon
yuxhn
in
1:4.
283 12:11.
284 4:6, 14; 10:7; 17:11.
285 1:11.
116
adulterers (3:16) and
blasphemers (1:6). They refuse to
know God in spite of historical
and natural phenomena which
clearly reveal God's identity
and intention (16:16). Such
people, when parents, are
capable of murdering their own
children even while practicing
their perverse religion
which, of course, sponsors the
atrocities (12:5-6). Immoral
people like these are
ungrateful to the God whose very word
preserves those who believe
(16:26-29). In comparison with
these morally and religiously
bankrupt people a barren, yet
undefiled, woman or a eunuch
are blessed (3:13-14). The
destiny of childlessness with
virtue is preferred to that
of an unrighteous generation
(3:19-4:1).
The second understanding of the ungodly is closely
related to their moral and
religious outrage. They are in
active opposition to the
righteous.286 Indeed, they
oppress
them (5:1). These righteous are
none other than God's
"elect" (eklektoi),287 the Jews, a "hallowed
people and
blameless seed."288
In view of this, the ungodly are quite
286 3:1, 10; 4:16; 5:1,
15; 10:6, 20; 11:14; 12:9;
16:17,
23; cf. 2:10-20.
287 3:9; 4:15; cf. also
the pepoiqetej in 3:9; 16:24;
pistoi in 3:9; 16:26; osioi in 3:9; 4:15; 10:17;
18:1 and
agioi in 1:5; 5:5.
288 10:5; also euarestoj
qe& genomenoj hgaphqh
in
4:10;
uioi qeou in 5:5; 16:26; 18:4; laon sou (i.e.,
qeou) in 16:20; 19:5; taij saij (i.e., qe&) in 19:6
and oi t^ s^ (i.e., qe&) skepazomenoi xeiri in 19:18.
117
reasonably identified with
enemies, the Egyptians,
Canaanites and others.289 These
past enemies of
temporary enemies in the
(Egyptian) diaspora.
The preceding understandings of wicked enmity as moral,
religious and ethnic hostility
are quite expected in
Israelite literature. More
significant is the final per-
ception in Wisdom: the ungodly
are various kinds of
fools;290 because
"wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul
nor dwell in a body enslaved to
sin" (1:4). The identity
between the righteous and the
wise, however, is only once
confirmed by explicit
coordination of the righteous, the
target of the ungodly, with the
wise man.
The righteous man (dikaioj) who has died will
condemn the ungodly who
are living,
and youth that is quickly perfected
will condemn
the prolonged old age of
the unrighteous man.
For they will see the end of the
wise man (sofoou),
and will not understand what the
Lord
purposed for him,
and for what he kept him safe.
Wisdom of
Solomon 4:16-17
Evidently, the identification
of foolish with ungodly was
much clearer than that between
the righteous and the wise.
289 Cf. exqrou in 5:17; 10:19; 11:5;
16:22; eqnouj
qlibontwn in 10:15; basileusin
foberoi in
10:16 and
upenantiouj in 11:8.
290 Afronaj in 1:3; 3:2; 5:4; asuneton in 1:5;
parafronaj in 5:20; sofian
. . . kai paideian o
ecouqenwn in 3:11; sofian . . .
paradeusantej in
10:7 and
apaideutoi
yuxai in
17:1; cf. also afronsunhj in
10:8.
118
The Neutral Group
In previous wisdom literature the "stranger" or
"other"
(allotrioj) has
often, though not always, been portrayed as
an enemy figure. The allotrioj is differently regarded in
the Wisdom of Solomon, however,
for he is presented as the
victim of enemy actions.
The punishments did not come upon
the sinners
without prior signs in the violence
of thunder,
for they justly suffered because of
their
wicked acts;
for they practiced a more bitter
hatred of
strangers.
Others had refused to receive
strangers when
they came to them,
but these made slaves of guests who
were their
benefactors.
And not only so, but punishment of
some sort
will come upon the
former
for their hostile reception of the
aliens;
but the latter, after receiving them
with
festal celebrations,
afflicted with terrible sufferings
those who had already shared the
same rights.
They were stricken also with loss of
sight--
just as were those at the door of
the righteous
man--
when, surrounded by yawning
darkness,
each tried to find the way through
his own door.
Wisdom of Solomon
19:13-17291
The "multitude" (plhqoj)
functions as an enemy
designation only when it is
further qualified by some less
ambiguous
or non-ambiguous term. Once, the "prolific brood
of the ungodly," who are
ephemeral and useless appears
291Allotrioj
is used
only one other time in the
Wisdom
of Solomon where it is maintained that it would be
alien
(allotrion) to God's power "to condemn him who does
not
deserve to be punished" (12:15).
119
(4:3). At another point, the
writer of Wisdom demonstrates
the exceptional propriety of
God's acts of judgment by
pointing out that God could
have sent upon the Egyptians a
"multitude of bears"
instead of the "multitude of irrational
creatures" so akin to the
irrational serpents and other
worthless animals which they
worshiped (11:1517).
The "powers that be," "king" (basileuj), "mighty"
(krataioj) and
"those who exercise power" (katadunasteu-
santej), are
generally portrayed as beneficent or, at
least, not harmful.292
This is, of course, entirely in
keeping with the book's
"wise king"-ideal adapted from the
Hellenistic milieu with its
many tracts "On Kingship" which
customarily treated universal
ethical ideals.293 Twice,
however, the king is an enemy
whom Moses confronted (10:16)
or the one whom God punished
just as he did all Egyptians
(18:11). Similarly, those who
exercise power are once the
enemies of God's people
(15:14), and the mighty are liable
to greater responsibilities
than their subjects. There is
a strict inquiry in store for
them (6:8).
The Friends and Kinfolk Group
Only once does the "friend" (filoj) characterize an
enemy in the Wisdom of Solomon.
Mentioned is the one whom
292 Cf. basileuj in 6:1, 24; 7:5; 9:7;
11:10; 12:14;
14:17.
293 Reese, pp. 71-37.
120
the ungodly consider a friend
(1:16). The one in question
is death (v. 12). The ungodly
consider death their friend
because the brevity of life
seems to recommend sensual
pleasure as life's goal
(2:6-9). Otherwise, only the
friends of God appear; these
are created when Wisdom "passes
into holy souls" (7:27).
Family members as enemies are named a few times in
Wisdom. Once a righteous man
fled from a brother's wrath
which is an allusion to Jacob's
flight from Esau (10:10).
The Canaanites are
characterized as "parents who murder
helpless souls" (12:6)
which refers to their practice of
child sacrifice and is only one
of their hateful practices
(12:4).294 Finally, the bereaved father is said to have
begun the practice of making
and honoring images (14:15).
Thus idolatry issued in all of
the many evils present in the
world (14:21-29).
The Animals Group
The only animal enemy known from the Psalms which is
also mentioned in Wisdom is the
lewn (lion, 11:17). Bold
lions could have been sent
against the Egyptians, together
with a multitude of bears.
Indeed, God could have sent even
294 4:6 also mentions
parents, but they are victims of
their
children who are evil witnesses against them in their
examination.
These children, however, are of an unlawful
sleep.
The generations are thus bound up in a reciprocal
enmity.
121
newly created, unknown beasts full
of rage,
or such as breathe out fiery breath,
or belch, forth a thick pall of
smoke,
or flash, terrible sparks from their
eyes;
not only could their damage exterminate
men,
but the mere sight of them could
kill by fright.
Wisdom of
Solomon 11:18-19
Instead God used a
"multitude of irrational creatures," who
were sent in order that the
Egyptians might learn that "one
is punished by the very things
by which he sins" (11:15-16).
Summary
In the preceding survey of enemy designations within
the wisdom literature enemies
have appeared with varying
frequency in the sages'
reflections. Enemies from the
byvx-group
have a very low frequency in Proverbs moving
to a high frequency in Sirach
and the Wisdom of Solomon.
This movement from lower to
higher frequency of the byvx-
group is contradicted only by
Qoheleth.
Various factors are certainly responsible for this
situation. Within Proverbs the
low frequency of the enemies
probably reflects the relative
stability of the sages'
social status. Their social
world was, of course, not
immune to distortions and
upheavals, especially where a
particular individual was
concerned, but the circles of the
wise apparently lived in the
confidence that their social
group had been and would
continue to be enduring in spite
of the vagaries of social
change. Threats to their well-
being were not posed primarily
by enemies. Even if enemies
122
were to get the upper hand,
they would then need the kinds
of discreet, dependable and
perceptive folk which wisdom
produced.
In Job the enemies have a higher frequency because of
the lament form which the
writer used so extensively. Com-
plaint about enemies was a
well-known motif in
laments, and Job is portrayed
as a lamenting but innocent
sufferer. When the lament is
used as extensively as in Job,
mention of enemies can scarcely
be avoided. The striking
thing about the enemies in this
book is the peculiar
semantic contradiction which
emerges. Only once is God
named as the enemy. Job,
however, is throughout presented
as the lamenting victim and the reckoned enemy.
The high frequency of the enemies in Sirach and the
Wisdom of Solomon is to be
attributed to their respective
social settings. Sirach lived
and wrote in
the Hellenistic period. He
observed the shifting political
domination of first Ptolemaic
Egypt and later Seleucid Syria
over
Jews were constantly fragmented
into various groups. The
range of factions was capable
of seemingly infinite variety.
Sirach is pre-Maccabaean and
reflects the situation prior
to the acute social upheaval
which characterized the Mac-
cabaean revolt. His setting was
much more complex than Jew
against Gentile for it was Jew
against Jew as many tried to
123
adjust and cope with the
ambiguities of the day. The
primary threat to Sirach was
neither
"nominal" (or
apostate) Jews, who Sirach thought would bring
about the demise of Judaism and
Jewishness through
thoroughgoing Hellenization. He
found himself in the
uncomfortable position of
having to view some among his own
people as enemies.
Living much later in
Wisdom of Solomon consistently
identifies his enemies as the
Egyptians. No doubt there were
divisions within the Jewish
community itself, but the far
more obvious cleavage was
between Jew and
(idol-worshipping) Gentiles. This is why
the single appearance of allotrioj within a hostile con-
text in Wisdom portrays him as
the victim of enmity rather
than its perpetrator. The
writer was himself one of the
allotrioi in
the sage was the native and the
"stranger" might be the
enemy. Only in Wisdom does the
opposite perspective appear
in which the sage is the
intruder and the enemy is the
native.
The almost complete silence concerning enemies on
Qoheleth's part is much more
difficult to explain. His
occasional notices of enemy
figures (fwr and qwvf)
are precisely that: notices.
Such figures pose no par-
ticular threat to Qoheleth's
own life. All other wisdom
124
writers reveal more or less
anxiety over the danger posed by
traditional enemy figures.
Indeed, one concern of the
mashal
tradition was to limit one's vulnerability to such
people.295
It appears that Qoheleth has completely suc-
ceeded in limiting his
vulnerability to such people where
others had achieved only a
modicum of success. For all his
observations of the distortions
of human beings Qoheleth
remains strangely
dispassionate. He was finally invulner-
able to anything or anyone
human. "Enemies" simply were
not "under the
heavens" of his world. This social invul-
nerability on Qoheleth's part,
however, laid him open to
vulnerability from other
factors: time, toil, vanity and
the structure of life itself.
It seems doubtful that any
particular social setting,
stable or otherwise, is the
necessary or even probable
context of such a vulnerability.
In addition to the growing frequency of enemies from
Proverbs through the Wisdom of
Solomon, with the exception
of Qoheleth, another shift may
be noticed. There is an
increasing blurring of the
distinctions between the various
categories of enemy figures.
Within Proverbs the five
groups of enemy designations
were quite distinct. By the
time Sirach and the Wisdom of
Solomon appeared, however,
the designations from the various
groups appear side by
295 Prov. 16:7; 25:7c-10; 26:24-26.
125
side and may be virtually
equated with one another. A
friend or family member may be
an enemy (byvx = exqroj)
and wicked (fwr=asebhj). The lines between simple
hostility and religio-moral
opposition are hazy or
irrelevant.
Along with the blurring of enemy categories an emerging
equivalence between the wicked
and the fool was observed.
In Proverbs the wicked are not
identified with any sort of
fool. Elihu hints at their
equivalence by wishing that Job
be indicted "like wicked
men" because he spoke "without
understanding." With
Sirach and Wisdom the identity between
wicked and fool is completed in
explicit statements and by
parallelism of wicked and fool.
This identity of wicked and fool in Sirach is a conse-
quence of the view that wisdom
is to be found pre-eminently
in Torah. Whoever disobeyed.
Torah had long been wicked.
The fool was one who spurned
(the sages') instruction. With
the doctrine that wisdom,
counsel and instruction was in
Torah it became self-evident
that the fool was wicked and
the wicked was a fool.
In Wisdom of Solomon the identity of wicked and fool
hinges upon the old, but now
greatly expanded, conviction
that creation itself provides
(divine) instruction in wisdom
and righteousness. Hence, the
fool was one who ignored the
lessons of the world and its
history and, therefore, one who
126
also ignored the Creator of the
instructive cosmos.
Idolatry was the height of
folly for it signified a con-
fusion between creation and
Creator. Whoever was an
idolater was easily identified
as a fool.
Perhaps the most surprising factor in this connection
is the non-identity between the
opponents of the wicked,
the righteous, and the wise. It
would seem an easy step to
equate the wise with the
righteous once the equivalence of
wicked and fool had been
established. There are, however,
only a handful of occasions
where a move toward such an
equivalence may be observed.
While the correspondence
between wicked and fool grew
quite strong, a correspondence
between righteous and wise was
only occasional and tenuous.
Chapter 3
DERIVATIVE ENEMIES IN WISDOM
LITERATURE
The previous chapter focused attention on enemy
designations encountered within
wisdom literature. These
were gleaned by sifting through
the various designations of
enemies found in the individual
laments and thanksgiving
songs of the Psalter. This
chapter turns its attention to
a discussion of folk in wisdom
literature who are described
as acting as enemies act in the
Psalms. In this study,
people so described, who do not
appear as enemies in the
Psalter, have been called
"derivative enemies."
These are located by examining the many activities
alleged against enemies which,
in turn, provides a catalog
of enemy behavior. The next
step in the investigation is
to note any of these activities
which also appear in wisdom
literature1 and the
characters who are alleged to behave in
such a way. Certainly this
procedure would be tautological
if carried out within the
Psalms, but within wisdom litera-
ture it is productive in two
ways.
First of all, it yields enemy designations which do not
appear in any of the individual
laments or thanksgiving
songs, but which nevertheless
fit quite intelligibly within
1 See "Appendix II:
Enemy Behavior within the Wisdom
Literature."
127
128
one of the five categories of
enemy designations suggested
and developed by Ruppert2
and used previously in this
investigation.3
These designations have about them the
ring of something quite
traditional.4 In principle, they
could be equally at home in the
Psalter. Their absence is
more likely due to the
exigencies of historical preservation
and transmission than to their
lack of propriety as enemy
vocabulary. The appearance of
these derivative, but tradi-
tional, enemy designations
within wisdom literature is a
confirmation of the categories
previously used.
Secondly, the procedure of using enemy behavior as an
indicator of the possible
mention of enemies yields desig-
nations which do not fall
comfortably into any of the
categories of traditional
enemies. It is among these
genuinely new enemies, which
would sound out of place in
the Psalter, that the wisdom
tradition's own peculiar
perception of enemies and
enmity is most likely to be found.
2 L. Ruppert, Der leidende Gerechte and seine Feinde:
Eine
Wortfelduntersuchung
(Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1973),
pp.
7-109.
3 It goes without saying,
of course, that often the folk
who
are presented acting like enemies are traditional
figures
already discussed in Chapter 2. They need no
further
discussion here.
4 Such terms, for
example, as Jdrm in Prov. 11:19;
lfylb-Mdx in 6:12 and 16:27; hlvf
frvz in
22:8;
Nb in
10:5; 17:2; 19:26 and dygn in 28:16.
129
These designations which will
not fit in any of the tradi-
tional categories are best
described as derivative and non-
traditional.5
The following discussion of derivative enemies in
wisdom literature focuses
primarily on derivative and non-
traditional enemies.
Occasionally, some of the derivative,
but traditional, enemies will
be discussed, but most of
these do not require discussion
since they present no
features which have not already
appeared in the preceding
chapter.
Proverbs
Among the five categories of traditional enemies the
fwr-group
is presented in Proverbs as acting across the
whole spectrum of enemy
behavior.6 This broad distribution
5 A complete listing of
the "Derivative, but Tradi-
tional"
and "Derivative and Non-Traditional Enemy Designa-
tions"
may be found in "Appendix III: Derivative Enemy
Designations."
6 Ruppert, pp. 110-179,
categorizes enemy behavior within
the
Psalms in two major categories ("More or Less Concrete
Terms"
and "More or Less Picturesque Terms"),the first of
which
falls into seven subgroups which he designates "Utter-
ances
of Malicious Pleasure, Scorn, Abuse and Hate"; "Terms
for
Being Overwhelming, Domineering and Striving to Destroy";
"Terms
for Perversion of Law and Oppression"; "Terms for
Scheming,
Intrigues, Slandering and False Accusation";
"Terms
for Inquisitorial Behavior"; "Presumption, Arrogance,
Temporary
or only Feared Triumph"; and "Defection from
Friends
and Kinfolk"; and the second which falls into three
subgroups
which he designates "Picturesque Words from Hunting
Terminology";
"Terminology Drawn Mainly from War"; and "From
the
Sphere of Descriptions of Wild Beasts." The present
130
of members of the fwr-group as actors in so many kinds of
enemy behavior is not
surprising since they are also the
most prominent enemy figures in
the book of Proverbs. The
other groups of traditional
enemies, including derivative,
are quite unremarkable in
Proverbs since they do not depart
from previous lines.
Among the non-traditional enemies found in Proverbs are
three distinct groups. Some of
the foolish characters of
Proverbs pose some of the same
dangers that traditional
enemies pose. A second group
who may share some dispositions
with the traditional enemies
are the righteous. The third
group of characters who may
assume an enemy stance is com-
prised of the non-human
realities Wisdom and Yahweh.
Foolish Characters as Enemies
The author expected the portrayal of various foolish
characters portrayed as enemies
within the book of Proverbs
at the outset of this
investigation. The previous chapter
revealed, however, that these
do not appear together with
the traditional designations
found in the Psalms. Only when
enemy behaviors are examined
does it appear that such.
investigation
is focused on the enemies themselves and uses
enemy
behaviors only as indicators of the possible presence
of
enemies so it has not seemed necessary to treat these
subdivisions;
they are helpful in some cases, however, to
get
a feel for how widely (or narrowly) distributed certain
enemies are.
131
characters as the simple (ytp),7 the scoffer (Cl),8 the
stupid fellow (lysk),9 the fool (lyvx),10 the sluggard
(lcf)11
and the madman (hlhltm)12
may pose the
hazard of enmity.
Wisdom cries aloud in the street;
in the markets she
raises her voice;
on the top of the walls she cries
out;
at the entrance of the
city gates she
speaks:
"How long, 0 simple ones (Mytp), will you
love being simple?
How long will scoffers (Mycl) delight in
their scoff
( )
and fools (Mylysk) hate knowledge?
Give heed to my reproof;
behold, I will pour out my thoughts
to you;
I will make my words
known to you.
Because I have called and you
refused to
listen,
have stretched out my
hand and no one
has heeded,
and you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of
my reproof,
I also will laugh (qHwx) at your calamity;
I will mock (gflx) when panic strikes
you,
when panic strikes you like a storm,
and your calamity comes
like a whirlwind,
when distress and
anguish come upon you.
7 Prov. 1:29-31 (cf. v.
22).
8 1:29-31 (cf. v. 22).
9 1:22, 29-31; 10:18, 23;
15:2, 2,0; 18:2, 7; 26:5;
cf.
Mylysk tvlw in 1:32; Mylysk tlvx in
14:8;
tvlysk twx in 9:13.
10 12:15; 14:9; 15:5; cf.
tlvx hmz in 24:9.
11 26:16.
12 26:18-19.
132
Then they will call upon me, but I
will not
answer;
they will seek me
diligently but will
not find,
me.
Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the
fear of Yahweh,
would have none of my counsel,
and despised all my
reproof,
therefore they shall eat the fruit
of their way
and be sated with their
own devices.
For the simple (Mytp) are killed by their
turning
away,
and the complacence of
fools (Mylysk)
destroys
them;
but he who listens to me will dwell
secure
and will be at ease,
without dread of evil."
Proverbs 1:20-33
This speech of personified Wisdom falls quite easily
into two parts (vv. 22-27 and
28-33) with an introduction
(vv. 20-21). Part I, construed
in second person plural, is
direct address by Wisdom to the
"simple" (Mytp).13
The
address to the simple consists
of an admonition with a
promise (v. 23),14 a
reproach (vv. 24-25) and a threat
(vv. 26-27). The only
characters who may be portrayed in
enemy terms are the
"stupid fellows" (Mylysk) who
are
said to hate (xnW) knowledge (v. 22c).
13 The Mylysk and the Mycl are construed with
third
person plural verbs in v. 22bc. The bywqm-Nyx
of
v. 24b is participial and therefore non-finite.
14 R. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job Proverbs Ruth
Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
Esther,
The Forms of Old Testament
Literature,
Vol. XII (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 55,
takes
this as a command although no imperative is used;
C.
Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1-9: Eine
Form-. and
Motivgeschichtliche unter Einbeziehung
Agyptischen
Vergleichsmater
(Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener
Verlag, 1966), p. 120, identifies it correctly
as a Mahnung.
133
Part II is introduced by the transitional particle zx
("then") and is
construed throughout in the third person.15
15 Vv. 28-32 are third
person plural constructions while
the
concluding promise of v. 33 is singular. Of the com-
mentators
who provide an outline of the speech itself, W.
Oesterley,
The Book of Proverbs with Introduction
and Notes
(
three
parts: vv. 22-23, 24-32, 33; C. Toy, Proverbs
(
two
parts: vv. 22, 23, and 24-33 (further subdivided into
24-27,
28-31, 32, 33); W. McKane, Proverbs: A
New Approach
(Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1970), pp. 273-76, does not
outline
the passage explicitly, but his de facto
outline
evidenced
by his discussion and bold type face vv. 22,
23,
24f., 26f., 28-30, 31f., 33; likewise, H. Ringgren,
Spruche (Gattingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht, 1962),
pp.
15-16, does not outline explicitly, but the discussion
and
bold type face indicate an outline: vv. 22, 23, 24-25,
2632,
33; Murphy, p. 55, and Kayatz, p. 10, outline alike
as
vv. 22, 23, 24-25, 26-28, 29-30, 31-32, 33. Only Toy
(perhaps
McKane) shows any recognition, much less its
significance,
of the shift from second to third person
between
vv. 22-27 and 28-33; his outline 13, however, not
form
critical, but is based on content as is Oesterley's
and
Ringgren's. McKane apparently notices the shift since
he
begins a new paragraph with vv. 28-30, but he is pri-
marily
concerned to note the introduction of the "fear of
Yahweh"
in v. 29, thus bolstering his thesis of a religious
reinterpretation
of old, empirical, non-religious wisdom.
Only
Kayatz and Murphy set out to do self-conscious form
critical
studies, and they ignore the shift in persons. Their only
apparent
justification for this procedure is the motifs of vv. 23-28
which
are also found in Ise. 1:15; 65:12; 66:4; Jer. 7:23-27;
11:11;
Hos. 5:6; Mic. 3:4 and Psalms 2:4; 59:9. Motifs, however,
do
not make a form. Their nearest comparison would seem to be
Mic.
3:4 which also uses the particle zx and is construed in
third
person
while v. 1 which introduces the unit is construed in second
person.
In the Micah passage, however, the shift from second to third
persons
occurs in v. 3, before zx, not afterwards as in the present
passage.
The analysis of P. Trible, "Wisdom Builds a Poem: The
Architecture
of Proverbs 1:20-33," JBL 94 (1975), 509-518, presents
a
more extensive and sophisticated analysis of this speech; her
analysis
agrees with the one above in placing a caesura
between
v. 27 and v. 28.
134
This part consists of a threat
(v. 28), a reproach (vv. 29-
30), an announcement of doom
together with motivation
(vv. 31-32) and a promise to
anyone who heeds Wisdom
(v. 33). The enemy behaviors
are that they "hated" (xnW)
and "despised" (Cxn), but the objects of this hostility
are knowledge and reproof (vv.
29a, 30b) rather than people.
Therefore, this animosity is
best characterized as obstinate
complacency (hvlw) as in verse 32.
The antecedent of "they" is unclear. It may be
all
three subjects of verse 22,
thus including the simple, the
scoffers and the stupid fellows,
or it may include only the
scoffers and stupid fellows who
were the only characters
construed with third person
verbs in Part I of this speech.
Of these two solutions the more
likely seems to be the
latter. Hostility is more
properly applicable in connection
with the stupid fellows and
scoffers, although it must be
admitted that the simple are
drawn into this orbit of
hostility by virtue of their
context.16
The problem of the Mytp,
according to this speech,
is not really their hostile
attitude but rather their
16 Although the Mytp are never again
explicitly
presented
with animosity, the "son" of Prov. 5 is said to
have
hated (xnW)
and despised (Cxn) discipline and
reproof.
The most likely un-wise designation for this
"son"
would be the ytp so that hostility may become an
appropriate designation for
him.
135
vacillation (v. 32).17
In fact, their very vacillation
kills them; they are their own
worst enemies. This char-
acterization of the Mytp fits with the common explanation
that they are "young,
inexperienced, blindly gullible."18
Although the "stupid fellows" (Mylysk) are best
seen as obstinate and
complacent in this speech (and there-
fore not as enemies), they can
easily be portrayed as
enemies. In other places the Mylysk are made the sub-
ject of virtually the whole
range of enemy behavior. In
addition to the hateful
behavior described here,19 they are
also guilty of uttering slander
(10:18),20 taking no
pleasure in understanding
(18:2), but nevertheless fancying
17 M. Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology
(Roma:
Pontificum Institum Biblicum, 1963), pp. 6f., takes
hbvwm to be a derivation of bwy, "to sit,"
and
translates
"idleness." His reasons for rejecting the more
obvious
derivaton from bvw are threefold: the paral-
lelism
with hvlw the
context, and modern ignorance of
Hebrew
morphology (i.e., who says hbvwm could not
derive
from bwy
rather than bvw). The argument is
unconvincing.
18 S. Mandry, There Is No God! A Study of the Fool in
the Old Testament
Particularly in Proverbs over an Qoheleth
(Rome:
Catholic Book Agency, 1972), p. 71; cf..
J. Crenshaw,
Old Testament Wisdom: An
Introduction
(
Press,
1981), p. 81; Oesterley, pp. lxxxv-lxxxvi.
19 Cf. also 10:23 where
it is observed that wrongdoing
is
"like sport" (qvHwk) and 15:20 where the lysk
"despises"
(hzvb)
his mother.
20 Cf . 15:2 where he
"pours out folly" (tlvx fyby)
which 14:8 notes is
"deceptive" (hmrm Mylysk tlvxv).
136
themselves wise (26:5), and
their lips are a snare.21
Closer examination of the
Mylysk
reveals why they
are occasionally portrayed in
enemy terms. They can be
quite dangerous to other
people. They bring forth all of
their anger (29:11) and
recklessly throw off all restraint
(14:16). They flaunt their
folly so disgustingly as to be
reminiscent of dogs returning
to their vomit (13:16; 26:11).
They are dangerous characters
because they exalt cursing
(3:35), and their lips, being
perverse (19:1), bring strife
(18:6). Even to be a companion
of one of these fellows is
to be liable to injury (13:20)
while to hire one renders the
employer comparable to a wild
archer (26:10). The mashal
tradition urges quite
understandably, therefore,
Let a man meet a she-bear robbed of
her cubs,
rather than a fool in
his folly.
Proverbs
17:12
Quite similar to the stupid fellow (lysk) is the
fool (lyvx). Although
the lyvx appears less frequently
as the subject of potentially
dangerous behavior, he is just
as perverse as the lysk. These characters scoff at guilt
(Mwx
14:9).22
The Mwx in
this case might be taken to
21 18:7; here, however,
the enmity redounds to his own
disadvantage:
"his lips are a snare to himself (vwpn).
22 MT of 14:9a is
admittedly troublesome:
Mwx Cyly Mylyvx. To translate "guilt(-offering) scoffs
at
fools" as must be done to obtain subject-verb agreement
is
nonsense. The least violent solution seems to be that
of
R. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes:
Introduction,
137
mean the guilt-offering as it
commonly does in the Levitical
prescriptions,23 but
the more likely meaning is simply the
abstract one of guilt. Whatever
interpretation of Mwx is
chosen, it is clear that it is
certainly nothing at which
one scoffs. Even Philistines
were credited with more sense
than to do that.24
The fool is beyond the pale since he despises the
discipline of his father
(15:5), undoubtedly because his
life is upright "in his
own eyes" (12:15). While he deludes
himself that his way is
straight the sages pointedly observe
that the devising of folly is
quite simply sin (24:9). This
character is always quarreling
(20:3), and his mouth brings
disaster near (10:14). The fool
is so far beyond help that
Translation and Notes (
and
Co., Inc., 1965), p. 96, who reads “'ewil
melis”=
"A
fool mocks at." Other solutions offered include those
of
McKane, pp. 231, 475-76, who calls the verse an
"unsolved
problem"; Ringgren, p. 59, who translates MT,
"Tore vetspotten Schuld (opfer) (?)"
and comments, "Der
erste halbversist
unverstandlich"
(p. 62); Oesterley,
57-78,
who emends Mylyvx to Myhlx; and Toy,
pp.
286-87, who cites and rejects several possibilities.
The
most violent solution is proposed by Gemser, p. 50,
who
emends following the Greek oikiai paranomwn
ofeilhsousin
kaqarismon, oikiai de dikaiwn dektai,
to
read: Nvcr Mylwy
ytbv Mwx Nyly Mylyvxy ytb,
translating
"In den Zelten der Narren weilt
Schuld, aber
in den hausern der
Rechtschaffenen Wohlgefallen.”
23 Lev. 5:6, 7, 14, 19.
24 I Sam. 6:1-18.
138
one could,
Crush a fool in a mortar with a
pestle
along with crushed
grain,
yet his folly will not
depart from him.
Proverbs
27:22
Apart from the lysk and
the lyvx the only other
foolish characters who might be
considered enemies are the
sluggard (lcf) who is "wiser in his own eyes than seven
men who can answer
discreetly" (26:16). Such misguided
self-confidence could be
dangerous to others, but in the
sluggard's case it generally
proves to be a danger to
himself, not others.25
Occasionally, however, the sluggard
does irritate others,
"like vinegar to the teeth and smoke
to the eyes" (10:26). The
last foolish enemy is the prac-
tical joker who deceives his
neighbor:
Like a madman who throws firebrands,
arrows and death,
is the man who deceives his neighbor
and says, "I am
only joking!"
Proverbs
26:18-19
Righteous Characters as Enemies
In a very few instances righteous characters may assume
enemy stances. Agur prays,
Two things I ask of thee
deny them not to me
before I die:
Remove far from me falsehood and
lying;
give me neither poverty
nor riches;
feed me with the food
that is needful
for me,
25 Cf. Prov. 13:4; 15:19; 19:24; 20:4; 21:25;
24:30-34.
139
lest I be full, and deny thee,
and say, "Who is
Yahweh?"
or lest I be poor, and steal,
and profane the name of
my God.
Proverbs
30:7-9
Here the supplicant admits the possibility that he
might become an enemy. He might
deny and say, "Who is
Yahweh?" Or, he might
steal and thereby profane the name
of his God. The enemy behavior
is not yet actual, but it
is a very real prospect, one to
be avoided by divine grace.
Should the enmity become
actual, however, there is no indi-
cation that the supplicant
would still be a righteous
character, one in a sound
relationship with Yahweh. Quite
the reverse, in fact, the
potential enmity consists in
cynicism (hvhy-ym), a rupture of the sound relationship
which is evidenced by the
prayer.
There are two cases, however, where hostility is
attributed to the righteous as
righteous.
A righteous man hates falsehood,
but a wicked man acts
shamefully and
disgracefully.
Proverbs
13:5
Those who forsake the law26
prate the wicked,
but those who keep the
law26 strive
against
them.
Proverbs
28:4
26 The translation of hrvt as "law"
(Toy, pp. 496f.;
Oesterley,
pp. 249f.; cf. Scott, pp. 164, 166), "Law"
(McKane,
pp. 255, 622-23), or "instruction" (Gemser,
pp.
76f.; Ringgren, pp. 109, 112) is problematic. Either
it
refers to the hvhy trvt which is rather unusual for
Proverbs, or it refers to the MymkH trvt which is
140
It is too much to say that the righteous are outright
enemies of the wicked. In the
first instance they are
hostile toward "falsehood"
(rqw-rbd), a thing rather
than a person. In the latter
case, however, the righteous
("those who keep the
law") actively engage in strife
(vrgty)
against the wicked. This is more than an
attitude; it is a specific
hostile action against other
people. The relation between
the righteous and wicked,
however, is carefully nuanced:
the wicked are enemies
while the righteous sometimes
behave as enemies toward the
wicked.27
more
frequent. If the latter option is chosen then the
hrvt ybzvf would belong to the
category of the fool
while
the hrvt yrmvw would belong to the category of
the
wise. For Proverbs, this would be a unique correlation
between
the wicked-fool and righteous-wise. Such a corre-
lation
is not to be seen in Proverbs (see Chapter 2 above).
On
the other hand, if the hrvt ybzvf and the
hrvt yrmvw refer to those who
forsake or keep the
law
of Yahweh then they belong to the categories of the
wicked
and righteous respectively who are continually
opposed
to one another. Hence, the translation "law" is
here
preferred.
It should perhaps be noted in this
connection that this
ambiguity
of the Hebrew hrvt was surely a contributing
factor
in the development towards the identification between
Torah
and Wisdom which is seen in later wisdom such as
Sirach.
The Greek text translates here, not surprisingly,
nomon rather than paideian.
27 Prov. 29:10,
"Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blame-
less,
and the righteous seek his life" (MT) is textually
suspect,
or, if MT is in order, then wpn wqb has come
to
have the opposite of its normal meaning. Normally it
signifies
hostile behavior; here it would have to signify
solicitous
behavior. Cf. Toy, pp. 509f.; McKane, pp. 257,
637;
Scott, p. 168; Oesterley, v. 261; Gemser, p. 78;
Ringgren,
p. 111.
141
Wisdom and Yahweh as Enemies
The speech of Wisdom noted earlier (1:20-33) portrays
not only the foolish characters
as potential enemies, but
also Wisdom. In one of her
threats she announces,
I also will laugh at your calamity,
I will mock when panic
comes upon you,
when panic comes upon you like a
storm,
and your calamity comes
like a whirlwind,
when distress and
anguish come upon you.
Proverbs
1:26-27
When Wisdom threatens to laugh and mock at the coming
misfortune of the simple she
does so to get their attention
and to persuade them to hearken
to her call. Therefore,
this hostile behavior promised
in her threat should not be
regarded as simple enmity.
Still, however, it must be taken
seriously. She really does
threaten to treat those who
reject her in a very hostile
fashion. Indeed, she threatens
to treat them in a way that
would destroy all hope.
Otherwise, Wisdom claims hostile attitudes for herself
only one other time in
Proverbs. She claims to hate "pride
and arrogance and the way of
evil and perverted speech"
(8:13b). Indeed, "the fear
of Yahweh is hatred of evil"
(8:13a).28 Such language of hostility, therefore, is not
28 It has been suggested
that this line is a gloss; cf.
McKane,
p. 348; Scott, pp. 67, 72 who admit this possibility;
Oesterley,
p. 59; Toy, pp. 164f.; and Gemser, p. 36, favor
deleting
the whole verse since it is out of place here.
Nevertheless,
the verse stands uncontested in all the
ancient
versions so the "gloss" is very old. It represents
no
striking development in the wisdom tradition preserved in
Proverbs as, for example, in
3:7 and 16:6; cf. Job 28:28.
142
out of place for Wisdom, but it
is not anything like a
dominant trait of her
disposition. Her behavior towards
humanity is fundamentally one
of primeval delight (8:31).
Her ultimate threat lies not so
much in her hatred of evil,
but rather in the fact that her
appearance places one in a
life and death context
(8:36-36). Such a crisis is always
fraught with danger.
Yahweh as well assumes the hostile stance of hatred
toward the traditional enemies.
There are six things which Yahweh
hates,
seven which are an
abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed
innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to
run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out
lies,
and a man who sows
discord among brothers.
Proverbs
6:16-19
The second line of this numerical saying leads to the
inclusion oil the HVHY tbfvt sayings29 as expressions
of Yahweh's animosity. An
examination of the objects of
Yahweh's abomination reveals
that they are figures who fall
most naturally into the fwr-group of enemy figures.30
Clearly the Myfwr are in fundamental contradiction to
any healthy relationship to
Yahweh. It is also noteworthy
29 3:32; 11:1, 20; 12:22;
15:8, 9, 26; 16:5; 17:15;
20:10,
23.
30 Possible exceptions
would be the false weights and
measures
in 20:10, 23, although presumably weights and
measures don't cheat people,
people do.
143
that never do any of the
traditional foolish characters
became objects of Yahweh's
abomination.
The climactic seventh member of the numerical saying
above, however, is not a member
of the fwr-group. The
"man who saws discord
among brothers" would more likely
belong to the friends and
kinfolk group of enemies. He is
reserved to the final and most
emphatic position in this
numerical saying. Evidently, he
is the object of Yahweh's
hatred-abomination par excellence.
Proverbs 3:33-34 also presents Yahweh acting in a
dangerous fashion. He has a
curse and he scorns. The most
interesting factor in this
passage is verse 34a, "toward the
scorners he is scornful."31
The scorners (Mycl) here
are
better associated with the
traditional fwr-group
of
enemies than with the
derivative and non-traditional group
of foolish characters. The
reason for this preference is
that the other negative
characters in the context belong to
the fwr-group.32
31 On the problems of
rendering MT see McKane, pp. 215,
302;
Scott, p. 46; Oesterley, p. 28; Toy, pp. 81, 83;
Gemser,
p. 24; Ringgren, p. 23. Whatever solution is
adopted
the reciprocity of hostility between Yahweh and the
scorners
is maintained.
32 Cf. smH
wyx in v.
31a; zvln,
in 32a; fwr
in
33a. Only in v. 35 are the MymkH and the Mylysk
encountered.
The sudden appearance of the wise and the fools
in
v. 35 and the disappearance of Yahweh as the subject
raises
the suspicion that this "tag" has been placed here to
round
off the instruction (vv. 21-35) with a specifically
wisdom
sound.
144
This verse is expressive of an intrinsic reciprocity of
hostility between Yahweh and
the scorners. The reciprocity
is emphasized by the use of
cognates (Cyly Mycll ).
A similar formulation of this
reciprocity appears in
Proverbs 22:22-23.
Do not rob the poor, because he is
poor,
or crush the afflicted
at the gate;
for Yahweh will plead their cause
and despoil the life of
those who
despoil them. :wpn Mhyfbvq-tx fbqv
Such a reciprocal formulation is not limited to
Proverbs. It appears also in
the royal thanksgiving song of
Psalm 18.
With the loyal you show yourself
loyal;
with the blameless man
you show yourself
blameless;
with the pure you show yourself
pure;
and with the crooked you
show yourself
perverse.
dsHtt
dysH-Mf
:Mmtt
Mymt rbg-Mf
hrbtt
rbn-Mf
:ltptt
qwf-Mfv
Psalm
18:26-27
Based on the appearance of such a motif in both wisdom
and a piece such as Psalm 18 it
is obvious that this idea is
not a sole possession of wisdom
thought. It is unlikely that
there is some kind of
ideological borrowing by one sphere of
Israelite life from another.
Most likely, this idea of
intrinsic reciprocity in
Yahweh's relations to people is
145
simply Israelite and,
therefore, part of the common heritage
of sage and psalmist alike, as
well as any other
Isaelite.33
The perception of Yahweh as a threatening figure occurs
in one other case. According to
Proverbs 24:21-22 the
hazard posed by Yahweh (and the
king) is that of inscruta-
bility. This inscrutability of
Yahweh as a danger is
articulated only once in the
book of Proverbs.
My son, fear Yahweh and the king,
and do not involve
yourself with those
who change,
for calamity from them will arise
suddenly;
and the disaster from
the two of them--
who knows?
Proverbs
24:21-22
The notion that Yahweh could always surprise people is,
of course, a familiar thought
in the mashal tradition of
Proverbs,34 but it
is not generally portrayed as a hazard.
The king shared in this
incalculability.35 Only with the
single admonition above does
this aspect of Yahweh's action
take on a clearly threatening
tone. The danger is explicit
33 0f course, if the
provenance of the wisdom tradition
is
limited to royal circles then a case could be made for
some
kind of influence in one direction or the other. It
seems
unlikely, however, that one would ever connect Psalm
18
with any kind of wisdom while, on the other hand, there
is
no trace of any royal concerns to be found in the
instruction
comprising Prov. 3:21-35,
34 Cf. Prov. 16:1, 2, 9;
19:14, 21; 20:24; 21:30-31.
35 21:1.
146
with the mention of calamity
and disaster, but the final
rhetorical question (fdvy-ym) heightens the danger
precisely by leaving open the
content and scope of the
disaster. Unknown, but
potentially real, attacks are far
more threat ning than known
distress.
Job
Within the book of Job members of the byvx-group of
enemies do of appear as
subjects of enemy behavior. Several
times the traditional Myfwr36 and the JnH37 appear.38
In addition, some derivative,
but nevertheless traditional,
enemies are encountered who fit
most comfortably in the
fwr-group
of enemies.39 Only
derivative, but tradi-
tional, enemies from the
neutral and animal groups appear.40
The traditional enemy category of friends and kinfolk
is much more extensive and
significant in the book of Job.
36 Job 5:25-26, 31 (cf.
v. 20); 18:7-10 (cf. v. 5);
20:12,
19, 24 (cf. vv. 5, 29); 21:14-15 (cf. v. 7).
37 8:13. 15:35; 20:12,
19, 24 (cf. vv. 5, 29); 34:30.
38 The only other
non-derivative member of the fwr-
group
to appear in this connection are the Nvx-ytm in
22:17
(cf. v. 15).
39 These include the Nvx-ywrvH and lmf-yfrvz
in
4:8; the lx-yHkvw in 8:13; the dHvw-ylhx
in
15:35 (cf. v. 34); and the Hcvr in 24:14.
40 The Myrybk of 34:27 (cf. v. 24)
are ambiguous
figures
akin to the rw, dygn, jlm, etc. seen in
Proverbs;
the new animal enemy is the "tongue of an
hfpx"
n 20:16.
147
That Job's friends Eliphaz,
Bildad, and Zophar are enemy-
friends has already been
noticed in the previous chapter.
Job charges them with mocking,
tormenting and shattering him
with words, and triumphing over
him.41 They are further
charged with scheming to work
violence against him (21:27).
Once he claims they "would
even cast lots over the father-
less, and bargain over [their]
friend" (6:26).
The most damning indictments against the friends fall
in the realm, of their
oppression and perversion of law. Job
accuses them of
"whitewashing with lies" (13:4). He asks
rhetorically how long they
intend to speak falsely and
deceptively for God (13:7). He
calls them "comforters of
trouble" (16:2) and
postulates that they would use his
reproach as a basis to
cross-examine him (19:5). The
indictments of the friends for
perversion of law come,
however, not only from Job. The
narrator summarizes their
speeches with the note that not
only had they failed to find
any answer to Job, they had
gone on to condemn (vfywry)
God.42 The final
verdict is reserved to Yahweh who says
41 19:2, 5; 21:3.
42 32:3 MT reads bvyx-tx
vfywry, but
bvyx
is
a
tiqqune sopherim for Myhlxh. Cf. R. Gordis, The Book
of Job: Commentary New Translation and Special
Studies
(New
York: Jewish .eological Seminary of America, 1978),
PP.
360, 366f.; M. Pope, Job: Introduction,
Translation
and Notes (3rd ed., Garden City,
Co.,
1977), pp. 240, 242; G. Holscher, Das Buch Hiob
(Tlabingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1937), p. 76; G. Fohrer, Das Buch
148
twice in the epilogue,
"You have not spoken truth to me as
my servant Job" (42:7bb=8bb).
Apart from the friends who are traditional enemy
figures there are some
derivative figures which occur in
connection with enemy behavior.
In the prologue Job offers
sacrifices on behalf of his
sons who, he fears, may have
"sinned and cursed God in
their hearts" (1:5). Also in the
prologue is introduced Job's
wife who urges him to "Curse
God and die" (2:9).
One final group of folk may well belong (derivatively)
to the category of friends and
kinfolk who become enemies.
They appear in the context of
Job's final soliloquy: the
community who used to give Job
unquestioning respect.
They listened to me, and waited,
and kept silence for my
counsel.
After spoke they did not speak
again,
my word dropped upon
them.
They waited for me as for the rain;
they opened their mouths
as for
the spring
rain.
I smiled on them when they had no
confidence;
the light of my
countenance they did
not cast
down.
I chose their way, and sat as chief,
and I dwelt like a king
among his troops,
like one who comforts
mourners.
Job
29:21-25
Hiob (Gutersloh: Verlagshaus
Gerd Mohn, 1963), p. 446;
E.
Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job,
trans. by H.
Knight
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), pp. 473, 474; reading
MT
as it stands are N. Tur-Sinai, The Book
of Job: A New
Commentary
457f.;
and H. Rowley, Job (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1980),
p. 208.
149
Such folk Job must have counted
as friends. With
chapter 30, however, they are
described as laughing at him
(30:1) and finally,
They abhor me, they keep aloof from
me;
they
do not hesitate to spit at the
sight of me.
Because God has loosed my cord and
humbled me,
they have cast off
restraint in my presence.
On my right hand the rabble rise,
they drive me forth,
they cast up against me
their ways of
destruction.
They break up my path,
they promote my
calamity;
no one restrains them,
As through a wide breach they come;
amid the crash they roll
on.
Terrors are turned upon me;
my honor is pursued as
by the wind,
and my prosperity has
passed away like
a cloud.
Job
30:10-15
The passage provides a good example of the movement
from respectful neighborliness
(29:21-25)43 to outright
hostility, With the movement to
the present hostility
(htfv, 30:1,
9) Job impugns the pedigree of these
"respectful
neighbors." They are youngsters whose fathers
43 The neighbors are
simply referred to with third
masculine
plural verbs and suffixes throughout the passage;
the
antecedent is ambiguous. It would seem reasonable to
conclude,
however, that "they" must include at least the
Myrfn and Mywywy of 29:8, the Myrw of 29:9 and
the
Mydygn of 29:10. These figures would agree quite
well
with the imagery of chief, king and troops of 29:25a.
The
mourner-comforter image of 29:25b may reflect the
afflicted
members of the community mentioned in 29:12-13,
15-16: ynf, Mvty, dbvx, hnmlx, rvf, Hsp,
and
Mynvybx.
150
he would not have chosen to put
with his sheep dogs (30:1).
They are "senseless"
(lbn-ynb) and amount to
"nobodies" (Mw-ylb ynb, 30:8), nothing but
"rabble" (HHrp, 30:12).
The remaining subjects of enemy behavior are all
derivative and non-traditional.
These include the
foreigners, the Sabeans and
Chaldean (1:15, 17). Eliphaz
speaks of the *wise" (MymkH) and the "wily" (Mylptn)
from whose hand God delivers
the needy (5:13, 15 ).44 More
significantly, the righteous
occur as derivative enemies as
well as Satan and Yahweh. One
final figure is rather vague,
but may be designated the
"enemy behind the enemy."
Righteous Characters as Enemies
Eliphaz gives voice to the traditional dogma that God
punishes the wicked (22:16) and
follows by noting that
the righteous see it and are glad;
the innocent laugh them
to scorn.
Job
22:19
The notion that the righteous
as righteous engage in
behavior which is
characteristic of enemies is expressed
44 The negative and
absolute use of MymkH here is
remarkable
in the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible.
The
negative MkH
is otherwise for the wisdom tradition
always
the vynyfb MkH as in Prov. 3:7; 26:5, 12, 16;
28:11,
but never simply the MkH. The
reason for this
striking
phenomenon is likely to be the employment of the
doxology
of Job 5:9-13; form has evidently overruled the
stereotypical
wisdom usage of MkH.
151
only this time in the book of
Job. The character of Job
himself, however, is frequently
accused of enemy behavior.
Job is, of course, to be viewed
as a (or, the) righteous
character.45
Job’s wife urges him to "Curse God,"46
which would
indeed be enemy behavior, but
her very exhortation implies
that he is not guilty of such
behavior. Otherwise, it is
only Job who is left to deny
that he has acted like an
enemy. He denies that he would
shake his head at his three
friends (16:4), nor would he
speak falsehood or mutter
deceit (27:4). In his negative
confession of chapter 31
he denies many actions which
are commonly ascribed to
enemies. He denies walking with
vanity and hurrying toward
deceit, destroying the eyes of
a widow by failing to sup-
port her, and rejoicing or
being triumphantly excited over
45 See the
characterizations of Job as Mt
frm rsv Myhlx xryv rwyv in 1:1, 8; 3; he is Mt
in
2:9 according to his wife while in 2:10 the narrator
notes
that he did not xFH with his lips. Finally, Yahweh
claims
Job as his servant (ydbf) who speaks truth
(hnvkn) concerning him in
42:7, 8.
46 The Hebrew verb used
by Job's wife here, as well as
by
Job in 1:5 and Satan in 1:11 and 2:5 is jrb which is
customarily
translated "bless." In these cases, however,
it
must be used "with the antithetical meaning curse" (BDB,
p.
139), or "used euphemistically for rrx, ll.eqi" (KBL,
p.
154). If the verb can only be translated "bless" then
Job's
sacrifices on behalf of his children are silly, and
Satan's
accusation loses its force. This usage of jrb
is
not limited to Job, for Naboth is stoned for having
(allegedly)
cursed (jrb)
God and the king (I Kgs. 21:10,
13).
Cf. Psalm 10:3.
152
an enemy's misfortune. He never
even asks for the life of
his enemy with a curse.47
Job stands alone in his explicit denials of enemy
behavior, but those who accuse
him of enmity have plenty of
company. Indeed, every
significant character in the book
accuses Job of actions which
are characteristic of enemies.
Not surprisingly, it is the
friends who accuse Job most
frequently of such de facto
enemy status.48 The most
scathing and extensive of these
indictments is voiced by
Eliphaz in Job 22 who begins
with a series of rhetorical
questions which demand a
negative response (vv. 1-5a). He
then proceeds with a list of
specific offenses.
There is no end to your
iniquities
For you have exacted pledges of your
brothers
for nothing,
and stripped the naked
of their clothing.
You have given no water to the weary
to drink,
and you have withheld
bread from the
hungry.
The man with power possessed the
land,
and the favored man
dwelt in it.
You have sent widows away empty,
and the arms of the
fatherless were
crushed.
Job
22:5b-9
This leads to a description of the sentence with
"therefore" (Nk-lf, vv. 10-11) followed by another
rhetorical question. and
response (v. 12). Then Eliphaz
47 31:5, 16-18, 29-30.
48 Eliphaz in 15:16 and
22:5-9, 13-15; Bildad in 18:4;
Zophar in 11:3, 14; and Elihu
in 35:16.
153
resumes his indictment by
quoting Job's impious talk and
questioning his intention for
future behavior.
Therefore you say, "What does
God know?
Can he judge through the
deep darkness?
Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he
does not
see,
and he walks on the
vault of heaven."
Will you keep to the old way
which wicked men have
trod?
Job
22:13-15
Eliphaz closes by describing the fate of the wicked men
whose old way Job is presently
walking and the exultant
victory of the righteous (vv.
16-20). After this extensive
indictment and sentence Eliphaz
urges Job to be at peace
with God (vv. 21-22) and tries
to motivate the instruction
with a series of promises (vv.
23-30).
Enemy behavior is also charged against Job in the
prologue when Satan asks,
"Is it without cause that Job
fears God?" (1:9).
Likewise, the narrator once char-
acterizes Job with what may be
considered an enemy dispo-
sition. The statement is made that "he was
righteous in
his own eyes" (32:1).49
49 MT vynyfb, "in his
eyes"; Greek, however, reads
enantion autwn which reflects a Hebrew
text reading
Mhynyfb "in their eyes." MT is to be
preferred. It
should
perhaps be observed that the Hebrew is also suscep-
tible
to the interpretation that Job was righteous "in his
(i.e.,
Yahweh's) eyes." Such an interpretation would
cohere
well with the narrator's other characterizations of
Job,
always as a righteous person (cf. n. 45 above).
Weighing
against such an understanding is the frequent
Hebrew
usage of vynyfb
to mean "in his own eyes" as in
Psalms
17:14; 36:3 and Prov. 12:15; 16:2; 21:2; 26:5, 12,
16; 28:11; 30:12.
154
The accusations which assail Job from his very own
person, however, are more
troubling than those which come
from his, friends, and
certainly more than Satan's or the
narrator's (of which Job knows
nothing at all).
Though I am innocent, my own mouth
would
condemn me;
though I am blameless,
he would prove
me perverse.
Job
9:2050
Surely now God has worn me out;
he has made desolate all
my company.
And he has shriveled me up,
which is a witness
against me;
and my leanness has risen up against
me,
it testifies to my face.
Job
16:7-851
50 Cf. Eliphaz's
statement in Job 15:6.
51 MT is problematic,
reading:
:ytidAfE-lKA
TAOm.wihE ynixAl;h, hTAfa-j`xa
:hn,fEya
ynaPAB; ywiHEka yBi MqAy.Ava hyahA
dfel; yniFem;q;Tiva
The
problem is twofold: (i) change from third person
to
second person and finally back to third person is con-
fusing,
and (b) the length of lines seems defective.
Several
emendations have been suggested, including reading
ynFmqtv with v. 7 as a third feminine singular
with
ytdf as subject; repainting tOm.wiha and construing it
as
the subject of ynxlh; reading ytfr for ytdf;
and
(after moving ynFmqtv to v. 7) moving the athnah
of
v. 8 to yb producing
balanced lines. Cf. Dhorme, pp.
231-32; Pope, pp. 121, 123; Tar-Sinai, pp. 262-65;
Holscher,
p.
38; Fohrer, p. 278. All the suggested emendations have
in
common the result of removing the shift in person in
favor
of third person constructions. Gordis, p. 175, makes
no
changes in MT but argues, "The change from second to
third
person is frequent and virtually normal in biblical
Hebrew.
. . . The difficulties that scholars have found with
the
stichometry of vv. 7 and 8, on the basis of which the
text
has been emended, are not decisive." Therefore, his
translation
(p. 170) reads:
Now he has left me helpless;
He has laid waste my
whole company.
He has shriveled me up--
155
This last saying, however, indicates the true nature of
Job's perception of his
self-incrimination. This leanness
which rises up against him is a
consequence of the attacks
which God has already
initiated. This intolerable state of
affairs is due to Yahweh's
having constituted the situation
in such a way that Job can only
incriminate himself--even
though he is innocent and
blameless (9:20). Indeed, God has
madel him an enemy of himself.52
Yahweh finally comes forward, in the introduction to
his second speech, with his own
accusation. He asks Job,
Will you even frustrate my justice?
Will you condemn me (ynfywrt) that
you may be
righteous (qdct)?
Job
40:8
That Yahweh's accusations here are in the form of
questions might leave some ambiguity
to the charge (Will Job
do such a thing? Has he
already?), but the ambiguity is
only apparent. Yahweh has
already called him a contender
and addressed him as the one
who reproves with God (40:1).
The accusations are probably
phrased as questions then under
the influence of Job 13:22 and,
more closely, that of Job
40:7b ("I will question
you, and you will declare to me")
and in order to conform
stylistically with verse 9.
this has been the
testimony against me!
My leanness has risen up against
me--
this has been the
evidence against me!
52 Cf. 13:24 (33:10); 19:11.
156
Satan as an Enemy
Satan is something of a puzzling figure in the book of
Job since he appears only in
the narrative prologue. He is
the one who prods Yahweh to
take action against Job in order
to prove that his piety is
self-centered. In spite of this,
however, Satan is only
presented twice as the explicit sub-
ject of enemy behavior, and
even then the reference to his
enmity is somewhat oblique.
Yahweh says, "Behold, all that he has is in your
hand;
only toward him stretch not out
your hand" (1:12). Yahweh's
prohibition that Satan not
stretch out his hand toward Job
presupposes, of course, that
Satan would do just that were
it not for divine instruction
to the contrary. In chapter
2:6-7 this hostile intent on
Satan's part is made explicit
when Yahweh prohibits the
taking of Job's life, and then
Satan "went forth from the
presence of Yahweh and afflicted
Job."
Otherwise, Satan is not explicitly presented acting in
any hostile fashion toward Job,
at least not directly. It
may be that Satan is not such a
great enemy after all, but
is rather one of those more
shadowy figures who have been
designated the "enemy
behind the enemy." This possibility
will need to be discussed
later.
157
Yahweh as an Enemy
Job's response to this intolerable situation of self-
incrimination, in spite of his
innocence, is to accuse God
of acting the part of an enemy.
It should be recalled in
this connection that Job is
actually quite reticent about
designating God with explicit
enemy terms, but all such
reticence is gone when it comes
to describing Yahweh's
behavior towards him: Yahweh
acts like an enemy.
Before examining Job's charges, however, it may be well
to note that Job's friend
Bildad denies such allegations
against God by means of a
rhetorical question demanding a
negative response.
Will God pervert justice?
Or, does the Almighty
pervert
righteousness?
Job
8:3
Elihu uses the same device
(36:23) as well as making an
explicit denial.
Therefore, hear me, you men of
understanding,
far be it from God that
he should do
wickedness,
and from the Almighty
that he should do
wrong.
For according to the work of a man
he
will requite
him,
and according to his
ways he will
make it
befall him.
Of a truth, God will not do
wickedly,
and the Almighty will
not pervert justice,
Job
34:10-1253
53 In spite of these
denials by Job's interlocutors,
especially
Bildad, it must be remembered that they did
"cause
God to be wicked" according to the narrator's summary
in 32:3; cf. n. 42 above.
158
The narrator of the tale is hardly so kind in his
treatment of Yahweh. Indeed, he
explicitly alleges conduct,
of him which would be entirely
appropriate to an enemy.
Satan's exhortation to Yahweh
to "Stretch out your hand now
and touch all that he
has!" (1:11)54 does, of course, have
Yahweh for its grammatical
subject. This admonition implies
a potential enmity on Yahweh's
part for he is certainly
capable of such behavior or the
admonition would be point-
less. At the same time,
however, the implication is present
that Yahweh has not yet assumed
this role.
More explicitly, the narrator portrays Yahweh confessing
to Satan,
Have you considered my
servant Job, that
there is none like him on earth, a
blameless and
upright man, who fears God and turns
away from
evil? He still holds fast to his
integrity,
although you instigated me against
him to
destroy him without cause.
Job
2:3
Certainly it is arguable that
Satan is here presented as an
enemy, but even when that
possibility is granted Yahweh is
not thereby absolved. A
"devil made me do it" confession is
inevitably disingenuous, and
scandalously so when Yahweh
voices it. One wonders if this
is indeed the same inscru-
table, unapproachable Yahweh
found in the speeches of Job
38-41. There Yahweh is
overwhelming; here, he appears sub-
ject to the whim of Satan, one
of the sons of God.
54 Cf. 2:5.
159
These scandalous, although admittedly ambiguous,
portrayals in the prologue are
not, however, the narrator's
last word. In the epilogue he
finally makes an absolutely
clear and unambiguous
statement.
Then came to him all his brothers
and sisters and
all who had known him before, and
ate bread with
him in his house; and they showed
him sympathy
and comforted him for all the evil
that Yahweh
had brought upon him.
Job
42:11a
No longer is Satan in view. The
facts are plain to see:
Yahweh had brought evil upon
Job. Such behavior is that of
an enemy.
Turning now to Job's own allegations against Yahweh,
they fall primarily in four
speeches of Job.55 Within these
four speeches the allegations
of enemy activity on God's
part are made in third person
when addressing the friends56
and in second person when
addressing God.57 When the latter
is the case, God is accused of
condemning and going to law
against Job, of oppressing and
rejecting him while causing
the counsel of the wicked to shine,
and of hiding ulterior
55 Chapters 9-10; 12-14;
16-17 and 19. Otherwise, Job
alleges
enemy behavior on the part of God in 6:4; 30:11, 19,
21-23.
56 9:13-21; 16:7-14;
19:6, 7-12, 13; the allegation in
12:23
that God destroys nations is part of a doxology (12:
13-25)
which celebrates the wisdom and power of God, known
even
to the beasts, birds, plants and fish (12:7-12), which
Job
claims to know just as well as his friends (12:1-6).
57 10:1b-22;
13:(18)19-28; 14:1-22; the second person
allegations
of 9:28b, 31 are part of Job's address to him-
self;
cf. R. Murphy, p. 27.
160
motives while granting him life
and steadfast love--all
exceedingly duplicitous
behavior.58
In a poignant turn of expression Job complains that God
"watches all my
paths" (13:27).59 In light of his human
frailty Job maintains that it
really goes beyond the bounds
of propriety for God to pay
quite so much attention to a
human being (14:1-6).60
And yet, as terrifying as such
divine scrutiny and
watchfulness is, it is precisely this
watching which first comes to
expression in his reminiscence
of the "months of
old" (29:2). Can it be that this watching
of God's is just as duplicitous
as his gifts of life and
steadfast love?
When Job forms his allegations against God in the third
person the focus seems not to
be on the duplicity of God's
concern but rather on God's
explicit hostility toward Job.
Thus, God is portrayed as an
arbitrary tyrant who will not
come out to meet one face to
face. For this enemy it
58 Cf. 10:2, 3, 12-13;
even though the notion of hidden
motives
is not in 10:2 or 3 the problem of divine duplicity
is
still in view, for Job, with whom God contends, is the
"work
of thy hands" (v. 3). Verses 8-11 are a touching
description
of the creation of the human being (cf. Psalm
139:14-18)
59 Cf. Elihu's citation
of this complaint in Job 33:11
and
a kindred formulation in 14:16.
60 Similar thoughts are
already expressed by Job in
7:17-20.
161
appears merely that might makes
right (9:13-21).61 The
whole point of this contention
is most sharply put in Job's
conclusion.
It is all one; therefore I say,
he destroys both the
blameless and the
wicked.
When disaster brings sudden death,
he mocks at the calamity
of the innocent.
The earth is given into the hand of
the wicked;
he covers the faces of
its judges--
if it is not he, who
then is it?
Job
9:22-24
Otherwise, God is portrayed as a ruthless warrior who
sets Job up as a target, whose
archers surround him, who
breaches him and runs against
him.62 The war images are
also present when Job claims
that God has
walled up my way, so that I cannot
pass,
and he has set darkness
upon my paths.
He has stripped from me my glory,
and has taken the crown
from my head.
He breaks me down on every side, and
I am gone,
and my hope has he
pulled up like a tree.
He has kindled his wrath against me,
and counts me as his
adversary.
His troops come on together;
they have cast up
siegeworks against me,
and encamp round about
my tent.
Job
19:8-12
In addition to these war images, God is portrayed as a
hunter who has closed his net
upon Job and as a wild beast
61 The doxology of 9:4-12
focuses attention entirely
upon
God's overwhelming might.
62 16:12-14; cf. also the
"arrows of the Almighty"
(ydW-ycH) in
6:4.
162
who tears and gnashes his
teeth.63 He may even be
construed
as a common criminal from whose
attack one would cry out
(as Job claims to have done),
"Violence!" (19:7).
Job's final speech builds to a
climax in his identifi-
cation of God (ydW) as the one who is his legal adversary.
His cry for justice demands
that God come forward with his
accusations.
Oh, that I had one to hear me!
(Here is my signature!
let the Almighty
answer
me!)
Oh, that I had the
indictment written by
my adversary
(ybyr-wyx)!
Surely I would carry it on my
shoulder;
I would bind it on me as
a crown;
I would give him an account of all
my steps;
like a prince I would
approach him.
Job
31:35-37
Job's confidence in this demand
to meet his accuser can only
stem from his conviction that
he is innocent while God is
unjust. Only one who is
confident of his own innocence can
issue such a bold challenge to
an accuser.
In the Yahweh speeches, Yahweh assumes an enemy stance
in his interrogation of Job.
Gird up now your loins as a man,
I will question you am,
you shall
declare to
me.
Job
38:3(=40:7)
Yahweh is here assuming the
part of the enemy who asks of Job
things which he does not know.
Yahweh assumes the same kind
63 19:6; 16:9.
163
of character as those of whom
the psalmist complained when
he said,
Violent witnesses rise,
that which I do not know
they ask me.
Psalm
35:11
The series of humiliating questions which comprise the
cantus
firmus of the Yahweh speeches are precisely that
which Job does not know64
and cannot declare.65 Almost
in
a parody of Psalm 35:11,
Yahweh rises,
that which Job does not know, Yahweh asks
him.
"The Enemy behind the Enemy"
A very few times in the book of Job a certain ambiguity
appears surrounding precisely
who is to be rightfully viewed
as an enemy figure. Thus,
although it is entirely possible
that Job could "curse
God" (this, after all, is the point of
the heavenly wager), it is
Job's wife who urges the assump-
tion of enmity upon him. She
may therefore be viewed as
something of an enemy, although
the only explicit evidence
of her enmity lies behind the
potential enmity of Job as an
exhortation.66
64 fdy-xl
as in Psalm
35: 11.
65 fydvh as in Job 38:3=40:7.
66 On the various
judgments of Job's wife ranging from
adiutrix diaboli, assistant of Satan
(Augustine), to loyal
wife
who sells her hair to support Job in his destitution
(Testament
of Job) see Gordis, p. 21, and idem., The
Book of
God and Man:A Study of
Job, (
164
A kindred situation obtains in one place in the poetic
dialogue when it appears that
God would crush Job and cut
him off (6:9). Clearly God is
the subject of these two
enemy activities, but both of
these cases of God's enmity
stand under the cry of Job,
0 that I might have my request,
and that God would grant
my hope.
Job
6:8
Here, it is Job who stands
behind the potential enmity of
God.
Of course, Job and his wife are not particularly
troublesome in their roles as
"enemy behind the enemy" for
Job does not in fact curse God,
and God does not ultimately
cut Job off. With Satan,
however, things are somewhat
different for his "enmity
behind enmity" does bring results.
Satan urges Yahweh to stretch
out his hand against Job's
property (1:11), later against
Job's "bone and flesh" (2:5),
and certain consequences do
follow from this exhortation to
enemy behavior. Indeed, even
Yahweh admits that Satan was
capable of inciting him to
destroy Job without cause (2:3).
The most potent of these "enemies behind the
enemy" is
Yahweh. The conclusion of the
first exchange between Satan
and Yahweh presents Yahweh
giving all that Job has into the
hand of Satan while placing
immunity upon his person (1:
12a). Rather than following
this exchange with some notice
that Satan or Yahweh then acted
in some hostile fashion
165
against Job, the narrator
simply notes that, "then Satan
went out from the presence of
Yahweh" (1:12b), which is
followed by the fourfold
disasters from the Sabeans (1:13-
15), the fire of God (1:16),
the Chaldean (1:17) and the
great wind (1:18-19). Who is
responsible for these attacks,
Satan or Yahweh?
The second exchange between Satan and Yahweh is similar
to the first in that Satan once
again urges Yahweh to act as
an enemy (2:5) while Yahweh
this time gives Job into the
power of Satan, prohibiting
only the taking of his life
(2:6). Following this exchange,
however, the narrator
clarifies the problem by
relating that "then Satan went out
from the presence of Yahweh and
struck Job" (2:7).
Hence, it appears that the attacks against Job come in
fact from Satan,67
explicitly in chapter 2 and, on that
basis, implicitly in chapter 1.
Nevertheless, Yahweh is the
one who gives Job into the
power of Satan (1:12; 2:6), even
after he has called him one who
is blameless and upright,
fearing God and turning away
from evil (1:8; 2:3). Yahweh
then is the final enemy behind
all the attacks on Job. In
this conviction the Job who
speaks in the poetic dialogues
67 Of course, neither Job
nor his friends ever know
this;
they all argue that Job's misery is an attack coming
from God.
166
is in fundamental agreement
with the narrator of the
prologue and epilogue.68
Qoheleth
The most striking thing about the book of Qoheleth with
regard to enemy figures is
their relative absence. A few
traditional enemies do appear.69 When one inquires con-
cerning the subjects of enemy
behavior a few more enemy
figures do come to light as
derivative but traditional
figures. The most significant
of these derivative but
traditional enemies is quite
simply the human being, who
must, of course, belong to the
neutral group of enemy
designations.70
Qoheleth observes that it is a man's envy of his
neighbor which is the source of
toil (lmf) and skill
68 Cf. 42:11 and the
discussion above, "Yahweh as the
Enemy."
69 The fwr, xFvH and qwvf; see Chapter 2 above.
70 It should be recalled
here that L. Ruppert includes
just
such characters in his study of the Psalms, but they
were
excluded from the primary stage of this investigation
precisely
because of their ambiguity (cf. Chapter 2, n. 2).
Their
reappearance with Qoheleth as derivatives confirms
their
recognition by Ruppert as enemy designations.
Other derivative, but traditional
enemies which emerge
from
an examination of enemy behaviors are the rpvH,
Cvmg in 10:8 belonging to the fwr-group, the jlm
in
8:2ff.; 9:14; Fylw in 10:5 and hvbg in 5:7 from the
neutral
group and the dbf in 7:21 who fits in the friends
and
kinfolk category.
167
(Nvrwk) in
work (4:4). This envy is perhaps related to
the fact that although they
were made upright, many devices
have been sought out by humans
(7:29). Indeed, the "heart
of the sons of man" is
full of evil (9:3); they are fully
set to do evil (8:11).
"Man lords it over man to his hurt"
(8:9b).
The most significant non-traditional enemy figure for
Qoheleth is God.71 It is God who has given to humanity an
evil business (1:13). This
betrays a kind of perverse
caprice on God's part for
What is crooked cannot be made
straight,
and what is lacking
cannot be numbered.
Qoheleth
1:15
Consideration of God's work
later prompts Qoheleth to ask,
"Who can make straight
what he has made crooked?" (7:13).
Aside from God's making things crooked, he also makes
both good and bad days (7:14),
and it is from God that one
may have power to enjoy the
good things which fall to one's
lot (2:25).72 This
motif is expanded upon in Qoheleth
71 The only other to
appear is the lysk in 4:5, 17
(cf.
10:12, 15), but there is no important difference in
Qoheleth's
treatment of this figure from that observed in
Proverbs.
72 MT reads
ynmm; read vnmm with Scott, p. 218;
R.
Gordis, Koheleth--The Man
and His World: A Study of
Ecclesiastes (3rd aug. ed. New
1968),
pp. 152, 227; W. Zimmerli, Prediger (
Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht, 1962), p. 16.; but, A. Lauha,
Kohelet (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1978),
pp.
40, 42; and C. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs and Qoheleth,
168
5:17-6:2.
Behold, what I have seen
to be good and to
be fitting is to eat and drink and
find enjoy-
ment in all the toil with which one
toils under
the sun the few days of his life
which God has
given him, for this is his lot.
Every man also
to whom God has given wealth and
possessions
and power to enjoy them, and to
accept his lot
and find enjoyment in his toil--this
is the gift
of God. For he will not much
remember the days
of his life because God keeps him
occupied with
joy in his heart.
There is an evil which I
have seen under
the sun, and it lies heavy upon men:
a man to
whom God gives wealth, possessions,
and honor,
so that he lacks nothing of all that
he desires,
yet God does not give him power to
enjoy them,
but a stranger enjoys them; this is
vanity; it
is a sore affliction.73
Unfortunately, even with the righteous and the wise,
God's disposition towards them
is unknown. It is true that
their deeds are in the hand of
God, but "whether it is love
or hate no one knows"
(9:1). This arbitrariness in life
(for which God is ultimately
responsible) is most pointedly
articulated a few verses later.
Again I saw that under
the sun the race is
not to the swift, nor the battle to
the strong,
nor bread to the wise, nor riches to
the intel-
ligent, nor favor to the man of skill;
but time
and chance happen to them all. For
man does not
know his time. Like fish which are
caught in an
evil net, and like birds which are
caught in a
snare, so the sons of men are snared
at an evil
time when it suddenly falls upon
them.
Qoheleth
9:11-12
Vol.
II (New York: KTAV, 1970), 301, read MT as it stands.
Lauha
takes the question to be a quote of God ("Who can eat
or
enjoy apart from me?") while Ginsburg takes it to mean
"except
I" (i.e., Qoheleth).
73 See the same ideas in
8:14-15 and 9:9-10.
169
The problem with the times,74 which are indeed
fitting
for certain kinds of
activities, is that they take one
unaware. The times and eternity
are a work of God, that
which is done (under the sun),75
but they are opaque to
human perception. Qoheleth's
God, who structures the world
and life in such an inscrutable
fashion, is his greatest
enemy.
Sirach
By far the majority of traditional enemies, both
derivative and otherwise, encountered
in the book of Sirach
are quite unremarkable. They
fall within the parameters set
out earlier. Often, derivative
but traditional enemies
appear in parallelism with
non-derivative enemy designations.
Their usage in parallelism with
designations found in the
Psalms together with their
appearance as subjects of char-
acteristic enemy behavior is
confirmation that they are, in
fact, enemy designations.
74 3:1-11.
75 (wmwh
tHt) hWfn, "what is done
(under the
sun),"
is set forth as Qoheleth's topic for investigation
in
1:13. His conclusion is that it is "vanity and a
striving
after wind" (1:14). This is substantiated by the
observations
that "what is done" is unchanging (1:9), evil
(2:17;
4:3) and oppressive (4:1). "What is done under
the
sun" is the "work of God" which no one can ever find
out (8:16-17).
170
One set of derivative and traditional figures, however,
does require some brief
comment: businessmen.
A merchant can hardly keep from
wrongdoing,
and a tradesman will not
be declared
innocent
from sin.
Many have committed sin for a
trifle,
and whoever seeks to get
rich will avert
his eyes.
As a stake is driven firmly into a
fissure
between
stones
so sin is wedged in
between buying and
selling.
If a man is not steadfast and
zealous in the
fear of the
Lord,
his house will be
quickly overthrown.
Sirach
26:29-27:3 76
Sirach realizes that one need
not be ashamed of turning a
profit (42:5), but he is also
aware that those who cus-
tomarily make their living in
trade are especially liable
to various kinds of sin. The
gap between cost and profit,
buying and selling, is subject
only to the scruples of the,
merchant (and the acumen of the
customer). Such intangible
regulations of human acquisitiveness
are hardly conducive to
"fair trade."
Sirach's only suggestion for one in such a
precarious occupation is
contained in the threat that should
one not hold fast in all
seriousness to the fear of the Lord
76 It is difficult to
decide whether these characters
fit
more appropriately in the neutral group or the friends
and
kinfolk group of enemies, but the friends and kinfolk
group
seems more likely. Certainly, the lender and borrower
stand
in a neighbor relationship (Sir. 29:1). Whether the
merchant-tradesman
is a community figure or an outsider
would
determine their category. Here they are being taken
as community figures.
171
then his house (oikoj, business, trading house?) would
meet catastrophe.
Another set of derivative figures which belong to the
economic sphere are the lenders
and borrowers. This
financial relationship is
fraught with hazards. Sirach
counts lending as "showing
mercy to a neighbor" (29:1).
Yet, occasions arise when the
borrower defaults. In that
case the possibility of
needless enmity arises.
If he [the lender] exerts pressure,
he will
hardly get
back half,
and will regard that as
a windfall.
If he does not, he [the borrower]
has robbed
him of his
money,
and he [the lender] has
needlessly made
him [the
borrower] his enemy;
he [the borrower] will repay him
with curses
and
reproaches,
and instead of honor
will repay him with
dishonor.
Sirach
29:6
This enmity arising out of lending and borrowing is
tragic because it all starts
out as an exercise in doing
mercy to a neighbor. Its end,
however, is that many refuse
to lend (29:7), to do mercy to
the neighbor.77
Historical Characters as
Enemies
Gentile foes of
Philistines and Canaanites as
well as Israelites who opposed
77 The older mashal tradition of Proverbs, of course,
had
nothing good to say about lending and borrowing; cf.
Prov.
6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18; 20:16=27:13; 22:7, 26.
172
men, Ephraim and the kings of
encountered as traditional
enemies in the byvx and
fwr-groups.
When enemy behaviors are examined, however,
other figures also appear.
Joshua and David both acted as
enemies against the historical
enemies of Israel.78 There
are some within
"brought wrath" upon
his children Iso that the sovereignty
was divided" (47:20-21a),
and Elijah "brought a famine upon
[
Dispositions, Actions and
Things as Enemies
This group of derivative and non-traditional enemies
comprises realities which are
not people, but nevertheless
attack people. Some are unambiguously
negative dispositions
such as gluttony and lust from
which the sage requests God's
deliverance (23:6), just as
earlier supplicants asked
deliverance, from enemies who
were personal. Others of this
group are ambiguous; sometimes
helpful, at other times
destructive.
78 Joshua "waged the
wars of the Lord" (Sir. 46: 1-3);
David
"wiped out his enemies" (47:4-5, 7). Samuel might
be
included here, but it is much more likely that
is
the antecedent of 46:18, "and he wiped out the leaders
of the people of
173
For there is a shame which brings
sin,
and there is a shame
which is glory
and favor.
Sirach
4:21
Besides shame, another such ambiguous reality is
cleverness which could be quite
negative.
There is a cleverness which is
abominable,
but there is a fool who
merely lacks
wisdom.
There is a cleverness which is
scrupulous
but unjust,
and there are people who
distort kindness
to gain a
verdict.
Sirach
19:23, 2579
Yet, cleverness could also
characterize a wise man like
Sirach himself.
He that is inexperienced knows few
things,
but he that has traveled
acquires much
cleverness.
I have seen many things in my
travels,
and I understand more
than I can express.
Sirach
31(34):1080
Likewise, dreams are an ambiguous reality, Sirach's
predisposition is to denigrate
dreams as a reliable guide
for life.
79 Cf. 21:12.
80 Note that panourgia is used in an
exclusively
positive
sense by the Greek translator(s) of Proverbs. It
appears
in two places: "in order that he might give
cleverness
(panourgian) to the simple," Prov. 1:4a LXX;
"Perceive,
0 simple ones, cleverness (panourgian)!"
Pray.
8:5a LXX. Surely, Sirach's translator-grandson was
aware
of this usage of those responsible for rendering
"(the
law itself, the prophecies) and the rest of the
books"
(Sir. prologue, 24-25).
174
For dreams have deceived many,
and those who have put
their hope in
them have
failed.
Sirach 31(34):781
He must concede, however, the
outside possibility that they
may be sent from the Most High.
Unless such be the case,
he urges against placing any
confidence in them.82
Gold and wine are two tangible things which may destroy
people.
He who loves gold will not be
justified,
and he who pursues money
will be led
astray by
it.
Many have come to ruin because of
gold,
and their destruction
has met them
face to
face.
It is a stumbling block to those who
are
devoted to
it,
and every fool will be
taken captive
by it.
Blessed is the rich man who is found
blameless,
and who does not go
after gold.
Who is he? And we will call, him
blessed,
for he has done
wonderful things among
his people.
Who has been tested by it and been
found
perfect?
Let it be for him a
ground for boasting.
Who has had the power to transgress
and did
not transgress,
and to do evil and did
not do it?
His prosperity will be established,
and the assembly will
relate his acts of
charity.
Sirach
34(31):5-11
81 Vv. 1-5 and 8 also
portray dreams in a negative
manner.
82
31(34): 6, ean mh para
uyistou apostal^ en
episkop^ mh dwj eij auta thn kardian
sou.
175
Wine and women lead intelligent men
astray,
and the man who consorts
with harlots is
very
reckless.
Sirach
19:283
These two may also be good
things in human life. Especially
in the case of wine, Sirach
affirms its goodness by using it
as a metaphor for a friend
(9:10).84 Its ambiguity is
expansively articulated in
Sirach 34(31):25-30.
Do not aim to be valiant over wine,
for wine has destroyed
many.
Fire and water prove the temper of
steel,
so wine tests hearts in
the strife of
the proud.
Wine is like life to men,
if you drink it in
moderation.
What is life to a man who is without
wine?
It has been created to
make men glad.
Wine drunk in season and temperately
is rejoicing of heart
and gladness of soul.
Wine drunk to excess is bitterness
of soul,
with provocation and
stumbling.
Drunkenness increases the anger of a
fool to
his injury,
reducing his strength
and adding wounds.
Both wine and gold are treated as penultimate goods.
This is seen most clearly when
they are compared to some-
thing which is unambiguously
good.
Wine and music gladden the heart,
but the love of wisdom
is better than both.
Gold and silver make the foot stand
sure,
but good counsel is
esteemed more than both.
Sirach
40:20, 2585
83 Cf. also 8:2; 9:9.
84 Other metaphorical
uses of wine may be seen at
35(32):5,
6 and 49:1.
85 Cf. also 7:18, 19; 30:15; 41:12.
176
Finally, among these non-personal realities is one
which is certainly a good thing
to do and which also acts
in a warlike fashion,
almsgiving.
Store up almsgiving in your
treasury,
and it will rescue you
from all affliction;
more than a mighty shield and more
than a
heavy spear,
it will fight on your
behalf against your
enemy.
Sirach
29:12-13
Fools and Sages as Enemies
Various kinds of fools have already been revealed as
derivative enemies in Proverbs
while even earlier in this
investigation Sirach's
identification of the "hateful man"
(mishtoj
anqrwpoj)
with the "fool" (afrwn) was
encountered.86 It is, therefore, scarcely surprising to
find various terms for fools
appearing as subjects of enemy
behavior.87 The most instructive of these appearances
shows
that although the fool is
familiar with doxological tradi-
tions of scripture, he draws
faulty conclusions from them.
Do not say, "I shall be hidden
from the Lord,
and who from on high
will remember me?
Among so many people I shall not be
known,
for what is my soul in
the boundless
creation?
Behold, heaven and the highest
heaven,
the abyss and the earth,
will tremble at
his visitation.
86 12:14-15.
87 Mwroj
in 18:18;
20:16; cf. 27:13; tolmhroj in 8:5;
elattoumenoj kardi%, afrwn and planwmenoj in 16:23;
cf.
also upolhmyij in 3:24.
177
The mountains also and the
foundations of
the earth
shake with trembling when
he looks upon
them.
And no mind will reflect on this.
Who will ponder his
ways?
Like a tempest which no man can see,
so most of his works are
concealed.
Who will announce his acts of
justice?
Or who will await them?
For the covenant
is far
off."
This is what one devoid of
understanding
thinks;
a senseless and
misguided man thinks
foolishly.
Sirach
16:17-2388
This fool is very orthodox in his praise, but he under-
stands God's overwhelming
transcendence to mean that someone
as unimportant as himself will
somehow be overlooked by this
mighty sovereign. Or, he is a
complete sceptic who merely
parodies praise but believes
not a word.
88 I. Levi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of
Ecclesiasticus
(Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1904), p. 26, suggests several paral-
lels
with Hebrew scriptures. The most obvious and convincing
is
v. 18a (Hebrew, 16a) idou o ouranoj kai o ouranoj tou
ouranou=Mymwh ymwv
Mymwh ymwv Mymwh [jyhlx
hvhyl] Nh
and
I
Kgs. 8:27 Mymwh ymwv Mymwh hnh, the Greek
text
in both passages is a very straightforward translation.
The
remainder of Levi's suggestions are otherwise more in
the
nature of reminiscences of this doxology than real
parallels.
Cf. Sir. 16:19a(17a) with Jonah 2:7 and 19b(17b)
with
Psalm 104:32 and Nah. 1:5. After Sirach 16:19(17) the
Hebrew
text differs from the Greek, reading: "Indeed he
shall
not consider me; and my ways, who will understand?
If
I sin no eye shall see me, or if I lie in all secret who
will
know? (What) is the work of righteousness? Who will
declare
it? And hope of What? For I observe a decree."
(:vnvbty
ym ykrdbv bl Mywy xl ylf MG
lkb bzkx Mx vx Nyf ynxrt xl ytxFH Mx
vndygy ym qdc hWfm [hm] fdvy
ym rts
:qvH qvcx yk hm tvqtv)
178
In spite of the fact that fools often pose the hazards
of enmity, a God-fearing man
who lacks intelligence is pre-
ferable to a highly prudent man
who transgresses the law
(19:24), because a sage may
play the role of an enemy.
Certainly this is the case of a
counselor who counsels in
his own interest (37:7-9). That
the sage may be an enemy
is clearest, however, when
Sirach's own era is the
subject of the enemy behavior.
Whoever winks his eye plans evil
deeds,
and no one can keep him
from them.
In your presence his mouth is all
sweetness,
and he admires your
words;
but later he will twist his speech
and with your own words
he will give
offense.
I have hated many things, but none
to be
compared to
him;
even the Lord will hate
him.
Sirach
27:22-24
This enmity of the sage against one who winks his eye
is not surprising, nor does it
present any threat to the
sage. The ego-enemy which
Sirach fears most is not that of
himself versus another, but
rather that of himself versus
himself. Fears of his own
self-enmity are articulated only
in prayer.
O that a guard were set over my
mouth,
and a seal of prudence
upon my lips,
that it may keep me from falling,
so that my tongue may
not destroy me!
O Lord, Father and Ruler of my life,
do not abandon me to
their counsel,
and let me not fall
because of them!
O that whips were set over my
thoughts,
and the discipline of wisdom over my mind!
179
That they may not spare me in my
errors,
and that it may not pass
by my sins;
in order that my mistakes may not be
multiplied,
and my sins may not
abound;
then I will not fall before my
adversaries,
and my enemy will not
rejoice over me.
0 Lord, Father and God of my life,
do not give me haughty
eyes,
and remove from me evil
desire.
Let neither gluttony nor lust
overcome me,
and do not surrender me
to a shameless
soul.
Sirach
22:27-23:6
This prayer is modeled after the individual laments of
the Psalter. The interesting
thing to notice is that the
customary role of the enemies
has been usurped by parts and
actions of Sirach himself.89 Traditional enemies90 are seen
in one verse, but Sirach is
confident that if God will only
deliver him from himself the
external foes will present
little danger.
Wisdom and the Lord as Enemies
The Lord assumed an enemy stance in earlier wisdom
literature, and also does so in
Sirach. For Sirach, however,
this divine enmity is neither
inscrutable (as it was already
for Proverbs), nor criminal and
unjust (as for Job), nor
productive of the malaise which
beset Qoheleth. By
89 Mouth, lips and tongue
in 22:27; thoughts, mind,
errors
and sins in 23:2; mistakes and sins in 23:3; eyes in
23:4;
evil desire in 23:5; and gluttony, lust and shameless
soul
in 23:6.
90 Upenantiwn and exqroj in 23:3.
180
comparison, Sirach's God is
tame and predictable. In a
quite orthodox fashion
the Most High also hates sinners
and will inflict
punishment on the
ungodly.
Sirach
12:1091
Moreover, the Lord God is
pro-righteous. He will fight for
one who agonizes unto death on
account of truth (4:28).92
Sirach's orthodoxy enables him to pray very sincerely
for God to "Have mercy
upon us”93 while the obverse side of
that prayer is that God act as
an, enemy toward the (obvi-
ously wicked) foreign nations
who are
central section of the prayer
urges this divine enmity most
comprehensively.
Rouse thy anger and pour out thy
wrath;
destroy the adversary
and wipe out the
enemy.
Hasten the day, and remember the
appointed
time,
and let people recount
thy mighty deeds.
Let him who survives be consumed in
the fiery
wrath,
and may those who harm
thy people meet
destruction.
Crush the heads of the rulers of the
enemy,
who say, "There is
no one but ourselves."
Sirach
33(36):7-10
91 Also Sir. 1:30; 3:16;
5:3, 6; 10:13; 26:28; 27:24;
32(35):18-20.
92 Cf. also 4:5-6.
93 33(36):1; the prayer
continues through v. 17. V. 12
makes clear that the
"us" of v. 1 is
181
This orthodoxy is so taken for granted that Sirach can
move easily from using God's
wrath as a motive for caution
with respect to vows to the
mundane phenomena of plenty and
hunger, wealth and poverty and
other changing conditions.
Before making a vow, prepare
yourself:
and do not be like a man
who tempts the
Lord.
Think of his wrath on the day of
deaths
and of the moment of
vengeance when he
turns away
his face.
In the time of plenty think of the
time of
hunger;
in the days of wealth
think of poverty
and need.
From morning to evening conditions
change,
and all things move
swiftly before the
Lord.
Sirach
18:23-26
The difference for Sirach compared with earlier wisdom
literature is not in his
knowledge of God's potential
enmity, but rather in the
sources of his knowledge. Earlier
wisdom thinkers had gleaned
their knowledge of God's
hazardous activities from
observation and experience. As
the admonition in Sirach 2:10
probably indicates, Sirach also
gained knowledge by reflection
upon the experiences mediated
through his cultural heritage.
Consider the ancient generations and
see:
who ever trusted in the
Lord and was
put to
shame?
Or who ever persevered in the fear
of the
Lord and was
forsaken?
Or who ever called upon
him and was
overlooked?94
94 Eliphaz had the same
fundamental insight (Job 4:7) as
did the (wise) psalmist (Psalm
37:25),
182
Sirach's experiences, observations and reflections,
however, are shaped by a new
factor. He is a man of the
book(s), devoted to the study
of the scriptures.95 His
knowledge of God's enmity,
against the wicked and on behalf
of the righteous, is grounded
in two complexes of Jewish
writings: praise and historical
narrative.
The Lord has cast down the thrones
of rulers
and has seated the lowly
in their place.96
The Lord has plucked up the roots of
the
nations,
and has planted the
humble in their place.
The Lord has overthrown the lands of
nations,
and has destroyed them
to the foundations
of the
earth.''
He has removed some of them and
destroyed them,
and has extinguished the
memory of them
from the
earth.
Sirach
10:14-1798
In an assembly of sinners a fire
will be
kindled,
and in a disobedient
nation wrath was
kindled.
He was not propitiated for the ancient
giants
who revolted in their
might.99
He did not spare the neighbors of
whom he loathed on
account of their
insolence.100
95 See his own
characterization of the sage in Sir.
39:1-11.
96 Cf. I Sam. 2:7-8.
97 Cf. Psalm 44:2.
98 Note also 36(33):12
which appears to be grounded in
the
same kind of hymnic tradition as well as the formula
o tapeinwn kai anuywn (=lypwmv
Myrm, Levi,
p. 9).
99 Cf. Gn. 6:4.
100 Cf. Gn. 19:14; Ezek.
16:49.
183
He showed no pity for a nation
devoted to
destruction,
for those destroyed in
their sins;101
nor for the six hundred thousand men
on foot,
who rebelliously
assembled in their
stubbornness.102
Sirach
16:6-10103
Although Sirach offers no new formulations of God's
enemy behavior, but rather only
a new factor in perceiving
it, he does articulate a new
perception of Wisdom's poten-
tial hostility. Whereas in
Proverbs Wisdom threatened to
assume the stance of an enemy
in order to persuade the fools
and scoffers,104 in
Sirach she even assumes an enemy stance
toward her (novice) devotees.
At first she will walk with him on
tortuous
paths,
she will bring fear and
cowardice upon
him,
and will torment him by her discipline
until she trusts him,
and she will test him with her
ordinances.
Then she will come straight back to
him
and gladden
him,
and will reveal her
secrets to him.
If he goes astray she will forsake
him,
and hand him over to his
ruin.
Sirach
4:17-19
101 Probably
102 Cf. Num. 11:21.
103 Note also Sir. 46:6-7
and 48:21 where the historical
narratives
of Joshua's conquests and the deliverance of
nition
of God's enemy behavior.
104 Cf. Prov. 1:26-27.
184
Unlike his knowledge of God's enmity, gleaned mostly
from scripture, Sirach's
knowledge of the enmity of Wisdom
towards her novices results
from his own experience. He can
speak of her enemy behavior
because he has known it in his
own personal life. This
experience of Sirach's is confirmed
in his closing apology
(51:13-30). The overall tone of this
poem is one of great joy in the
service of Wisdom. Yet,
there is a single reminiscence
that in his youth Sirach had
striven with Wisdom (51:19a).
Wisdom of Solomon
The wisdom literature surveyed earlier has already
disclosed several derivative
and non-traditional enemies
which likewise appear in Wisdom
of Solomon. Fools appear
who act like enemies105
as well as God and Wisdom.106 With
these characters no significant
change in the nature of
their enmity occurs. Fools
still act as enemies toward the
righteous and God just as the
ungodly do; God and Wisdom
still act as enemies toward
those who disobey.
105 See o
ecouqenwn sofian kai paideian in Wisd.
3:11;
afronej in 5:4 and apaideutoi
yuxai in
17:1.
106 See Wisdom in 10:19 (cf.
auth
in 10:1, 15) and
kurioj in 4:18-19; 5:20 (cf. v. 15); 11:10, 15;
12:2, 4,
9,122,
23; 18:5, 16; o uyistoj in 5:20 (cf. v. 15); qeou
krisij in 16:18;
pneumatoj dunamewj sou (=tou kuriou
in
11:20; and h dunamij (tou qeou) in 1:3. It is also
likely
that dikh
in 18; 11:20; 14:31 and ta dikaia in
14:30 are to be related to God.
185
Righteous Characters as Enemies
With the righteous, who also appeared as enemies in
earlier literature, one new
development does appear. They
are still anti-wicked, but
their action as enemies of the
ungodly is after death.
The righteous man who has died will
condemn
the ungodly who are
living,
and youth that is quickly perfected
will
condemn the prolonged
old age of the
unrighteous man.
For they will see the end of the
wise man,
and will not understand what the
Lord
purposed for him,
and for what he kept him safe.
They will see, and will have
contempt for him,
but the Lord will laugh them to
scorn.
After this they will become
dishonored
corpses,
and an outrage among the dead for
ever;
because he will dash them speechless
to
the ground,
and shake them from the foundations;
they will be left utterly dry and
barren,
and they will suffer anguish,
and the memory of them will perish.
Wisdom of Solomon
4:16-19
The righteous man who has died condemns the wicked, but
this condemnation appears
somewhat passive. As the fol-
lowing verses indicate this
condemnation is not clear to the
wicked; they continue to have
contempt for him. Their con-
demnation, however, is
clarified by the Lord's judging
action. Only then do they come
to the dreadful realization
of the truth of the righteous
man's life.107 They speak
107 Wisd. 4:20-5:3.
186
words of repentance and say,
This is the man whom we once held in
derision
and made a byword of reproach—we
fools!
We thought that his life was madness
and that his end was without honor.
Why has he been numbered among the
sons
of God?
And why is his lot among the saints?
So it was we who strayed from the
way of
truth,
and the light of righteousness did
not shine
upon us,
and the sun did not rise upon us.
We took our fill of the paths of
lawlessness
and destruction,
and we journeyed through trackless
deserts,
but the way of the Lord we have not
known.
What has our arrogance profited us?
And what good has our boasted wealth
brought us?
Wisdom of
Solomon 5:4-8
Otherwise, the righteous appear
stereotypically as a
designation of Israel.108 They plunder the ungodly and
fight off their foes, the
Egyptians, who are characterized
throughout the book as enemies,
lacked or ungodly and fools.
Idolatry as an Enemy
Idols, idol worshipers and idol makers appear as
enemies in the Wisdom of
Solomon. Idols, "though part of
God's creation, became an
abomination, and became traps for
the souls of men and a snare to
the feet of the foolish"
(14:11). The striking, indeed
tragic, thing about these
idols is the fact that they are
elements of God's creation.
108 10:20; 11:3.
187
Yet, people were "unable
from the good things that are seen
to know him who exists, nor did
they recognize the craftsman
while paying heed to his
works" (15:1). It is, perhaps,
understandable that they go
astray while searching for God
and thereby come to have
confidence in what they see, for
they are beautiful (15:6-7). Nevertheless, they are without
excuse, "for if they had
the power to know so much that they
could investigate the world,
how did they fail to find
sooner the Lord of all these
things?" (13:10).
As idols themselves are enemies, so also those who make
them are enemies. The potter
who works with clay takes life
itself for an idle game, a
festival held for profit, and
rationalizes his activity with
the saying, "one must get
money however one can, even by
base means" (15:12). This
enmity of idol making extends
even to the "evil intent of
human art" and the
"fruitless toil of painters" which would
mislead people (15:4).109
It may be that worship of idols originally emerged out
of grief over a beloved child
who died or out of the custom
of erecting a king's image in a
remote province (14:12-20)
rather than from aesthetic
considerations. But, whatever
its origins, it delivered men
to bondage (14:21). From then
109 Those who love God, of course, are not
deceived.
188
on they were guilty of all
manner of wickedness.
Afterward it was not enough for them
to err
about the knowledge of
God,
but they live in great strife due to
ignorance,
and they call such great evils
peace.
For whether they kill children in
their
initiations, or
celebrate secret mysteries,
or hold frenzied revels with strange
customs,
they no longer keep either their
lives or
their marriages pure,
but they either treacherously kill
one another,
or grieve one another by
adultery,
and all is a raging riot of blood
and murder,
theft and deceit,
corruption, faithlessness,
tumult, perjury,
confusion over what is good,
forgetfulness of
favors,
pollution of souls, sex perversion,
disorder in marriage, adultery, and
debauchery.
Wisdom of
Solomon 14:22-27
It is hardly surprising then
that the worship of idols is
judged to be "the
beginning and cause and end of every
evil" (14:27).110
Creation as an Enemy
The Lord will take his zeal as his
whole
armor,
and will arm all creation to repel
his
enemies;
he will put on righteousness as a
breasplate,
and wear impartial justice as a
helmet;
he will take holiness as an
invincible shield,
and sharpen stern wrath for a sword,
and creation will join with him to
fight
against
the madmen.
Wisdom of Solomon
5:17-20
This text introduces creation itself as an enemy. It
fights together with God
against madmen. The passage goes
110 Cf. 14:12.
189
on to enumerate various items
which are in creation's
arsenal: lightning, hail, water
of the sea, rivers and a
mighty wind (vv. 21-22a).111
Elsewhere this is set forth as
a fundamental principle.
For the creation, serving thee who
hast
made it,
exerts itself to punish the
unrighteous,
and in kindness relaxes on behalf of
those
who trust in thee.
Wisdom of
Solomon 16:24
This enmity of creation against the enemies of God (and
ence. Various elements of
nature which paralyzed the
Egyptians with terror ars
mentioned (17:18-19).112 None
of
the elements named (whistling
wind, chirping of birds,
rushing water, crash of rocks,
leaping animals, roaring
beasts, echoes from mountains)
is actually mentioned in
Exodus, of course, but the
plagues recorded in Exodus are
largely natural phenomena. It
appears that this writer is
111 Hypothetical parts of
creation are also named as in
11:17-19,
"For thy all-powerful hand, which created the
world
out of formless matter, did not lack the means to send
upon
them a multitude of bears, or bold lions, or newly
created
unknown beasts full of rage, such as breathe out
fiery
breath, or belch forth a thick pall of smoke, or flash
terrible
sparks from their eyes; not only could their damage
exterminate
men, but the mere sight of them could kill by
fright";
as well as known animals such as the wasp (sfhkaj)
or
wild beasts (qhrioij deinoij) mentioned in 12:8-9.
112 Cf. 16:15-23.
190
merely elaborating on an older
Israelite notion of creation
at the service of God.113
More threatening than the macrocosm which acts as an
enemy towards the ungodly
(Egyptians), however, is the
microcosm of the human psyche.
The ungodly are assailed by
specters, phantoms and fear.
Indeed, they are paralyzed by
their souls' surrender.114
The reason these attacks issue
from such fearful delusions is
that
. . . wickedness is a cowardly
thing,
condemned by its own
testimony;
distressed by conscience, it has
always
exaggerated the
difficulties.
For fear is nothing but surrender of
the
helps that come from
reason;
and the inner expectation of help,
being weak,
prefers ignorance of what causes the
torment.
Wisdom of Solomon
17:11-13
Summary
The preceding examination of characters who act like
enemies has revealed greater
breadth to the phenomenon of
enmity than could be discerned
by attention to enemy desig-
nations alone. Specifically, it
has become clear that
although the various
designations of enemies are unilateral
(i.e., "he is the enemy; I
am not") enmity itself is, of
course, a bilateral affair.
There is enmity on both sides
of an enemy designation. This
is the significance of the
113 See the same idea in
Josh, 10:11, 12-14 and already
in
the very old Song of Deborah, Judg. 5:20-21.
114 Wisd. 17:3, 15; cf. also 18:17.
191
appearance of such characters
as the righteous, the wise
(only in Sirach) and even God
as subjects of enemy
behaviors. Such folk would
scarcely admit that they were
themselves enemies, but their
actions and dispositions
indicate otherwise.
Also evident in the preceding examination is the fact
that fools pose some of the
same hazards for the wisdom
tradition that enemies pose in
the Psalter. This is
especially evident in Proverbs
and Sirach, but it is also
true for Qoheleth and Wisdom of
Solomon. With Job the
portrayal of fools as enemies
is insignificant, but the
problem of the book is not with
fools; it is rather with
Yahweh.
With Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon new figures appear.
The most significant for Sirach
are the attacks from within
his own ego. It is his own sins
which threaten him the
most. They are the only thine
which prompts Sirach to pray
for personal deliverance in the
style of the individual
laments of the Psalms.115 A similar perception emerges in
Wisdom of Solomon where it is
claimed that the most ter-
rifying enemies to the
Egyptians were not the various
elements of creation which were
arrayed against them nor
even God (whom they, of course,
refused to recognize), but
115 Sir. 22:27-23:6; the
prayer of 33(36):1-17 is a
corporate
lament; that of 51:-12 is an individual thanks-
giving
song.
192
rather the various phantoms and
delusions in their own
minds. These internal enemies were
inescapable.
Idolatry and creation also emerged as enemies in the
Wisdom of Solomon. Creation is
said to join together with
God and fight against the
Egyptians. A specially potent and
tragic manifestation of this
enmity issuing from creation
was idolatry. The many gods of
the heathen were, at best,
beautiful parts of God's good
creation. Nevertheless, they
became a trap for much of
humanity. The blame for this
state of affairs cannot be
placed on the creation, however,
but must rest squarely on
people who misconstrued these good
things. Following from the fundamental mistake with
regard
to God there was then a false
estimate of God's creation
which itself became an enemy of
ungodly humanity.
Throughout all the wisdom literature examined, God
appeared acting like enemies
act. There were, however,
differences in these
appearances. With Sirach and Wisdom
of Solomon this enemy behavior
on God's part had become
quite orthodox and predictable:
God acts like an enemy
toward his enemies and like a
friend toward his friends.
To the audiences of these two
works, this kind of divine
enmity presented little threat
since they counted themselves
among God's friends.116
116 Of course, they would
have confessed to some sin
(cf.
Sir. 8:5; Wisd. 15:2), but that would not change their
basic posture as friends of
God.
193
With the earlier perceptions of divine enmity in
Proverbs, Job and Qoheleth,
there was a threatening, unpre-
dictable dimension to God's
enmity. This dimension of
Yahweh's character was, of
course, a central concern with
the book of Job, but also
Qoheleth. It should not be over-
looked, though, that there was
a bare--but how terrifying!--
hint at this dimension of
Yahweh already in Proverbs. Who
indeed ever knew what could
come from the side of Yahweh
(Prov. 24:22)? He was, after
all, the Living God.
One final figure who appeared to behave as an enemy in
this material must be
mentioned: Wisdom. In Proverbs she
promised to be one who would
scorn her foes and laugh at
those who refused her call.
This behavior is quite to be
expected since it has become
evident that enmity was, in
fact, a bilateral affair. With
Sirach the portrayal of
Wisdom's enmity took on another
and more problematic
dimension: she (temporarily)
treated her devotees as an
enemy He had himself struggled
with her in his youth.
Although Sirach's God had
become tame and predictable, there
were still hazards which could
issue from the divine realm,
even against the righteous and
wise.
Chapter 4
WISE RESPONSES TO THE
ENEMY
The wisdom literature offers no monolithic guidelines
on the question of how to
respond to a personal enemy. With
regard to the problem of
enmity, as with other social
phenomena, a range of responses
is advised. A sage must
choose between various options
when responding to a specific
person or circumstance. This
element of discretion and
flexibility is nowhere more
evident than in Proverbs 26:4-5.
Answer not a fool according to his
folly,
lest you be like him
yourself,
Answer a fool according to his
folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.
This flexibility on the part of
the sages requires that
the question concerning wise
responses to an enemy and
enmity deal with the problem of
coherence. Are there any
fundamental convictions
undergirding the various responses
from which a wise person might
choose when faced with an
enemy? What allows a sage to
take various stances with
regard to enemies?
Proverbs
The book of Proverbs reveals a variety of responses to
the enemies and their behavior,
as well as several convic-
tions which may motivate them.
The responses range from a
194
195
simple rejection of enemy
behavior as a pattern of life
through avoidance of the enemy
to aid for the enemy. The
motives which stand behind this
range of responses include
some of the fundamental
presuppositions of the sages. The
following discussion will
proceed by noting the variety of
responses which Proverbs
counsels together with their
motives.
The reasons given for the various responses seem to be
somewhat ad hoc. Any of them may be encountered in connec-
tion with several different
responses. Therefore, they will
simply be noted as they arise.
After all the various
responses have been discussed
the motives will be collected
for discussion.
Rejection of Enemy Behavior
The most frequent counsel when confronted with the
problem of enmity is an
outright rejection of all kinds of
hostility. Conduct which is
characteristic of enemies is
prohibited by the wise. These
prohibitions are most evident
in the instruction genre.
Do not plan evil (hfr
wrH)
against
your
neighbor
who dwells trustingly
beside you.
Do not contend (byr) with a man for no
reason (MkH),
when he has done you no
harm.
Do not envy (xnq, pi.) a man of
violence,
and do not choose (rHb) any of his ways;
for the perverse man is an
abomination to
Yahweh,
196
but the upright are in
his confidence.
Yahweh's curse is on the house of
the wicked,
but he blesses the abode
of the righteous.
Toward the scorners he is scornful,
but to the humble he
shows favor.
The wise will inherit honor,
but fools get disgrace.
Proverbs
3:29-351
Such prohibitions, although more frequent in the
instructions, are also evident
in the meshalim. Proverbs
27:10 admonishes not to
"forsake" (bzf) one's
friend or
the friend of one's father,
while elsewhere "slander"
(Nwl , hi.)
is prohibited (30:10). Apart from straight-
forward prohibition the
sentence literature expresses
aversion to enemy behavior with
"not good" sayings.
It is not good (bvF-xl) to be partial
to a wicked man,
or to deprive a righteous man of
justice.
Proverbs
18:5
Partiality in judging is not good (bvF-xl).
Proverbs
24:23b
The implication of these
sayings is, of course, that such
"not good" things
fall outside an acceptable pattern of
life.
This kind of attitude toward patterns of behavior which
are characteristic of enemies
has interesting consequences.
1 Cf.110; 4:14-15; 22:22;
24:15, 17, 28-29 for other
prohibitions
against enemy behavior in the instructions.
Prov.
24:28-29 falls in the "appendix" which has been added
to
the large instruction of 22:17-24:22. Most of this
"appendix"
(vv. 23-34) is not properly instruction, but
vv.
27-29 are; cf.
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1970), p. 572.
197
To begin with, whoever heeds
the instructions is prevented
from becoming an enemy. If
these instructions are followed
then one cannot act like an
enemy. When this attitude
actually encounters an enemy it
results in a refusal to
respond in kind.
Do not say, "I will repay (hmlwx) evil";
wait for Yahweh, and he
will help you.
Proverbs
20:22
Do not say, "I will do to him
as he has done
to me (lv-hWfx
Nk yl-hWf rwxk);
I will pay the man back
(bywx)
for
what he has
done."
Proverbs
24:29
Do not rejoice (Hmw) when your enemy falls,
and let not your heart
be glad (lyg)
when he
stumbles;
lest Yahweh see it, and be
displeased,
and turn away his anger
from him.
Proverbs
24:17-18
This refusal to engage in enemy behavior precludes the
establishment of a cycle of
hostility. Hostility cannot be
met, with hostility. This
response of non-aggression is much
more than a way of simply
avoiding conflict. By renouncing
enemy behavior as an
appropriate way of life the wise hold
open the possibility of
repentance, even for one already
acting like an enemy.
If you have been foolish, exalting
yourself,
or if you have been
devising evil,
put your hand on your
mouth.2
2 V 32bb reads simply hpl-dy, "(the) hand to
(the)
mouth";
the verb is understood, and the 2nd person pronoun
is implied by the context.
McKane, pp. 260, 664-665,
198
For pressing milk produces curds,
pressing the nose
produces blood,
and pressing anger
produces strife (byr).
Proverbs
30:32-33
The reference to "strife" (byr) above probably indi-
cates that this non-aggression
toward one's enemy is prior
to any legal contest. A refusal
to respond in kind preempts
legal recourse. If legal
recourse is sought (and is
construes
it with v. 32bb and adds, "(watch your step)";
R.
Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes:
Introduction, Transla-
tion, and Notes (
1965),
, p. 180, agrees regarding v . 32b and adds, “[Beware!]"
to
the beginning of v. 33. C. Toy, A
Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Book
of Proverbs
(
what
follows, the meaning of the v. would be that silence
is
pacific; but text and sense are doubtful." B. Gemser,
Spruche Salomos (Tubingen: Mohr, 1937),
pp. 82-83, supplies
no
verb, but translates, "--die Hand
auf den Mund!" and
comments,
"Cf. Hi. 21;5; Sich geltend machen
ist eine gefährliche Sache; man erweckt leicht
feindliche
Gefuhle; drum gilt es,
schweigend seinen Weg zu gehen.”
H.
Ringgren, Spruche: Ubersetzt und Erklart
(
without
supplying a verb just as Gemser does; he comments,
"Der Text ist veilleicht nicht ganz richtig
uberliefert.
Der Sinn ist wohl: es
ist besser zu schweigen als stolz
und uberheblich zu
reden. Ein Wortspiel. . . soll ziegen,
da zornige Worte nur
Streit erregen und dass es besser ist,
sich ruhig zu
verhalten..
" The best explanation of the
verse
is that of W. Oesterley, The Book of
Proverbs with
Introduction and Notes (
p.
280, who remarks, “Usually the verb 'lay' goes with the
phrase,
e.g., Job 21:5; once in Ecclus. it is as here,
simply
'hand to mouth.’" Evidently, he is
referring to Sir.
5:12
which reads ryp lf jdy (see I. Levi, The Hebrew
Text of the Book
Ecclesiasticus
[
1904].).
The parallel in Sirach also significant in
that
the prase is proceeded by two Mx clauses just as
here.
199
successful) then the lex talionis would still be operative.3
The meshalim, however, advise avoidance of litigation,4
and
one avenue to this goal is
through non-aggression.
No Anxiety over Enemies
Another response to the enemies which involves some-
thing which a person ought not
do is non-anxiety. A few
times, always in instruction
passages, the counsel is given
not toworry about various
figures who are customarily
associated with enemies.
Be not envious (xnq, pi.) of evil men,
nor
desire (hxt,
hith.) to be with them;
for their minds devise violence,
and their lips talk of
mischief.
Proverbs
24:1-2
Fret (hrH, hith.) not yourself
because
of
evildoers,
and be not envious (xnq, pi.) of the
wicked;
for the evil man has no future;
the lamp of the wicked
will be put out.
Proverbs
24:19-20,
In each of the four admonitions which advise against
anxiety the pi’el stem of the
verb xnq ("envy, be
jealous") is used. It is
paralleled synonymously by the
hithpa’el stem of the verbs hxt ("desire") and hrH
("fret oneself").
Once it is paralleled antithetically by
3 Cf. McKane, p. 575, and
Gemser, p. 70, commenting on
Prov.
2:29.
4 25:7c-10; cf. 18:17 and
I Cor. 6:1-8.
5 Cf. 3:25-26, 31-35; 23:17.
200
the verb rHb ("choose").6 The most interesting parallel
with this prohibition against
"envying" the enemy, however,
is the antithesis posed by
Proverbs 23:17.
Let not your heart envy sinners,
but continue in the fear
of Yahweh
all the day.
Proverbs
23:17
This abiding in the fear of Yahweh is a clue to the
question of why the wise
respond to enemies as they do. How
could anyone be anxious over a
wicked when Yahweh would be
their "confidence" (lsk)?7
Although explicit admonition against being anxious over
traditional enemies is limited
to the instructional
materials in the book of
Proverbs, evidence of this attitude
also appears in the sentence
literature. One saying in
particular is a very striking
example of this lack of
anxiety over the attacks which
enemy figures might launch.
6 3:31; McKane, pp. 215,
300 emends rHbt to rHtt
on
the basis of the Greek reading of zhlws^j, "emulate"
and
the parallelism between xnq pi. and hrH, hith. in
Prov.
24:19 and Psalm 37:1.
7 Prov. 3:26; M. Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic
Philology (Roma: Pontificum
Iilstitutum Biblicum713),
p.
10, translates "For the Lord will be at your side," on
the
basis of "[t]he Ugar. balance between p’n (=Hebr. regel)
and
ksl" and the absence of the beth essentiae construction
in
Proverbs which is required to translate jlskb,
"(as)
yo
return
to
This
suggestion by Dahood has merit, but does not really
change
the sense of the verse.
201
Like a sparrow in its flitting, like
a swallow
in its
flying,
a curse that is
causeless (MnH tllq)
does not
alight.
Proverbs
26:2
Such a “rationalistic” estimate
of curses without cause must
have been revolutionary among
the ancients.
Avoidance of the Enemy
In spite of the insight that anxiety is not necessary
in the face of enemies, counsel
to avoid associating with
them is still valid. They are,
after all, dangerous. Some-
times this is very explicit.
Thorns and snares are in the way of
the
perverse;
he who guards himself
will keep far
from them.
Proverbs
22:5
Make no friendship with a man given
to anger,
nor go with a wrathful
man,
lest you learn his ways
and entangle yourself in
a snare.
Proverbs
22:24-258
Because enemies are
fundamentally duplicitous, they are not
to be trusted (26:24-26).
Most often, however, this response of avoidance is not
explicitly advised. Rather, it
would be a wholly logical
course of action after a bit of
reflection upon various
observations of the enemies.
8 Cf. 23:6-7 and 26:24-26
where the theme of avoidance
is also voiced.
202
A bad messenger plunges men into
trouble,
but a faithful envoy
brings healing.
Proverbs
13:17
A man of violence entices his
neighbor
and leads him in a way
that is not good.
Proverbs
16:29
The soul of the wicked desires evil;
his neighbor finds no
mercy in his eyes.
Proverbs
21:109
If a "bad messenger"
(fwr-jxlm), a "man of
violence"
(smH-wyx) and a
"wicked man" (fwr) are
indeed this
dangerous, then it is the
better part of wisdom to avoid
them altogether whenever
possible. Surely a person could
learn by others' experience and
avoid "bread gained by
deceit" (rqw-MHl).10 Who in their right mind would
attempt to "correct"
(rsy) or "argue with" (Hky, hi.)
a "scoffer" (Cl) if it brings "abuse" (Nvlq) and
"hatred" (xnW)?11
Two figures in particular pose hazards which, it would
seem, are best avoided: the
king and the stranger. The
"wrath of a king" (jlm-tmH) is best appeased (rpk,
pi.), for it customarily brings
death (16:14). If it cannot
be appeased one surely ought to
avoid him until it passes.
9 Cf. 9.7 8; 11.15; 19:12; 20:2; 20:16; 23:13
10 20:17.
11 9:7-8.
203
The dread wrath (tmyx), of a king is like
the growling
of a lion;
he who provokes him to
anger forfeits
(xFvH) his life.
Proverbs
20:2
Nevertheless, the king can also provide a great deal of
satisfaction. His displeasure
certainly poses danger, but
his "favor" (Nvcr) is "like dew upon the grass"
(19:12),
This ambiguity surrounding him
seems to be characteristic of
the mashal literature. The king is unpredictable because
his
. . . heart is a stream of water in
the
hand
of Yahweh;
he turns it wherever he will.
Proverbs
21:1
No one can ever know the direction Yahweh's guidance
might take, for "it is the
glory of God to conceal
(rtsh)
something" (25:2a). Yet, in the face of this
royal ambiguity, or perhaps
because of it, the wise experi-
ence a certain fascination with
kings. Indeed, "searching
out their glory is
glorious" (25:27b).12 The "glory of
12 This line is usually
emended following the versions
to
something like, "so he sparing of complimentary words"
Oesterley,
pp. 229-230; Ringgren, pp. 101, 103; Toy,
(RSV);
cf. McKane, pp. 251, 587-589; Gemser, p. 72;
pp.
470-471; Scott, p. 155. G. Bryce, The
Legacy of Wisdom:
The Egyptian
Contribution to the Wisdom of
(Lewisburg:
Bucknell University Press, 1979), pp. 139-147,
argues
that 25:2-27 is a small "wisdom book" which is
structured
in two parts (vv. 6-15 dealing with the ruler and
vv.
16-26 dealing with the wicked) with an introduction
(vv.
2-5) which encapsulates the dual concerns of the
"book."
Vv. 2, 16 and 27 "clearly demarcate the beginning,
middle,
and end of the book" (p. 146) by forming a chiasmus:
204
kings" is to "search
things out" (25:2b).
Just as the glory of God resides in
the con-
cealment of meaning, the glory of
the king is
lodged in his capacity and ability
to disclose
truth hidden in the created order.
The locus
of revelation is not with the person
of God
but that of the king. It is the king
who has
access to the divine secrets. By his
special
relationship to the deity the king
is privi-
leged to inquire into that which is
hidden
from ordinary mortals. The
discernment of the
king is itself a matter for wonder
and awe.
It too is something mysterious and inscrutable.13
This high degree of ambiguity in the king (he is both
dangerous and attractive14)
explains why the wise can
glory
(v. 2) - honey (v. 16) - honey (v. 27a) - glory
(v.
27b). Therefore, the 3rd, masculine plural suffix in
v.
27b (Mdbk)
refers to kings (and perhaps God). Bryce
previously
argued for the presence of this "wisdom book" in
"Another
Wisdom-'Book' in Proverbs," JBL 91 (1972), 145-157.
Responses
to Bryce's proposal, are instructive in the problem
of
scholarly subjectivity. R. Murphy, Wisdom
Literature:
Job Proverbs, Ruth,
Canticles Ecclesiastes, Esther (Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1981), p. 77, remarks. "This
evidence is
too
fragile to support the existence of an original wisdom
book
in this chapter." On the opposite side, W. Humphreys,
"The
Motif of the Wise Courtier in the Book of Proverbs,"
in
Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in
Honor of Samuel Terrien, ed. Gammie, W.
Brueggemann,
W.
Humphreys, and J. Ward (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978),
p.
185, says, "His arguments . . . are, on the whole, com-
pelling,
and his suggestion is attractive." The present
writer
is convinced by Bryce's proposal.
13 Bryce, The Legacy of Wisdom, p. 160.
14 This danger-attraction
character of the king is, of
course,
reminiscent of the mysterium tremendum et
fascinans
explicated
by R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An
Inquiry
into the Non-Rational
Factor in the Idea of the Divine and
its Relation to the
Rational,
trans. by J. Harvey (rev. ed.,
205
virtually place him on an equal
footing with Yahweh and
urge,
My son, fear Yahweh and the king,
and do not associate
with those who change;
for disaster from them will rise
suddenly,
and who knows the ruin
that will come
from them
both?
Proverbs
24:21-22
With the "stranger" (rz) none of this ambiguous
response appears. It is true
that the stranger himself is
an ambiguous figure (he belongs
to the "neutral group" of
enemies), but the responses to
him in the context of surety.
ship are univocal. He is best
avoided.
He who gives surety for a stranger
will smart
for it,
but he who hates
suretyship is secure
Proverbs
11:1515
Financial dealings with the stranger are indeed
dangerous and ought to be
avoided. Sometimes, however, the
involvement with a stranger is
already effective. In that
case, people are urged to go to
extraordinary lengths to
extricate themselves.
My son, if you have become surety
for your
neighbor,
have given your pledge
for a stranger;
if you are snared in the utterance
of
your lips,
caught in the words of
your mouth;
then do this, my son, and save
yourself,
for you have come into
your neighbor's
power:
15 See also 20:16 and
27:13 on surety for a stranger;
cf. 22:26-27 on the problem of
surety in general.
206
go, hasten, and
importune your neighbor.
Give your eyes no sleep
and your eyelids no
slumber;
save yourself like a gazelle from
the hunter,
like a bird from the
hand of the fowler.
Proverbs
6:1-5
Two final sayings urge
avoidance of potential enemies:
the "neighbor" (fr) and the "brother" (Hx). Although
a neighbor who is near (bvrq) is better than a brother
who is distant (qvHr),16 there are times when one should
avoid the neighbor.
Let your foot be seldom in your
neighbor's
house,
lest he become weary of
you and hate you.
Proverbs
25:17
Even a brother is best avoided
"in the day of your calamity"
(27:10b).
Securing Actions in the Face of
Enemies
Up to this point the responses to enemies which have
been discussed have been
primarily negative. They have
involved instructions like,
"DO not act as an enemy,"
especially, "Do not seek
vengeance," "Do not envy them," and
"Do not get too close to
them."17 The following
responses
may be characterized as
positive. They are steps which the
wise may in order to acquire a
measure of security.
16 27:10c.
17 The king is only a
partial exception to this response.
He
is fascinating and attractive, but the sayings still
indicate
that one should keep a prudent distance from him.
He
is certainly not a "buddy" with whom one may be casual or
familiar.
297
Gifts work wonders. Several meshalim speak of the
amazing power of a
"bribe" (dHvw) or "gift" (Ntm) in
bringing security. It is a "magic
stone" and brings its
giver prosperity (lykwy).18 Indeed,
Many seek the favor of a generous
man,
and everyone is a friend
to a man who
gives gifts
(Ntm).
Proverbs
19:6
A man's gift (Ntm) makes room for him
and
brings him before great men.
Proverbs
18:16
More than simply bringing
prosperity, winning friends
and influencing people,
however, the bribe is effective
within the context of anger (jx), even excessive anger
(hzf
hmH).
A gift (Ntm) in secret averts
anger;
and a bribe (dHvw) in the bosom,
strong
wrath.
Proverbs
21:14
This knowledge of the
effectiveness of a bribe is applicable
when the wicked are responsible
for the administration of
justice (17:23). In that
situation, a bribe may well be
one's only tangible assurance
of a favorable decision.
Even "magic stones," however, have limits.
Bribes are
ineffective in dealing with the
husband of a man's partner
in adultery.
18 17:8 (RSV).
208
For jealousy makes a man furious,
and he will not spare
when he takes
revenge.
He will accept no compensation,
nor be appeased though
you multiply
gifts (dHvw)
Proverbs
6:34-35
Heed wisdom. The jealous husband is associated
with
the "strange woman."
Often the response to her is
avoidance19 together
with fidelity to a man's own wife
(5:15-19). Still, however, a
correlative avenue to security
is open. If the young man heeds
instruction it will pre-
serve him from the snares of
the "strange woman."
My son, keep your father's commandment,
and forsake not your
mother's teaching.
Bind them upon your heart always;
tie them about your
neck.
When you walk, they will lead you;
when you lie down, they
will watch
over you;
and when you awake, they
will talk
with you.
For the commandment is a lamp and
the teaching
a light,
and the reproofs of
discipline are the
way of life,
to preserve you from the evil woman
from the smooth tongue
of the adventuress.
Proverbs
6:20-2420
This hearkening to wisdom, of course, also secures life
in the face of the potential
threat which Wisdom herself may
19 5:8; 6:25; 7:25.
20 See also 2:16 which is
dependent upon the Mx ("if")
clauses
of vv. 1, 13; 2:12 indicates that hearing-obedience
will so preserve one from
"men of perverted speech."
209
pose. Her threats to assume an
enemy stance toward the
"simple" are
obviously intended to persuade them to pay
attention to her.21 She does not desire the death of
anyone, but her appearance does
place people in the position
of "finding life" (MyyH-xcm) or "loving death" can (bhx
tvm).22
The only life-securing action possible
in her
presence is to
"listen" to her (2:33).
Fear Yahweh. Twice the instruction is given to
"fear"
(xry)
Yahweh or God in an imperative form.23 This is the
only response possible in
coping with the terrors which may
arise from God himself, but it
also has other life-securing
consequences.
Be not wise in your own eyes;
fear Yahweh, and turn
away from evil.
It will be healing to your flesh
and refreshment to your
bones.
Proverbs
3:7-8
Otherwise the phenomenon of "fearing Yahweh"
appears in
the nominal construction
"the fear of Yahweh" (txry
hvhy).24
The fear of Yahweh is described as a
"fountain
of life" (MyyH rvqm) which enables people to avoid the
21 Prov. 1:26-28; see the
discussion on "Wisdom and
Yahweh
as Enemies" in Chapter 3.
22 8:35-36.
23 3:7 reads hvhy; 24:21 reads Myhlx.
24 The expression appears
in Proverbs at 1:7, 29; 2:5;
8:13;
9:10; 10:27; 14:26, 27; 15:16, 33; 16:6; 19:23; 22:4;
23:17.
210
"snares if death" (tvm ywqvm).25 By it, "evil" (fr)
is avoided (16:6).
The fear of Yahweh leads to life;
and he who has it rests
satisfied;
he will not be visited
by harm (fr)
Proverbs
19:2326
The prayer of Agur (30:7-9) should also be recalled in
connection with people's
standing before Yahweh. The burden
of the prayer is the
possibility that Agur might become one
of Yahweh's enemies by stealing
and profaning his God's name
or by self-assured smugness and
denying Yahweh (v. 9).
Prayer is the only defense
against this enmity toward God
which may emerge from within
Agur himself.
Love for the Enemy
Explicit instructions to love the enemy do not appear
in Proverbs (nor elsewhere in
the Old Testament). Proverbs
25:21-22, however, does commend
behavior toward the enemy
which is best characterized as
love.
If your enemy is hungry, give him
bread to eat;
and if he is thirsty,
give him water to
drink;
for you will heap coals of fire on his
head,
and Yahweh will reward (Mlw, pi.) you.
This admonition to come to the aid of one's enemy has
received a great deal of
attention from commentators,
25 14:27; cf. 13:14 where
the MkH trvt ("teaching
of
the wise") is a "fountain of life."
26 Cf. 10:27.
211
undoubtedly because Paul cites
it in Romans 12:21.27 Verse
22a, with its image of
"heaping coals of fire on his head,"
has been interpreted in various
ways. Among the church
fathers, Origen and Chrysostrom
interpret the line to mean
that doing good to one's enemy
makes him liable to greater
punishment. Augustine and.
Jerome, however, interpret the
"coals of fire" to
mean "burning pangs of shame" which lead
to repentance and
reconciliation.28 The first understanding
seems to be accepted by Scott
who takes the "coals of fire"
to be "a form of
torture."29 Doing good
to the enemy is
ultimately a more effective way
of taking revenge.
The second interpretation is represented by McKane who
comments,
Kindness shown to an enemy, because
it is
undeserved, awakens feelings of
remorse. When
the enemy has steeled himself to
meet hate with
hate and is impervious to threats of
revenge,
he is vulnerable to a generosity
which overlooks
and forgives, and capitulates to
kindness. . .
The pain of contrition purifies and recreates;
27 Paul's citation omits
the words "bread" and "water"
from
v. 21 and "the Lord will reward you," from v. 22. In
his
omission of "bread" and "water" his reading is identical
to
that of Vaticanus, as is his reading ywmize in place of
trefe. His omission of v. 22b may indicate a
rejection of
doing
good for some reward. On the New
Testament meaning of
this
verse see W. Klasg, "Coals of Fire: Sign of
Repentance
or Revenge?" NTS 9 (1963), 337-350.
28 The patristic
interpretations are mentioned by M.
Dahood,
"Two Pauline Quotations from the Old Testament,"
CBQ
17 (1955), 19.
29 Scott, p. 156.
212
it is the birth pangs of a new
brotherhood.
Hence this is how to deal with an
enemy and
to punish him in the most
constructive way.
He is to have pain inflicted on him
by his
experience of magnanimity and
generous
forgiveness of the one from whom he
expected
enmity.30
McKane's loquent statement of
the latter interpretation is
testimony to its powerful moral
and spiritual insight.
Other modern interpreters' efforts to interpret the
"coals of fire"
imagery have proceeded via the avenues of
textual emendation, philology
and the history of religions.
Bickell suggested omitting the
phrase "on his head" and
understanding it to mean,
"thou wilt put away the burning
coals of hate.”31
More recently, a text critical solution
has been put forward by
Ramaroson.32
He argues that since the word MylHg ("coals")
normally appears in connection
with the word wx
("fire")
it is puzzling here.33
Since there were, however, certain
30 McKane, p. 592.
31 Cited by Toy, p. 468,
and Dahood, "Two Pauline
Quotations
from the Old Testament," 20.
32 L. Ramaroson, "'Charbons ardent': ‘sur la tete,’ ou
'pour le feu'? Proverbs 25:22a -- Rom. 12:20b," Biblica 51
(1970),
230-234.
33 wx-ylHg
appears in
Ezek 1:13; 10:2; Lev. 16:12;
II
Sam. 22:13; Psalm 18:13, 14. Otherwise, wx appears in
the
same verse as MylHg in II Sam. 22:9 (=Psalm 18:9);
Isa.
44:19; 47:14; Job 41:13; and Prov. 26:21; it is in the
preceding
verse in Ezek. 24:11 and Prov. 6:28; it is absent
from
II Sam. 14:7 and Psalms 120:4 and 140:11.
213
styles of Hebrew script in
which y and r might be
confused,34 he
suggests reading vwx-ylf
("upon his
fire") instead of vwxr-lf ("upon his head"). The
meaning of the verse would then
be, "if you heap coals from
your own brazier upon his
fire,"35 then Yahweh will reward
you. Thus, there would be three
positive steps recommended:
feeding, giving to drink, and
helping to rekindle a fire.
He also points to the custom observed in villages of
fire by taking coals from one's
own hearth to the neighbor.
Such a custom must be universal
where there are no arti-
ficial means of starting a
fire. In Ramaroson's judgment,
Proverbs 25:22a refers to this
neighborly consideration.
Mitchell Dahood suggests that this line should be
translated, "you will
remove coals of fire from his head."36
34 He points to two
documents in particular: 4QSamb and
Papyrus
Nash; see F. Cross, "The Oldest Manuscripts from
Fragment
from the Maccabean Age: The Nash Papyrus," JBL 56
(1937),
145-176. With MT, the critical apparatus of BH3
suggests
confusion of y and r at Gen. 49:28; I Sam.
1:15;
22:8,
13; II Sam. 22:44; 23:21; Isa. 14:21; 24:15; and
Psalms
39:2b; 69:27. J. Kennedy, An Aid to the
Textual
Amendment of the Old
Testament
(Edriburgh: T. and T. Clark,
1928),
p. 81, offer examples of this confusion at Exod.
15:2; Psalms 72:9; 78:61; and Prov. 13:7.
35
"Si tu apportes toi-meme des braises
pour son feu,"
Ramaroson,
p. 234.
36 Dahood, "Two
Pauline Quotations from the Old Testa-
ment
" 22.
214
He arrives at this translation
by taking the preposition
lf, which
usually means "upon," to mean "from." The verb
htH, here
translated "heap," Is then translated "remove"
as in the expression dvqym wx tvtHl (“to remove
fire from the hearth”) in
Isaiah 30:14. Therefore,
lf-htt means
the same thing as Nm-htH.37
The
"coals of fire" in
this case would be a metaphor for cono-
tentiousness just as in
Proverbs 26:21.
As charcoal to hot embers (MylHg) and
wood to fire
(wx),
so is a quarrelsome man
for kindling
strife.
Siegfried Morenz38 has offered a solution to
this image
from the perspective of the
history of religions. He refers
to an Egyptian ritual in which
a person who had been an
enemy approached the one toward
whom he had been hostile
carrying a tray of coals upon
his head. The coals of fire
on his head signified that
repentance from the hatred had
taken place and that the enemy
sought reconciliation.
It thus quite certain that the Old
Testament
saying . . . aims at [the enemy's] change of
37
This is a good example of “emendation” by philology
rather than textual criticism. He may, of course, be
correct, but he achieves the same effect as a real emenda-
tion from lf to Nm would achieve. Cf. J. Barr,
Comparative
Philology and the Text of the Old Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 28-29.
38 S.
Morenz, "Feurige auf dem Haupt," Theologische
Literaturzeitung 78
(1953), col. 187-192.
215
mind which one obtains through good
deeds in
relation to him.39
The difficulty with this suggestion is the fact that
Proverbs 25:21-22 is Israelite
rather than Egyptian. Could
this Egyptian custom explain an
Israelite image? Morenz
points to the following verse
where "the north wind brings
rain" as a sign that this
series of sayings does indeed
reflect some Egyptian
background.40 In Palestine the north
wind does not bring rain while
in
more, rain is not an apt
parallel to "angry looks" in a
Palestinian context where rain
is a supreme good. It
receives, however, a
"negative rather than a positive
evaluation in
innundation of the
slander."41
Of the interpretations which have been offered, Morenz'
suggestion seems best. It
accounts for the image well. No
need exists to emend the text
or the lexica in order to
explain the passage. It allows
the line to accord well with
the ethical perspective of
verse 21, and it relieves Yahweh
39 "Es ist ganz
gewiss so dass der altestamentliche
Spruch
. . . auf [des Feindes] Sinnesanderugn abzielt, die
man
durch Wohltaten ihm gegenuber . . . erreicht.” Morenz,
col.
191.
40 Morenz, col. 191.
41 McKane, p. 583.
216
from the dubious role of approving
an "enlightened" method
of vengeance.42 Furthermore, if Bryce's arguments that
Proverbs 25:2-27 is a wisdom
"book" which may be called a
"loyalist text"
having an "aristocratic" background are
correct,43 then a
sociological explanation for this Egyptian
background is provided. Such
circles would be easily sus-
ceptible to Egyptian
influences. Some of the "men of
Hezekiah" credited with
transcribing this collection (25:1)
may have actually been in
diplomatic contact with envoys of
the Ethiopian Pharoah Piankhi.44
A response to the enemy which involves meeting his
needs (food and drink) and aims
toward repentance45 must be
characterized as love. The
result of this kind of treatment
of one's enemy is that Yahweh
will "complete" (Mlw pi.)
42 Morenz' arguments are
also accepted by H. Wolff,
Anthropology of the Old
Testament,
trans. by M. Kohl (rev.
ed.,
Rad,
Wisdom in
p.
133, n. 25; and Ringgren, p. 103.
43 Bryce, The Legacy of Wisdom, pp. 148, 150.
44 J. Bright, A History of
of
Brothers,
1958), p. 264; on the "men of Hezekiah" see R.
Scott,
“Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in
VTS
3 (1955), 272-279.
45 Morenz, col. 192, speaks of metanoia.
217
the deed for him. Elsewhere,
the observation is made that
When a man's ways please Yahweh,
he makes even his
enemies to be
at peace (Mlw) with him.
Proverbs
16:7
Ultimately, Yahweh makes peace
for a man with his enemies.46
This constitutes the completion
of considerate and helpful,
loving, treatment of enemies
Although Proverbs
25:21-22 does not say to "love" the
enemy it is surely an example
of a concrete form which love
for the enemy could take. In
other places Proverbs speaks
of love (hbhx) as the kind of behavior which would issue
in reconciliation and peace. It
“covers (hsk) all
offenses (Myfwp)” while "hatred" (hxnW), a dispo-
sition of enemies, "stirs
up strife" (10:12).
He who forgives an offense (fwp--hskm)
seeks love,
but he who repeat a
matter alienates
a friend (Jvlx)
Proverbs
17:9
Within the home (and enemies may also be present there)
love is the ruling attitude.
Childrearing requires the
attitude of love if the
children are to receive proper
"discipline" (rsvm).47 Such loving parental discipline
46 The subject of Mlwy is admittedly ambiguous; it
could
be either Yahweh (so Toy, p. 322) or wyx (so McKane,
p.
491; Gemser, p. 54; Ringgren, p. 68). The interpretation
above
agrees with Toy.
47 13:24.
218
is an appropriate analogy for
Yahweh's discipline (3:11-12).
Anything less is a sign of
"hatred" (hxnW).48
Love
ought not be hidden (27:5). It
far outweighs any practical
concerns such as a
well-supplied table.
Better is a dinner of herbs where
love is
than a fatted ox and
hatred with it.
Proverbs
15:17
Motives for Wise Responses to
the Enemy
The motives which undergird the responses to the enemy
are quite numerous. Sometimes
they seem to be capable of
almost infinite variety. Rather
than trying to examine each
of the multitude of possible
reasons, however, it is perhaps
more productive to direct
attention to a more limited number
which appear to be most
important.
Self-destruction. A prime motive for rejecting all
patterns of conduct which are
characteristic of enemies is
that they are self-destructive.
The wicked is overthrown through his
evil-doing,
but the righteous finds
refuge through
his
integrity.
Proverbs
14:32(RSV)49
In view of the conviction that
these folk and their behavior
are self-destructive, it is
scarcely surprising that wise
48 Failure to discipline
is said to be "hating" (xnW)
in
13:24.
49 Cf. 6:32; 11:3, 5, 6,
27; 12:13, 26; 15:27; 18:7;
21:6,
219
responses to them include
rejection and avoidance. The goal
of wisdom is nothing short of
life.50
This perception of the self-destructive nature of the
enemy occasionally appears in
motive clauses of the instruc-
tions. Thus in the opening
instruction, the young person is
counseled,
My son, if sinners entice you,
do not consent (hbx).
Proverbs
1:10
After an extended quotation of
the invitation these
"sinners" (MyxFH) offer (vv. 11-14), the teacher gives
the young man reasons for
rejecting it. Their way is
plainly immoral since they are
in a hurry to do "evil"
(fr) and
to "shed blood" (Md-jpw, v.
16).
Ultimately, however,
these men lie in wait for their own
blood,
they set an ambush for
their own lives.
Such are the ways of all who get
gain
by violence;
it takes away the life of its possessors
Proverbs
1:18-1951
50 R. Murphy, "The
Kerygma of the Book of Proverbs,"
Interpretation 20 (1966), 3-14.
51 The proverb in v. 17,
"For in vain is a net spread in
the
sight of any bird," is rather obscure. Does it mean
that
if a bird is watching the net will be ineffective? If
so,
it is equally foolish to follow people like these
"sinners."
Or, should Winton Thomas' translation, "For it
is
to no effect that the net is strewn (with seed for bait)
in
the sight of any winged fowl," (cf. "Textual and Philo-
logical
Notes on Some Passages in the Book of Proverbs,"
VTS
3 01955], 281-282)? "The bird has been given every
reason
to exercise prudence and caution; . . . but it is so
220
This elf-destruction motif also appears on the lips of
Wisdom. She urges the "simple" (Mytp) to hearken to her
(1:23) and in Proverbs 1:24-28
pronounces judgment on them
together th the
"fools" (Mylysk) and
"scoffers"
(Mycl). When
struck by "panic" (dHp),
"calamity"
(dyx) "distress
and anguish" (hqvcv hrc) her
indifference to their cries
allows them to fall prey to
their own deeds and
dispositions.
Therefore, they shall eat of the
fruit of
their way
and be sated with their
own devices.
For the simple are killed by their
turning away,
the complacence of fools
destroys them.
Proverbs
1:31-32
Fate fixing actor. Closely related to the perception
of the enemies as
self-destructive is the fundamental con-
viction expressed in Proverbs
that people are capable of
acting in such a way as to fix
their own fate. Life itself
is such that a person's deed creates
a "sphere" of well-
being or ill, corresponding to
the character of the deed,
which surrounds the person.
This "sphere" is a tangible
reality which belongs to one
almost like a personality.52
much
the slave of its appetite that it follows a compulsive
desire
to eat the grain. So it is with the highwaymen who
cannot
control their appetite for wealth" (McKane, p. 271).
The
latter option seems better.
52 K. Koch, "Gibt es
eine Vergeltungsdogma im Alten
Testament?"
Zeitschrift fur Theologie Kirche 52
(1955),
1-42.
K. Koch, ed. Um Das Prinzip der
Vergeltung in
221
Often the meshalim describe this phenomenon without any
reference to Yahweh's activity.
The impression of an
immanent order easily emerges.
He who digs a pit will fall into it,
and a stone will come
back upon him who
starts it
rolling.
Proverbs
26:27
The eye that mocks a father
and scorns to obey a
mother
will be picked out by ravens of the
valley
and eaten by the
vultures.
Proverbs
30:1753
At other times the expressions of this conviction seem
to hint that there is more
involved in this than meets the
eye. Something or someone seems
to stand behind this
"immanent order."
These hints are particularly striking
when passive or intransitive
verbs are used.
If the righteous is requited (Mlw, pu.)
on earth,
how much more the wicked
and the sinner!
Proverbs
11:31
Religion and Recht des
Alten Testaments (Darmstedt:
Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1972), contains Koch's
original
article with critical response to it. Cf. also
F.
Horst, "Vergeltung im AT," RGG3, B. VI, col. 1343-1346;
J.
Gammie, "The Theology of Retribution in the Book of
Deuteronomy,"
CBQ 32 (1970), 1-12; G. von Rad, Old
Testament
Theology, Vol. I, trans. by D.
Stalker (New York—Harper
and
Row, 1962), 264ff., 269ff., 384ff., 412, 427-428, 436,
458;
and Wisdom in
"Retribution,"
1DB Supp., ed., by K. Crim (
Abingdon
Press, 1976), pp. 742-744.
53 Cf. 6:12-15; 10:7, 16,
24-25, 27, 28; 11:7-8, 19, 28;
12:5-7,
12, 19; 13:9, 21, 25; 15:6; 17:13, 20; 18:3; 20:17,
20;
21:12, 28; 24:19-20; 28:14.
222
The house of the wicked will be
destroyed (dmw, ni.),
but the tent of the
upright will flourish.
Proverbs
14:1154
"The house of the wicked will be destroyed" by
whom?
Certainly, the niph’al verb
could be construed reflex-
ively,55 but the
"looseness of thought at an early period
of the language"56
requires a certain amount of hesitation
before deciding whether the
agent is to be identified with
the subject (reflexive) or
someone else (passive). With the
pu’al verb, however, no refuge
from the question concerning
the agent can be sought. By
whom are the righteous, and
even more the wicked and
sinners, "completed" on earth?
Yahweh as "midwife."57 The
agent behind this process
of completion is, of course,
Yahweh. He brings to comple-
tion (Mlw, pi.) what people initiate. Yahweh cooperates
with human actions by allowing
deeds to work their way out
in personal life, or by
expediting the process.
The eyes of Yahweh keep watch over
knowledge,
but he overthrows (Jls, pi.) the words
of the
faithless.
Proverbs
22:12
54 Cf intransitive qal
verbs in 12:21 and 19:9; niph’al
verbs
in 9:5, 9 and 24:15-16; 11:23 has no verb, but the
question
arises, "Whose wrath (171:13) is in view?"
55 G-K 51 c-e.
56 G-K 51f.
57 Th.s formulation of
Yahweh as "midwife" comes from
Gammie, 1.
223
He who is kind to the poor lends to
Yahweh,
and he will complete (Mlw, pi.) his
deed for
him.
Proverbs
19:17
If your enemy is hungry, give him
bread
to eat;
and if he is thirsty,
give him water
to drink;
for you will heap coals of fire upon
his head,
and Yahweh will complete
(Mlw,
Pi.)
for you.
Proverbs
25:21-2258
Three caveats are in order regarding these expressions
of Yahweh's
"midwifery" as well as the "immanent order"
which he preserves. The first
is terminological:
. . . it would be misleading if one
thought one
had to understand these and other
sentences
theologically, as if they were
stating a 'doctrine
of retribution'. These sentences are not con-
cerned with a divine, juridical act
which subse-
quently deals out to mex blessing or punishment.59
58 Cf. 10:3, 29; 12:2;
15:25, 29; 22:22-23; 24:17-18.
59 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, p. 129; later (p, 133,
n.
25 he remarks concerning-73722, "The translation given
here
('Yahweh will complete it for you') sounds unusual.
But
the Hebrew verb should not be translated 'requite', as
if
Yahweb--from his pocket, as it were--added something to
the
human action. The verb sillem is to
be understood here
on
the basis of the correspondence— between
an act and its
consequence
and, means 'make complete', 'finish', in the
sense
that it is Yahweh, in the case of the good deed, for
example,
who completes the act-consequence relationship.
Elsewhere
this is described as if it were the functioning
of
a neutral order. . . There is nothing surprising in
the
fact that the act-consequence relationship is conceived
sometimes
as the operating of a rule, at other times as an
occurrence
directly caused by Yahweh."
224
It is better designated as the “act-consequence
relation-
ship” ("Tun-Ergehen Zusammenhang”).60
A second caveat to be noted is the fact that the
sentences which express this
notion (with or without
Yahweh's agency) are an attempt
to predict the future, not
to evaluate the past. These
observations move from deed to
fate, not from present
condition back to some (hypothetical)
prior deed. That is, the meshalim do not draw
theoretical
conclusions about a person's
past behavior or character on
the basis of their present
condition. Instead, they promise
and warn that present conduct
and disposition is the seed of
the future. This openness
toward the future implies the
possibility of change and
repentance.
The third caveat is closely related to the second.
This talk of an
"act-consequence relationship" cannot be
forced into a rigid mechanism.
Kovacs has correctly seen
that
The "order" does not lie
in some automatic or
mechanical relationship of act and
consequence.
The world, is not rigid and
inflexible. Such an
order undermines the meaning of
ethical choice:
the appearance of choice is a sham.
Ultimately,
the effect is to deprive Yahweh of any freedom,
60 So von Rad in the
quote above in n. 59 and elsewhere.
Cf.
Koch "Gibt es eine Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testa-
ment," 34.
225
which seems a curious doctrine to
impute to
either this literature or these people.61
Nevertheless, the world is consistent. Yahweh is
purposeful. Certainly, his
actions and their meaning are
often mysterious, but he is
still trustworthy. The pattern
or consistency of the world,
though not immutable, is ulti-
mately dependable. Again,
Kovacs remarks,
The overall pattern cm sense of the
world, the
purposes of Yahweh, do not produce a
rigid
structure to the world that closes
or confines
courses of action to the extent that
inexorable
processes are at work. The world is
not governed
by fate or necessity. . . . The
pattern does not
produce an immutable sequence of
events in which
the individual or even Yahweh is
impotent or must
function mechanically. The options
we face are
real. The pattern exists at the
second-order.
We might say that it is the pattern
of the pattern
of events that is fixed.62
Yahweh secures life.
The final motive for wise
responses to the enemy is the
fact that Yahweh secures life.
Rejection of enemy patterns of
life and acceptance of wise
and righteous conduct offer
people the best chance available
for security.
61 B. Kovacs, Sociological-Structural Constraints upon
Wisdom: The Spatial and
Temporal Matrix of Proverbs 15:76-
22:16 (Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt
University, 1978),
p.
490; his table of "adversity sayings" (15:33[?]; 16:8,
19;'17:1,
17; 18:1[?]; 19:1; 21:9, 19) p. 559, demonstrates
that
the wise know that wisdom and righteousness do not
always
bring forth good, nor does folly and wickedness
inevitably
lead to disaster. They were not doctrinnaire.
62 Kovacs, p. 493.
226
The teaching of the wise is a
fountain of life,
that one may avoid the
snares of death.
Proverbs
13:14
The fear of Yahweh is a fountain of
life,
that
one may avoid the snares of death.
Proverbs
14:2762
These two sayings show that the "fear of
Yahweh" and
the "teaching of the
wise" are interchangeable. Both hold
open the promise of life. If
Yahweh is indeed this kind of
God, and the "teaching of
the wise" is life-securing, then
it is wholly consistent for
Proverbs to counsel against
taking vengeance. Who needs to
engage in such behavior
characteristic of
(self-destructive) enemies? Rather, one
should "wait for Yahweh,
and he will help you" (20:22).
This trust in Yahweh also underlies the single explicit
instruction to aid the enemy in
his need (25:21-22). In
addition to the repentance
effected in the enemy, Yahweh
himself may be counted upon to
complete such behavior. This
instruction, far from being
"marred by the last line,"64
expresses an abiding faith in
Yahweh's life-securing
activity on behalf of those who
do good to those who hate
them. In spite of the
well-known inscrutability--even
danger--of Yahweh, Proverbs
maintains that he can be trusted.
63 Cf. 11:9; 14:25.
64 0esterley, p. 229.
227
Job
The literary character of the book of Job makes it very
difficult to reach any sure
answers concerning "wise
responses to the enemy."
Certainly, Job claims that he had
refused to rejoice over his
enemy's misfortune, or even to
"ask for his life with a
curse" (Job 31:29-30). This
response to the enemy is, of
course, classic in the wisdom
tradition. Indeed,
It is easy to establish that the
transgressions
which Job denies . . . play a
substantial role
in the 0ld Testament only in the
Wisdom
teaching.65
Undoubtedly, the writer of the
book intended to recommend
the ethic of chapter 31.
Apart from this notice, however, the responses to the
enemy must be inferred from the
responses of the various
characters.66 The difficulty with this inferential
65 G. Fohrer, "The
Righteous Man in Job 31," in Essays
in Old Testament Ethics
( J. Philip Hyatt In Memoriam)---
ed.
by J. Crenshaw and
p.
13.
66 Job 27:7 ("let my
enemy (ybyvx)
be as the wicked,
and
let him that rises up against me (ymmvqtm) be as
the
unrighteous") is a wish for the destruction of the
enemy.
But, to whom does this sentiment belong? MT
presents
it in a speech of Job, but there is surely some
textual
confusion in the transmission of the "third cycle"
of
speeches. If this belongs to Job, then he is somewhat
less
than truthful in 31:29-30. Cf. R. Gordis, The Book of
Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special
Studies
(
1978);
M. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation,
and Notes
(3rd
ed., Garden City,
228
procedure is compounded by
uncertainties over how much
"weight" should be
given to various characters or themes.
The question of "giving
weight" to various characters or
themes is fundamentally
dependent upon "artistic" judgments.
Dogmatism is ruled out of
bounds by the book of Job.
Therefore, the following discussion will be organized
around the responses which the
characters of the book make
to their various enemies. Of
course, every character in the
book is (allegedly) an enemy to
somebody at some point.
Attention Its best focused,
however, on the responses of the
friends, Elihu, Job and God.
The Friends
Job's friends are introduced in the prologue (2:11-13)
when they "made an
appointment together to come to condole
(dvn) with
him and comfort (MHn)
him" (2:11). Upon
seeing him, their first
response was to mourn (2:12). Then
they sat with him in silence
for seven days and nights, "for
they saw that his suffering was
very great" (2:13).
In prologue, of course, Job is not yet considered
an enemy by the friends. He
poses no threat. He is simply
H.
Rowley, Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1980); N. Tur-
Sinai,
The Book of Job: A New Commentary (
Kiryath
Sepher, 1957J; G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob
(Guersloh:
Verlagshaus
Gerd Mohn, 1963); E. Dhorme, A Commentary the
Book of Job, trans. by H. Knight (
229
a suffering friend they seek to
console. As soon as Job
raises his curse against the
day of his birth (3:1-26),
however, he is perceived as a
threat. His implicit chal-
lenge to God's wisdom and
goodness in chapter 3 is rightly
considered a threat to the
friends' comfortable notions
about righteousness and
blessing and wickedness and
disaster. Therefore, the
friends all engage in disputation
with Job.67
Their disputations all rest upon one fundamental con-
viction: good comes to good
people, and evil comes to evil
people. Life simply works that
way; God guarantees and
enforces it.68 This conviction was seen to be fundamental
in Proverbs, but Job's friends
use it in a new way.
Whereas in Proverbs this conviction is used to predict
the future on the basis of
present conduct and disposition,
Job's friends use Job's present
circumstance of suffering to
deduce something about his past
conduct and disposition.
Zophar goes so far as to say,
"Know then that God exacts of
67 Eliphaz' speeches
(chaps. 4-5, 15, 22) are disputa-
tion
speeches; Bildad's speeches in Job 8 and 18 are
disputation
while that in 15:1-6 is a mixture of hymnic
elements,
rhetorical questions, and a wisdom saying.
Undoubtedly,
it intends to dispute Job; Zophar's speeches
(11,
20) are disputations; cf. Murphy, Wisdom
Literature,
pp.
23-36; C. Westermann, The Structure of
the Book of Job:
A Form-Critical Analysis, trans. by G. Muenchow
(Phila-
delphia:
Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 18-24.
68 Cf. 4:8-11; 5:2-5;
8:3-7, 11-22; 11:20; 15:20-35;
18:521; 20:4-29; 22:10-20,
23-30.
230
you less than your guilt
deserves" (11:6c). Eliphaz'
indictment, however, is the
clearest example of this
reasoning.
Is not your wickedness great?
For there is no end to
your iniquities.
For you have exacted pledges of your
brothers for
nothing,
and stripped the naked
of their clothing.
You have given no water to the weary
to drink,
and you have withheld
bread from the
The man with power possessed the
land,
and the favored man
dwelt in it.
You have sent widows away empty,
and the arms of the
fatherless were
crushed.
Therefore snares are round about
you,
and sudden terror
overwhelms you;
your light is darkened, so that you
cannot see,
and a flood of waters
covers you.
Job
22:5-11
How does Eliphaz know that Job is guilty of these
offenses? They are nowhere
mentioned. Indeed, if this is
the kind of person Job is, then
it is curious that the
friends came to see him in the
first place. Actually, of
course, Eliphaz has only a
single piece of "evidence" for
these crimes. Job's present
situation in the midst of
suffering, terror and chaos
(vv. 10-11) forms the ideo-
logical basis justifying the
allegations against Job.
Finding his theory of Divine justice
contra-
dicted by the facts, Eliphaz
proceeds to the
time-honored device of adjusting the
facts to
the theory. Accordingly, he invents a
long
catalogue of crimes committed by Job.69
69 Gordis, p. 238.
231
In fairness to the friends it must now be said that
they do not dispute with Job
and hurl accusations against
him just to torment him.70
The intention time and again is
to move Job to repentance.
Although they use their doctrine
of order to reconstruct the
past, they have not given up its
power to predict the future.
They are certain that repent-
ance on Job's part will issue
in restoration and blessing.
After his amazing indictment of
Job, therefore, Eliphaz can
also urge,
Agree with God, and be at peace;
thereby good will come
to you.
Receive instruction from his mouth,
and lay up words in your
heart.
If you return (bvw) to the Almighty
and humble
yourself,
if you remove
unrighteousness far
from your
tents,
if you lay gold in the dust,
and gold of Ophir among
the stones
of the
torrent bed,
and if the Almighty is your gold,
and your precious silver;
then you will delight yourself in
the
Almighty,
and lift up your face to
God.
You will make your prayer to him,
and he
will hear
you;
and you will pay your
vows.
You will decide on a matter, and it
will
be
established for you,
and light will shine on
your ways.
When men are brought low you will
say,
"Rise
up,"
and he who has been
humbled will be
saved.
70 This true in spite of
Job's charges in 16:4b;
19:2, 22; and 21:3.
232
Even the guilty will escape
punishment,
escaping through the
purity of your
hands.
Job
22:21-3072
Finally, Job's friends fall silent in Job's presence
(32:1). All their disputation
accomplished nothing in
moving Job to repentance.
Neither did their "appointment to
come together to condole with
him and comfort him" (2:11)
reach its goal. All they
accomplished was to incur the
wrath of young Elihu, and to
condemn God (32:3).73
Elihu
Elihu is suddenly introduced in Job 32:2.74
His
speeches comprise chapters 32
through 37. His responses to
Job are not essentially
different from those of the friends.
The narrator notes that
"he was angry at Job because he
71 The final two verses
follow the translation of
Gordis, p. 242; cf. idem,
p. 252; Pope, pp. 164, 168-169;
and
Chapter 2, n. 142 above.
72 Other admonitions to
repentance include 5:8, 17-27;
8:5-7,
20-22; 11:13-20.
73 See Chapter 3, n. 42
above.
74 'The Elihu speeches
give every indication of being a
later
addition to the book, either from the same author (so
Gordis,
pp.546-553; N. Smith, The Book of Job: Its Origin
and Purpose [
another
hand (so Pope, pp. XXVII-XXVIII; Rowley, pp. 12-13;
Westermann,
pp. 139-148). Whatever their literary status,
of
course, they still must be interpreted. Cf. M. Tate,
"The
Speeches of Elihu," Review and Expositor 68 (1971),
487-495.
233
justified himself rather than
God" (32:2). Furthermore,
He was angry also at Job's three
friends
because they had found no answer,
although
they had declared God to be in the
wrong.
Job
32:3
Accordingly, his speeches are
all disputational.75
Elihu agrees with the conventional understanding of
righteousness and blessing and
wickedness and disaster. He
argue,
far be it from God that
he should
do
wickedness,
and from the Almighty
that he should
do wrong.
For according to the work of a man
he
will
complete (Mlw,
pi.) for him,
and according to his
ways he will make
it befall
him.
Of a truth, God will not do
wickedly,
and the Almighty will
not pervert justice.
Job
34:10b-12
Although his statements are
perhaps more subtle in regard to
repentance than those of the
friends, his admonitions to
"take heed!" (rmw, ni., 36:21) and to “hear!”
(hnyzxh), “stop!”
(dmf) and "consider!" (Nnvbth,
37:1d) point in that direction.
Yet, he does differ with the friends in at least one
respect. He concedes that it is
possible for the righteous
to suffer. God may be testing
and disciplining them. Thus,
75 Murphy, Wisdom Literature, p 42.
76 Cf. 34:21-30; 36:5-7.
234
it happens that
Man is also chastened (hky, ho.) with
pain upon
his bed,
and with continual
strife (byr)
in
his bones;
so that his life loathes bread,
and his appetite dainty
food.
Job
33:19-20
The point of this divinely
enforced disciplinary suffering
is, however, that one repents:
he prays to God, is
accepted, and then sings a song
of thanksgiving (33:26-28).
Ultimately, Elihu would have
Job believe that God acts this
way in order
to bring back his soul from the Pit,
that he see the light of
life.
Job
34:30
Yahweh
Only once does Yahweh accuse Job of being his enemy.
As noticed in Chapter 3 above,
Yahweh's accusation takes the
form of rhetorical questions
which intend to claim that Job
would "frustrate" (ryph) God's "right" (Fpwm) and
"condemn" (fywrh) him in order to accomplish his own
justification (40:8). Yahweh's
response to this hostile
action of Job is to rebuke him
by pointing to human ignor-
ance and divine wisdom. The
outcome of this divine rebuke
is Job's penitent confession in
chapter 42:2-6. Surely,
235
Yahweh's intention was to bring
precisely this response from
the one he had "counted as
his adversary."77
Yahweh's real enemies, however, are the three friends
who perjure themselves in their
argument with Job. They had
not spoken of God what is
"right" (hnvkn).78
Ulti-
mately, it appears that
Job's courageous and honorable
challenge
to God is more acceptable to Him
than
conventional defenses of God's justice
that rest upon distortions of reality.79
Yahweh's response is to provide a cultic means for
their reclamation. They are to
offer up for themselves a
burnt offering (hlvf) of seven bulls and seven rams.
Job will pray (llpth) for them. Then Yahweh will hear
Job's prayer and forgive them
(42:7-9). The goal of
Yahweh's response to these false
witnesses against him is
their repentance and
reclamation.
Job
Job has two categories of enemies to whom he responds:
Yahweh and the friends. His
responses to his friends are
customarily disputatious and
accusing.80 Occasionally they
77 19:21; cf. 13:24;
33:10.
78 42:7, 8.
79 Gordis, p. 494.
80 Cf. 6:14-27; 12:2-6
(7-25); 13:1-17; 16:1-5; 19:2-5;
21:2-3, 27-34.
236
involve a plea for help and
comfort.81 In the epilogue, of
course, Job obediently prays for
his friends (42:9, 10) who
had maligned him. Then,
"Yahweh gave Job twice as much as
he had before" (42:10).
Job's responses to Yahweh are more variegated than
those to his friends. To begin
with, Job responds to the
disasters which strike his property
and family with praise
of Yahweh who "gives"
(Ntn) and "takes" (hql); he
pronounces a blessing upon the
name of Yahweh (1:21). When
afflicted with "loathsome
sores" he "sat among the ashes"
(2:8) which must be a sign of
mourning,82 as well as his
social alienation. Once again,
however, Job affirms his
faith in God, although this
time with a rhetorical question,
and without a blessing (2:10).
Job's responses to God within the poetic dialogue are
two-fold: he laments, and he
accuses. His opening (Job 3)
and closing speeches (Job
29-31) are laments.83 Within the
81 Cf. 6:28-30; 19:21-22.
82 So Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, pp. 101-102; Tur-Sinai,
pp.
25-26 Rowley, p. 8; Pope, p. 21; contra
Gordis, p. 21.
83 Murphy, Wisdom
Literature, pp. 38-39, classifies Job
29-31
as a "soliloquy," but Job is not really "talking to
himself"
here. God is supposed to hear this description of
past
righteousness, present distress and purificatory oath.
Alternatively,
chaps. 3 and 29-31 could be described as
"curses"
as J. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An
Intro-
duction (Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1981), pp. 105-106, does.
Even
Crenshaw, however, writes, "Job's powerful lament
begins
and ends with a curse (p. 105, emphasis his).
237
dialogue between Job and his
friends, lament also plays a
vital part. For example, Job
complains,
Therefore I will not restrain my
mouth;
I will speak in the
anguish of my spirit,
I will complain in the
bitterness of
my soul.
Am I the sea, or a sea monster,
that thou settest a
guard over me?
When I say, "My bed will
comfort me,
my couch will ease my
complaint,"
then thou dost scare me with dreams,
and terrify me with
visions,
so that I would choose strangling
and death rather than my
bones.
I loathe my life; I would not live
for ever.
Let me alone, for my
days are a breath.
What is man, that thou dost make so
much
of him,
and that thou dost set
thy mind upon him,
dost visit him every morning
and test him every
moment?
How long wilt thou not look away
from me,
nor let me alone till I
swallow my spittle?
If I sin, what do I do to thee, thou
watcher
of men?
Why hest thou made me
thy mark?
Why have I become a
burden to thee?
Why dost thou not pardon my
transgression
and take away my
iniquity?
For now I shall lie in the, earth;
thou wilt seek me, but I
shall no be.
Job
7:11-2184
Within the context of these laments are to be found
Job's accusations against God.
In the one cited above, God
is accused of treating Job like
a sea monster (v. 12), of
terrifying him (v. 14), testing
him (v. 18), and of making
84 See the lament
elements in 6:4-20; 7:1-10; 9:17-31;
10:1-22;
13:20-28; 14:1-22; 16:6-22; 17:1-16; 19:7-20;
21:7-21;
23:1-17; 24:1-17, 21-25. Cf. Westermann, pp. 31-
66; Murphy, Wisdom Literature, pp. 25-36.
238
him a target for attack (v.
20), among other things.
Perhaps the most scathing
indictment of God is in Job 9:22-
24 where he claims,
It is all one; therefore I say,
he destroys both the
blameless and
the wicked.
When disaster brings sudden death,
he mocks at the calamity
of the innocent.
The earth is given into the hands of
the wicked;
he covers the faces of
its judges--
if it is not he, who then is it?85
Job's final response to Yahweh is repentance. This
"repentance" of
Job's, however, does not appear to be over
any sin(s) in particular. It is
not as if he now agrees
with the friends (or Elihu)
that he was guilty of some
offense which brought on all
his misery. Nor can this be
taken as a repudiation by Job
(or the author of the book)
of his previous speeches.86
Rather this is the only pos-
sible response of a man who is
"blameless and upright, one
who feared God, and turned away
from evil" (1:1) when he is
confronted by the Living God.
Of course, he "despises"
(ytsxm) and
"repents" (ytmHn,
42:6), but it must be
noticed that he does so
absolutely; no objects are construed
with the verbs. How else can a
human behave when face to
face with God?
85 Other accusations of
God are found in 6:4; 9:17-21;
10:3-17; 13:24-27; 16:6-17; 19:6-22; 30:19-23.
86 Contra Tur-Sinai, pp. 577-578.
239
Response to Satan?
Does the book of Job offer any
guidance on how the wise
respond to the Adversary?
Certainly nothing is explicit in
this regard. The fact that this
figure disappears after
Job 2:7 may intimate something.
Human response to this
heavenly Adversary is simply
not an option. This is nowhere
explicitly stated, of course,
but it may be argued that had
the writer wished to present a
response to him he surely
could have done so. His
literary skills were quite adequate
to the task. By refusing to
mention the Adversary after the
prologue he may well have
intended to intimate that the
problem of homo sapiens is not the Adversary but God.
Otherworldly disputes may
indeed be the backdrop to earthly
events, but humans are to be
concerned with one another,
creation and God.
Qoheleth
It was suggested earlier in this study that Qoheleth’s
real enemies, those which pose
a genuine threat to him, are
life and God.87
Certainly, he mentions other enemy
figures,88 but only
life and God cause any real anxiety.
87 See above Chapter 2,
pp. 123-124, and Chapter 3,
pp.
166-169.
88 For example,
"king," ''prince," "human beings"; see
Appendices I and III.
240
His responses to life include
"quietism," hatred and enjoy-
ment. He has only a single
response to God: fear.
"Quietism"
The characterization of Qoheleth's response to life as
"quietism" may not be
entirely felicitous, but it does seem
to fit his attitude in some
passages. Thus, he once argues,
"Better is a handful of
quietness (tHn) than
two hands
full of toil and a striving
after wind" (4:6). Qoheleth
evidently makes this statement
in order to counter the
opinion in the popular saying
immediately preceding:89
"The fool (lysk) folds his hand, and eats his own flesh"
(4:5). The recommendation then
is that "rest" (tHn is
better than the
"toil" (lmf) and
"skill" (Nvrwk)
proceeding from
"envy" (hxnq) which
is "vanity and a
striving after wind"
(4:4).
Qoheleth's responses to civil government are likewise
"quietistic" and
"non-activist." Faced with oppression
(qwf) of
the poor he advises against being "amazed"
89 K. Gordis, Koheleth--The Man and His World: A Study
of Ecclesiastes (3rd aug. ed.,
pp.
160, 241; Scott, pp. 224-225; C. Ginsburg, Coheleth
Commonly Called the Book
of Ecclesiastes: Translated from
the Original Hebrew with
a Commentary Historical and
Critical 2 vol. in one (
lished
in 1861), pp. 324-326, takes v. 5 somewhat differ-
ently:
"the sluggard foldeth his hands and yet eateth his
meat."
241
(hmt, 5:7).
His civil conservatism is especially
noticeable in his responses to
the king.
Keep
(rvmw)
the king's command, and
because of your sacred oath be not
dismayed
(lhb, ni.); go from his
presence, do not
delay when the matter is unpleasant,
for he
does whatever he pleases. For the
word of
the king is supreme and who may say
to him,
"What are you doing?" He
who obeys a com-
mand will meet no harm, and the mind
of a
wise man will know the time and way.
Qoheleth
8:2-5
One should not curse the king
or the rich, because even when
done in secret,
a bird of the air will carry your
voice,
or some winged creature
tell the matter.
Qoheleth
10:2090
This attitude is not limited to mundane considerations
such as civil government and
work. Qoheleth also applies
this approach to morality.
Righteous men perish in
righteousness while the wicked
sometimes live to a "ripe
old-age" (7:15).
Therefore, he advises against the extremes
of excessive righteousness and
wisdom as well as wickedness
and folly (7:16-17). Thus,
Qoheleth recommends "a sort of
middle way, the path of least
resistance."91
90 Cf. 7:21-22 where this
attitude extends even to over-
hearing
other's talk, "lest you hear your servant cursing
you."
91 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, p. 131; cf. Ginsburg,
pp.
379-382; Scott, pp. 236-237; Gordis, Koheleth,
pp. 176-
179,
275-278. Contra R. Whybray,
"Qoheleth the Immoralist?
(Qoh. 7:16-17)," in Israelite Wisdom, pp. 191-204.
242
Hatred
Qoheleth "hated" (xnW) life. He sees with throbbing
clarity that life finally
issues in a single fate--death--
for wise and fool alike.92
His response to social oppres-
sion is not only
"quietism" (5:7). The perception of this
social distortion also leads
him to consider the dead
more fortunate than the living who
are still
alive; but better than both is he
who has not
yet been, and has not seen the evil
deeds
that are done under the sun.
Qoheleth
4:2-393
Once, Qoheleth seems to grant the living some advantage
over the dead. After reflecting
upon the inscrutability of
the "work of God," of
which even a wise man is ignorant
(8:16-17), and the single fate
of death which comes to all,
regardless of moral or cultic
behavior (9:1-3), he says,
. . . But he who is joined with all
the living
has hope (NvhFb), for a living dog is
better than a dead lion. For the
living know
that they will die, but the dead
know nothing,
and they have no more reward; but
the memory
of them is lost. Their love and
their hate
and their envy have already
perished, and they
have no more for ever any share in
all that is
done under the sun.
Qoheleth
9:4-6
92 2:12-17; cf. 7:2-4
which values the "house of
mourning"
and "sorrow" over the "'house of feasting/mirth"
and
"laughter."
93 Cf. 6:1-6 which also rates
the stillborn above the
living.
243
"Hope" this may be, but one would scarcely
write a
"theology of hope"
starting from here. Although caution is
the watchword with Qoheleth's
linguistic usage,94 the word
translated "hope" (NvHFb) in this passage may well be a
signal of Qoheleth's true
intent. The only other appearance
of this word in the Hebrew
scriptures is in the Rahshakeh's
speech before the walls of
36:4). He said to Hezekiah's
envoys.
Say to Hezekiah,
"Thus says the great king,
the king of
confidence (NvHFb) of
yours?"
Clearly the Rabshakeh used the word to indicate false,
illusory "hope" or
"confidence." He went on to ridicule
a hope for
have come up against this place
to destroy it?" (II Kgs.
18:25). Perhaps Qoheleth
Intends the same kind of "hope"
by his use of the word NvHFb.
Another linguistic factor may also be significant. The
normal Hebrew word for
"hope" (hvqt) never
appears in
Qoheleth. Neither does the verb
hvq (pi., "hope, wait")
appear, nor any nouns derived
from that root. Furthermore,
none of the words which appear
in synonymous parallelism
94 Cf. Gordis, Koheleth, pp. 59-62.
244
with hvqt95 are to be found in the book
with a meaning of
"hope" or any related
meaning. Although biblical Hebrew has
a rich lexicon for
"hope" Qoheleth has no need of it. His
vision is hope-less.
Quite apart from linguistic considerations, however,
the content of this
"hope" must be taken into account. This
content is that the living know
that they shall die. If God
were to redeem death through
the gift of new life,96 then
knowledge of death might be
hopeful, but Qoheleth denies
this possibility.
For the fate of the sons of men and
the fate of
beasts is the same; as one dies, so
dies the
other. They all have the same breath
(Hvr),
and man has no advantage over the
beasts; for
all is vanity. All go to one place;
all are
from dust, and all turn to dust again. Who
95 hFbm ("confidence,
security") in Psalm 71:5;
hlsk) ("confidence") in Job 4:6; tlHvt ("expecta-
tion")
in Prov. 10:28; 11:7; hvxt ("desire") in Prov.
11:23;
hlxw
("request") in Job 6:8; and tyrHx ("end,
future")
in Prov. 23:18; 24:14 (cf. Jer. 29:11; 31:17)
appear
in synonymous parallelism with hvqt. Only
tyrHx): appears in Qoheleth at 7:8 and 10:13
where it
means
simply "end," not "hope."
96 Late pre-Christian
Judaism entertained several dif-
ferent
notions of "life after death" including "immortality"
(Wisd.
15:3), "assumption" (cf. the numerous "assumption"
documents
of the pseudepigrapha) and "resurrection" (Isa.
26:19;
Dan. 12:1-3; II Macc. 7:9, 14, 23). The problem had
still
not been resolved in the New Testament period as is
seen
in Matt. 22:23-33 and par., Acts 23:6-10 and I Cor.
15:12-56.
Cf. E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An.
Experiment in
Christology, trans. by H. Hoskins (
1979),
pp. 516-523, especially the bibliography on pp. 516-
517.
245
knows whether the spirit (Hvr) of man goes
upward and the spirit (Hvr) of the beast
goes down to the earth?
Qoheleth
3:19-21
Qoheleth's question about the destination of the
"spirit of man" and
the "spirit of the beast" does not
really grant a refuge from the
finality of death. To make
such a distinction is merely
rhetorical, for "they all have
the same spirit" (lkl dHx Hvrv, v. 19). Whatever
the destination of the spirit
(and Qoheleth seems to leave
this question open97),
the effect of death is the annihila-
tion of all consciousness
(9:5-6). "The hope that belongs
to the living scarcely provides
grounds for exultation."98
Enjoyment
Now if death affords
rest for the weary,
and the living possess no real advantage over
the dead, while in certain circumstances
the
stillborn or non-existent enjoys a
superior
status, suicide offers a compelling
alternative.
. . . The marvel is that, Qoheleth shuns this
easy resolution of his misery in
favor of
another powerful answer.99
97 Cf. however 12:7 where
the "spirit (hvr) returns to
God,"
but even this is "vanity of vanities" (Mylbh ylbh,
12:8),
for "round and round goes the wind (Hvr), and on
its
circuits the wind (Hvr) returns" (1:6b).
98 J. Crenshaw, "The
Shadow of Death in Qoheleth," in
Israelite Wisdom, p. 210; cf, his
discussion in Old Testa-
ment Wisdom, pp. 129-133. The
discussion above owes much to
Crenshaw.
Gordis, Koheleth, pp. 78-79, 305,
takes a more
sanguine
view of Qoheleth.
99 Crenshaw, "The
Shadow of Death in Qoheleth," p. 210.
246
The "powerful answer" to which Crenshaw refers
is to
enjoy whatever pleasures are
afforded in life. Immediately
following the
"hopeful" passage in Qoheleth 9:4-6, the
instructions are given to eat
bread "with enjoyment"
(hHmwb), to
drink wine "with a merry heart"
(bvF-blb), to
wear white garments continually and
"let not oil be lacking on
your head" (9:7-8).100 Elsewhere,
Qoheleth similarly counsels enjoyment.
And I commend enjoyment (hHmw), for man has
no good thing under the sun but to
eat and drink,
and enjoy himself (Hvmwlv), for this will go
with him in his toil through the
days of life
which God gives him under the sun.
Qoheleth
8:15101
Indeed, such enjoyment is a
"gift of God" (5:18-19).
100 Commentators are fond
of pointing to the strikingly
similar
advice of Siduri to Gilgamesh:
Gilgamesh, whither runnest thou?
The Life which thou seekest thou
wilt not find;
(For) when the gods created mankind,
They allotted death to mankind,
(But) life they retained in their
keeping.
Thou, 0 Gilgamesh, let thy belly be
full,
Day and night be thou merry;
Make every day (a day of) rejoicing.
Day and night do thou dance and
play.
Let thy raiment be clean,
Thy head be washed, (and) thyself be
bathed
in water.
Cherish the little one holding thy
hand,
(And) let the wife rejoice in thy
bosom.
This is the lot of [mankind . . . ].
A.
Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels
(Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1949), P. 70.
101 Cf. 3:12, 22; 11:8-9.
247
This "enjoyment" which Qoheleth counsels,
however, is
not to be construed as
"delight" or "glee." Rather, this
"enjoyment" is
tempered by the "vanity" of existence. The
counsel to enjoyment in
Qoheleth 9:7-8 is preceded by
polemic against an overly
hopeful view of life and followed
by the observation that
"time and chance" happen to every-
one, "so the sons of man
are snared at an evil time" (9:11-
12). Indeed, all of Qoheleth's
admonitions to rejoice are
tempered by some somber note in
the context.102 This joy
of Qoheleth's is tempered by
his testing of enjoyment which
he found to be vanity.103
Qoheleth 9:9-10 gives another hint that the counsel to
enjoyment is not quite as
delightful as it first appears.
Enjoy (hxr) life with the wife
whom you
love, all the days of your vain life
which he
has given you under the sun, because
that is your
portion in life and in your toil at
which you
toil under the sun. Whatever you hand finds to
102 In 3:12 joy is
tempered by the inability to "find
out
what God has done" (v. 11); 3:22 concludes a passage on
the
one fate of beasts and humans (vv. 18-22); 5:18-20 calls
this
enjoyment a "gift of god," but is followed by 6:1-6
which
speaks of "a man to whom God gives wealth, posses-
sions,
and honor, so that he lacks nothing of all that he
desires,
yet God does not give him power to enjoy (lkx)
them,
but a stranger enjoys (lkx) them; this is vanity;
it
is a sore affliction" (v. 2); 11:8 reminds of the many
"days
of darkness" while 11:9 warns that God will bring a
young
man into judgment for "all these things" which must
include
Qoheleth's counsel.
103 2:1-2; cf. 2:10-11, 24-26; 7:4.
248
do, do it with your might; for there
is no work
or thought or knowledge or wisdom in
Sheol, to
which you are going.
Of course, the closing reminder
of Sheol explicitly tempers
this admonition to enjoyment,
but the hint is earlier when
Qoheleth counsels, MyyH-tx hxr.
Is this really to be translated "Enjoy life"?
The
Greek translates literally ide zwhn ("see life"), but
nearly all other translations
read it hxr ("see") as
“enjoy.”104 Commentators also translate
"enjoy."105
explanations given for this
curioua translation of the verb
hxr are to
point to Qoheleth 2:1 which reads, "Come now,
I will make a test of pleasure
(hHmW); enjoy yourself
(bvFb
hxrv).”106
Or, Qoheleth 3:13 (bvF hxr) and
8:16 (hxr hnw) together with Koehler-Baumgartner
Lexicon are cited.107
The difficulty is that the word
104 So KJV,
lates,
"Spend life . . ."
105 Ginsburg, p. 416;
Scott, p. 245; W. Zimmerli,
Prediger: Ubersetzt and
Erklart
(
and
Ruprecht, 1962), p. 244; A. Lauha, Kohelet
(Neukirchen-
Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), p. 163; H. Hertzberg,
Der Prediger (Gutersloh: Verlagshaus
Gerd Mohn, 1963),
p.
169. Perhaps most interesting is Gordis, Koheleth,
p.
188, who also reads "enjoy" as he had in his book The
Wisdom of Ecclesiastes (
p.
71. The dedication of the latter, however, reads: "To
Fannie,
tbhx rwx hwx Mf MyyH-tx hxr
Behold
life with the woman you love, Ecclesiastes IX, 9."
106 Hertzberg, p. 172;
Ginsburg, p. 416.
107 Lauha, p. 169. KBL,
p. 862, does indeed give a
meaning
"mit Freude Betrachten, enjoy to
see," but it cites
249
("good") is absent
from Qoheleth 9:9. The verb hxr
("see") stands alone,
without any modifiers at all. Perhaps
translators and commentators
have been influenced by the
parallel from Gilgamesh,108
but that will not explain the
King James translators. More
likely, this tradition
(hxr="enjoy")
stems from Jerome who translates,
"Perfruere vita cum uxore."109
Have translators been led astray by Jerome's transla-
tion of Qoheleth 9:9? If so,
the "somber undertones"110 in
this counsel begin to sound
even before "all the days of
your vain life" (9:9) is
heard. Perhaps the counsel is
merely, "Watch life with a
woman whom you love." The
admonition to enjoyment (9:7-8)
then breaks off to become
I
Sam. 6:19 and Qoh. 2:1. The I Sam. 6:9 citation is
dubious.
BDB, p. 908, suggests "gaze at"
with joy or
pleasure,
and cites II Kgs. 10:16; Mic. 7:9; Jer. 29:32;
Isa.
52:8; Job 20:17; 33:28; Psalms 43:9; 106:5; 128:5;
Cant.
3:11; 6:11a; Qoh. 2:1, Only Jer. 29:32 appears to be
an
apt parallel; it reads, “. . . he shall not have any one
living
among this people, and he shall not see the good
(bvFb
hxry-xl)
i.e., "enjoy" ) that I will do to
my
people . . ." Neither KBL nor BDB offers Qoh. 9:9 as an
instance
of this meaning of hxr).
108 Cf. n. 100 above.
109 2:1 reads
"fruere bonis" for bvFb hxr: 5:17
reads
"fruatur laetitia suo” for hbvF
tvxrl)
vlmf-lkb; 6:6 reads—“et non fuerit perfruitus bonis”
for
hxr xl hbvFv. Otherwise in
Qoheleth, the verb
hxr is always translated by expressions relating to
sight,
cognition and contemplation.
110 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, p. 142.
250
rather an exhortation to be
"the spectator, only observing,
registering and
submitting."111 Such a
spectator role,
however, will not square with
verse 10a which counsels
involvement: "Whatever you
hand finds to do, do it with
your might."
Therefore, it seems better to accept the tradition
which translates hxr by "enjoy," but a modification is
needed. If this verb, without
any modifiers, can be trans-
lated "enjoy" in
Qoheleth 9:9, then why not elsewhere in
Qoheleth? It would provide an
appropriate rendering in
several places, especially
where the form of the verb is qal
imperative second masculine
singular. For example:
Is there a thing of which it is
said,
"Enjoy, this is
new"?
It has been already,
in the ages before us.
Qoheleth
1:10
Enjoy the work of God;
who can make straight
what he has
made
crooked?
In the day of
prosperity, be good (hyh
bvFb), and in the day of
adversity enjoy;
God has made the one as well as the
other, so
that man may not find out anything
that will
be after him.
Qoheleth
7:13-14
Enjoy this I have found, says
Qoheleth, . . .
One man among a thousand I found,
but a woman
among all these I have not found.
Enjoy this
I have found, that God made man
upright, but
they have sought out many devices.
Qoheleth
7:27-29
111 von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, p. 142.
251
The translations offered above are not perhaps shining
examples of the art; they are
simply taken from the RSV with
the minor change from
"see, behold, consider" to "enjoy"
introduced.112 The
"woodenness" of such a substitution,
however, reveals a peculiar
dimension to Qoheleth's commands
to "see-enjoy." They
seem to approach the meaning “be
amused at or with something.”
This "amusement" is also
fitting when Qoheleth speaks of
what he has "seen," what
has "amused" him. For
example:
Better is a poor and
wise youth than an old
and foolish king, who will no longer
take advice,
even though he had gone from prison
to the throne
or in his own kingdom been born
poor. I was
amused at all the living who move
about under the
sun, as well as that youth who was
to stand in his
place; there was no end of all the
people; he was
over all of them. Yet those who come
later will
not rejoice in him. Surely this also
is vanity
and a striving after wind.
Qoheleth
4:13-16
I have also been amused at this
example of
wisdom under the sun, and it seemed
great to me.
There was a little city with few men
in it; and
a great king came against it and
beseiged it,
building great seigeworks against
it. But there
was found in it a poor wise man and
he by his
wisdom delivered the city. Yet no
one remembered
that poor man. But I say that wisdom
is better
than might, though the poor man's
wisdom is
despised, and his words are not
heeded.
Qoheleth
9:13-16
112 The only other changes
are in 7:15 where RSV trans-
lates
bvFb hyh by "be joyful," and in 7:29 where the
clause
ytxcm hz hxr is handled differently and
"Qoheleth" is read
rather than "the Preacher."
252
There is an evil which I
have been amused
at under the sun, as it were an
error proceeding
from the ruler: folly is set in many
high
places, and the rich sit in a low
place. I have
been amused at slaves on horses, and
princes
walking on foot like slaves.
Qoheleth 10:5-7113
However these and other passages114 are translated, the
conclusion is easily drawn that
Qoheleth's "seeing" (hxr)
is more than simple observance.
A grin is lurking in his
eyes. Without the word bvF ("good") in the same syntactic
unit, a meaning of
"enjoy" is probably more than hxr will
bear. Yet, Qoheleth's
"seeing" does seem to connote a kind
of savoring of life's ironies.
It is evidently this
savoring of life's ironies,
this amusement in the face of
life, this refusal to take himself
too seriously, that
preserves Qoheleth from
choosing suicide. Although it may
be a sign of how distant
Qoheleth is from the twentieth
century, perhaps it is
necessary to draw out the meaning of
the citation in Qoheleth 9:4 by
amplifying it:
An amused living dog is better
than a dead lion.
113 Other occurrences of
the qal pf. 1st common singular
form
of hxr
which might be translated "be amused at" are
1:14;
2:13, 24; 3:10, 16, 22; 4:4;, 5:12, 17; 6:1; 7:15;
8:9,
10, 17.
114 hxr
also appears
at 1:8, 16; 2:3, 12; 3:13, 18,
22;
4:1, 3, 7; 5:7, 17; 6:5, 6; 7:11; 8:16 (2x); 9:11;
11:4,
7; 12:3. The noun hxrm at 6:9 and 11:9 could bear
the meaning
"amusement."
253
Fear
Qoheleth's vision of life is exceedingly pessimistic.
Strangely, it is precisely this
pessimistic attitude toward
life which motivates his
counsel of enjoyment and amusement
in the face of such an
existence. God stands behind all of
the attacks which issue from
life. Qoheleth's response to
God is quite simply fear (xry), for he knows better than
to "dispute with one
stronger than himself" (6:10).
The sources of Qoheleth's fear of God are stated
clearly in two places. One is
the knowledge that "the
righteous and the wise and
their deeds are in the hand of
God; whether it is love or hate
man does not know" (9:1).
Human ignorance of God's
intention surely explains one
factor in this fearful response
before God.
Human ignorance, however, is not its ultimate source.
After his magnificent poem on
the "times" for all of human
existence, from birth to death
and war to peace (3:1-9).
Qoheleth reflects on the nature
of existence and its
implications.
I have seen the business
that God has given
to the sons of men to be busy with.
He has made
everything beautiful into in its
time; also he has put
eternity115 into
man's mind, yet so that he cannot
115 The word translated
"eternity" is Mlfh.
J.
Crenshaw, "The Eternal Gospel (Eccl. 3:11)," in Essays
in Old Testament Ethics, p. 40, comments that
"four basic
solutions
to the meaning of this word have inevitably sug-
gested themselves: (1)
eternity, (2) world, (3) course of
254
find out what God has done from the
beginning to
the end. I know that there is
nothing better
for them than to be happy and enjoy
themselves
as long as they live; also that it
is God's gift
to man that every one should eat and
drink and
take pleasure in all his toil. I
know that
whatever God does endures for ever;
nothing can
be added to it, nor anything taken
from it; God
has made it so, in order that men
should fear
before him. That which is, already
has been;
and God seeks what has been driven
away.
Qoheleth
3:10-15
The reason Qoheleth fears God is because God has struc-
tured creation in such a way as
to bring about this fearful
response. This "fear of
God" is far removed from that of
earlier wisdom literature.
Generally the expressions "fear
of Yahweh" (hvhy txry) and "fear of God" (txry)
Myhlx) mean
something like "religion," "piety," or
"commitment."116 "Only for Koheleth, who has been
drained
of life's possibilities, does
the primitive attitude
the
world, and (4) knowledge or ignorance." Perhaps it is
an
attempt to speak of human "self-transcendence." Given
the
fact that biblical Hebrew was not used to articulate
philosophical
problems, Qoheleth's linguistic tradition may
have
hampered him, for he seems clearly to be aiming to
discuss
such issues. Later writers, of course, were able
to
use Hebrew as a vehicle for philosophical discussion
(e.g.
Maimonides). On the possible relation of this Mlf
to
Mlc
of Gen. 1:26 see Zimmerli, p. 172. Crenshaw,
p.
42, writes, "Whatever the meaning of ha’olam
may be, the
context
emphasizes man's inability to discover." With
regard
to Mlfh,
this writer must take his stand in
solidarity
with Mdx.
116 Cf. von, Rad, Wisdom in Israel, p. 66; J. Becker,
Gottesfurcht Lm Alten
Testament
(Rom: Papstliches
Bibelinstitut, 1965), pp.
210-248.
255
reassert itself."117 With
him the expression is filled with
numinous dread.118
This fear before God also comes to expression in
Qoheleth’s extreme caution in
cultic activities. "God is in
heaven and you are upon earth;
therefore let your words be
few" (5:1). Especially is
this true when it comes to vows.
If a "mistake" (hggw) be made, God might well be "angry"
(Jcq) and
"destroy (lbH) the
work of your hands"
(5:5).119
Twice Qoheleth seems to indicate that fearing God is a
positive virtue (much in the
old style) rather than a
numinous fear with little
ethical content. Once he con-
cludes that one who fears God
"shall come forth from them
all" (7:18b). This has
been taken as a pious gloss,120
117 Gordis, Koheleth, p. 233.
118 So J. Fichtner, Die Altorientalische Weisheit in
ihrer Israelitisch-Judischen
Auspragung: Eine Studie zur
Nationalisierung der
Weisheit in Israel
(
von
Alfred Topelmann, 1933), p. 53, n. 7; Crenshaw, "The
Eternal
Gospel," p. 25; Becker, p. 250, writes, "Fenner ist
dem Begriff der
Gottesfurcht im Prediger mehr als in der
ubrigen
Weisheitsliteratur ein Zug numinoser Furcht
beigegeben in Form eines
starken Abhangigkeitsbewussteins
des Menschen."
119 Evidently, Qoheleth
does not place much stock in the
sacrificial
rites which were specifically ordained in the
event
of an unintentional error (hggwb); cf. Lev.
4:1-35;
5:14-19.
120 G. Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Ecclesiastes (
1908), p. 114.
256
referring to the security which
conventional wisdom found in
the fear of Yahweh.121 Yet this is the concluding statement
in the recommendation to avoid
both excessive vice and
virtue which makes nonsense of
the conventional wisdom theme
of the fear of God. Qoheleth
still means a numinous fear in
this passage. Indeed,
The deepest ground for the rejection
of the
extremes recommended here is the
instinctive
feeling, those ways may be merely
human and
thereby anti-God--ubrij! Whoever fears God
will avoid both extremes and thereby
their
menacing consequences. . . .122
The other passage where Qoheleth seems to speak of the
fear of God in the conventional
way is in chapter 8:12-13.
He indicates a recognition of
the doctrine that "it will be
well with those who fear
God" (v. 12) while the wicked will
not be blessed with longevity
"because he does not fear
before God" (v. 13).
This conventional knowledge, however, is set in the
midst of passages which deny
this very thing. Qoheleth
8:10-11 records his (amused?)
observation of the wicked
being buried with pomp and
eulogy. Their wickedness does
121 Prov. 3:7; 14:27; Job
4:6.
122 "Der tiefste Grund fur die hier empfohlene
Ablehung
der Extrerme ist das
instinktive Gefuhl, jene Wege seien nur-
menschliche und damit
anti-gottlich—ubrij! Wer Gott
furchtet, wird beiden
Extremen, und damit auch ihren. . .
angedronten
Folgen, entgehen." Hertzberg, pp. 137:755.
257
not catch, up with them soon
enough for the conventional
doctrine to be credible.
Following verses 12-13, he remarks
on the fact that
there are righteous men to whom it
happens
according to the deeds of the
wicked, and
there are wicked men to whom it
happens
according to the deeds of the
righteous.
Qoheleth
8:14
Therefore "enjoyment"
(hHmw) is recommended (8:15).
Qoheleth 8:12-13 really does
speak of the conventional
doctrine of the fear of God,
and denies that it is true.123
Thus, Qoheleth lives in constant dread of "the
God"
(Myhlxh) who
has given an "unhappy business" (Nynf
fr) to
humanity (1:13). He affirms only this
kind of
fear rather than the
conventional "fear of Yahweh" known and
recommended by sages both
before and after him.124 He has
no vital relationship to God.125 One wonders if Qoheleth
prayed. If so, to whom?
123 Contra Becker, p. 253.
124 Already in the epilogue
to his book, a more conven-
tional
soul has added, "Fear God and keep the commandments;
for
this is the whole duty of man" (12:13); here, the "fear
of
God" is being swallowed up in a Torah-piety. Cf. Becker,
pp.
254-255.
125 His instruction to
"Remember also your jyxrb
(RSV,
"Creator")" is "more correctly understood as a deriva-
tive
of the root bare', 'to dig, cut'. The word would then
be
a double entendre for grave and cistern (wife; cf. Prov.
5:15-19)."
Crenshaw, "The Eternal Gospel," p. 29. The
plural
form is certainly troubling if it refers to God, in
spite
of the "plural of majesty" used in Myhlx (cf. G-K
124k).
BHS proposes to emend to jrvb which would
258
Sirach
The responses to enemies and their behavior which
Sirach counsels are, in several
respects, consonant with
those noticed in Proverbs. The
similarities are not sur-
prising for Sirach stands in
continuity with the sages
responsible for Proverbs.
Therefore, his many counsels to
reject patterns of behavior
characteristic of enemies are
predictable.126 Likewise his admonitions to avoid enemies
are expected,127 although in this regard he also sounds a
caution. If it is too late for
avoidance because one is
already in the presence of an
enemy, he advises,
Do not get up and leave an insolent
fellow,
lest he lie in wait against your words.
Sirach
8:11
The proverbial response of non-anxiety in the face of
enemies is considerably less noticeable
in Sirach.128
accomplish
by text critical means what Crenshaw achieves by
philology.
Lauha, p. 210, comments, "Jedenfalls
legen all,
genannten
Grunde die Annahme nahe, V. la als orthodoxen
Zusatz zu Kohelets Text
zu betrachten."
126 Cf. Sir. 1:30; 3:10,
12-13; 4:1-5, 9, 20, 22, 27,
29-30;
5:1-9, 14-6:2; 7:1, 3, 7-9, 11-13, 16-18, 20, 26a, 34.
8:5-6,
10; 9:10; 10:6, 23, 26-27; 11:2, 4, 23-24; 13:10;
15:11-12;
16:17-23; 17:26; 18:15, 30; 19:7-12; 21:2; 23:9;
28:8-12;
30:38 (30:29); 34(31):21, 25, 31; 35(32)02,
127 Cf. 7:2, 6, 26b; 15-16; 9:2-5, 8, 13; 11:9,
29-31,
33; 12:13-15; 13:1-7, 11, 15-20; 17:14; 19:26-28;
21:2;
23:12-13; 29:22; 32(35):3; 36:31(26); 37:11; 40:29.
128 9:11-12; 11:21.
259
Rather, Sirach seems to harbor
some anxiety over these
figures and their attacks.129 This anxiety is perhaps sur-
prising in view of the fact
that the knowledge of the
enemies' self-destructive
nature is still affirmed.130 It
is also somewhat surprising
from one whose God is as pre-
dictably orthodox as Sirach's131 Surely, such an orthodox
God would protect him from
attack.
Four responses appear in Sirach which are either new in
the wisdom literature, or
represent some significant
development compared with
earlier literature. These four
include caution,
reconciliation, hostility and piety. The
first two, of course, are in
continuity with the earlier
responses of avoidance and love
while the latter two seem
to be departures.
Hostility
One woe-saying (2:12) gives expression to Sirach’s
hostility toward "timid
hearts," "slack hands," and the
"sinner who walks along
two ways."132 Woes
are often
129 9:18; 26:5, 28;
27:14-15.
130 3:20, 26-28; 5:13; 6:2,
4; 12:3; 13:3-10; 19:2, 4-6;
20:4,
8, 18; 21:4, 8-10, 27-28; 23:8, 10-11, 15; 26:29;
27:3,
10, 25-29; 31(34):1, 7; 34(31):5-10; 40:13-15.
131 See above Chapter 3,
pp. 179-183.
132 Vv. 13-14 utter woes
against the "faint heart" and
those who have "lost
endurance."
260
encountered in the prophetic
literature,135 but are
absent
from wisdom literature of the
Hebrew Bible.134 It has been
argued that this form developed
from the curse.135 Another
source which has been proposed
for the woe-saying is wisdom
circles where it would have
been a counterpart to the
“happy” (yrwx) sayings.136 Whatever the original setting
for the form, Sirach uses it to
pronounce disaster upon the
sinner.
The woes pronounced in Sirach 2:12-14 may not express
hostility; it may rather be an
emphatic way of clarifying
the self-destructive nature of
an enemy. With other
passages, however, it is clear
that Sirach does harbor
hostility toward enemy figures.
Twice he admits to “hating”
(misew)
people. He hates the one who "winks his eye"
(27:22) while planning evil
(27:24). Sirach 25:2b lists
133 See Am. 5:18-20; 6:1-7;
Isa. 5:8-10, 11-14, 18-19,
20,
21, 22-24; 10:1-3; 28:1-4; 29:1-4, 15; 30:1-3; 31:1-4;
Mic.
2:1-4.
134 yvx in Prov. 23:29 does not
introduce a "woe-
saying."
135 C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech,
trans.
by H. White (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967),
pp.
192-198.
136 E. Gerstenberger,
"The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets,"
JBL
81 (1962), 249-263; yrwx-sayings occur in the
wisdom
literature
at Job 5:17; Prov. 3:13; 8:32, 34; 20:7; 28:14
(cf.
14:21; 16:20; 29:18); Qoh. 10:17, Cf. W. March,
"Prophecy,"
in Old Testament Form Criticism, ed.
by J. Hayes
(
261
three figures that are hated: a
proud beggar, a rich liar,
and an old adulterer.
Aside from hating some enemy figures, Sirach curses
them. Once he utters a curse on
the evil wife.
Any iniquity is insignificant
compared to a
wife's
iniquity;
may a sinner's lot
befall her!
Sirach
25:19
This might be taken as an
imprecatory prayer rather than a
curse in the strict sense, but
in the absence of any mention
of God in the passage,137 it seems better to take it as a
curse. Once Sirach explicitly
instructs, "Curse the
whisperer and deceiver" (yiquron kai diglwsson katarasasqe)
because of his138 socially disruptive behavior (28:13).
Where earlier wisdom had overwhelmingly refused to meet
hostility with hostility,
Sirach's hostility toward his
enemies invades even his childrearing
considerations. If a
man teaches (didaskw) his son properly he will "make his
enemies
envious" (parazhlwsei ton exqron, 30:3 ). After his
death, the son will remain as
an "avenger" (ekdikon)
against them, as well as one
who can repay the kindness of
137 The closest previous
mention of the Lord is in 25:11
which
closes the preceding unit (25:7-11); the next mention
of
God is not until 26:3 which speaks of the "good wife"
(26:1-4).
138 The singular verb apwlesen (28:13b) requires
yiqruon
kai diglwsson be taken as hendiadys.
262
friends. One of the things
which "gladdens"139 Sirach's
heart is to observe "a man
who lives to see the downfall of
his foes" (25:7d). This is
in striking contrast to earlier
instructions.140
Finally the communal lament in Sirach 33(36):1-17
virtually revels in hostility
toward
Although earlier wisdom
scarcely ever mentioned foreigners,
they seem not to have elicited
any particular hostility.
Indeed, earlier wisdom, appears
to have been very open to
insight from any source. With
this prayer, however,
the reader stands before a new stage
in sapiential
thinking, one in, which the earlier
universalism
[has surrendered] to particularistic
con-
cerns. , . . Sirach [makes] distinctions
solely
on the basis of nationality.141
Caution
A wise man is cautious (eulabhqhsetai)
in
everything
and in days of sin he
guards against
wrongdoing.
Sirach
18:27
139 The verb makarizw, here translated
"gladdened" is
interesting.
It is the usual LXX translation of yrwx
The
Hebrew text (Levi) has a lacuna at this point.
140 0f course, Sirach knows
and gives such advice
himself
(see the references in n. 126 above), but he never-
theless
finds personal satisfaction in seeing the enemy's
discomfiture
and downfall.
141 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, p. 165, tenses
changed
for stylistic reasons. Cf. also the praise of
(44:1-50:24).
263
Caution is Sirach's watchword in at least three con-
texts. Within the home he
counsels fathers to "Keep strict
watch (sterewson fulakhn) over a headstrong
daughter,"142
for she may pose several
threats. She could ruin his
reputation (42:11) and sin
against him by sexual promiscuity
(26:11b-12). A father must
"Be on guard (fulacai)
against
her impudent eye"
(26:11a). Such a daughter is the occasion
of many sleepless nights
(42:9-10).
Another context in which caution is appropriate is in
the company of strangers (allotrion, 8:18). In their
presence, Sirach recommends
against doing anything which
demands confidentiality. Who
can know where a stranger's
loyalties lie? He might well
generate (tecetai)
unimagined dangers.143
The following verse (8:19) also has a bearing on this
cautious response.144 Sirach
widens the scope and counsels
142 26:10 = 42:11.
143 8:18b, ou
gar ginwskeij ti tecetai,
might be
translated
"for you do not know what it will bring forth"
(RSV
margin); in that case, the act of taking a stranger
into
confidence poses the unknown hazard, rather than the
stranger
himself. With either translation, however, caution
in
the presence of a stranger is enjoined.
144 Actually, Sir. 8:1-19
is composed of independent
prohibitions,
each one of which is intelligible without
reference
to any of the others. It appears, however, that
vv.
18 and 19 are linked topically, although no paronomastic
devices
are in evidence. V. 18 exhibits paronomasia in its
use
of rz ("stranger")
and zr
("secret"), but there are
no
links between the verses.
264
against revealing one's
thoughts to everyone (panti anqrwp&)
and against banishing one's
good fortune.145
Alternatively,
do not allow everyone to return
a favor.146 In any
case,
Sirach advises caution in the
presence of strangers, and
everyone.
The relationship between friends, however, elicits the
most attention from Sirach.
Friendship requires great
caution because
Every friend will say, "I too
am a friend";
but some friends are
friends only in name.
Sirach
37:1
The discovery is often made too
late that such "friends"
become enemies (37:2).147 They may be "fair weather
friends" who oppose one in
hard times (37:4).148 They may
pursue friendship for
self-centered reasons, "for their
stomach's sake" as Sirach
37:5 puts it. Therefore, it is
145 The Hebrew text of 19b
(Levi) reads hydt lx)
bvFh jylfm. RSV translates,
"lest you drive away
your
good luck," but there is no Npe. N. Peters, Das
Buch
Jesus Sirach oder
Ecclesiasticus
(
Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1913), p. 76, translates, "aber
stosse
die Gute nicht von dir."
146 The Greek text of 19b
reads: kai mh
anaferetw soi xarin.
accept
favor from them.”
147 Cf. 6:9.
148 Cf. 6:8, 10, 11; 12:9.
265
not surprising to hear the
advice,
Keep yourself far (diaxwrisqhti) from
your
enemies,
and be on guard (prosexe) toward
your
friends.
Sirach
6:15149
In spite of these risks in friendship, however, Sirach
urges against forgetting (mh eplaq^) a friend or being
unmindful (mh amnhmonhshj) of him when a person is
wealthy (37:6) and might not.
need the help which a true
friend can give. Undoubtedly,
Sirach prizes friendship.
Its potential for intimacy
poses great danger, but also life
itself.
A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter:
he that has found one
has found a treasure.
There is nothing so precious as a
faithful
friend
and no scales can
measure his excellence.
A faithful friend is an elixir of
life;
and those who fear the
Lord will find him.
Whoever fears the Lord directs his
friendship
aright,
for as he is, so is his
neighbor also.
Sirach
6:14-17
149 Cf. 12:10, 11 where
Sirach says never to "trust"
(mh
pisteus^j)
an enemy and to "watch oneself"
(episthson
thn yuxhn sou)
and "be on guard" (fulacai)
toward
an enemy. This "enemy," however, is precisely the
kind
of person Sirach means in 37:1 who is a friend "only in
name."
150 The Hebrew formulation
of v. 17b (16a, Levi),
vhfr Nk vhvmk yk, is a 3rd person
allusion to
Lev.
19:181 jvmk jfrl
tbhxv. Throughout this
passage
on friendship the Hebrew text speaks of the bhvx,
but
fr
appears in the final verse. V. 10 (Greek, v. 11)
recalls
the Leviticus passage ironically when it says of the
false
friend jvmk xvh jtbvFb ("In your
prosperity
he is as yourself").
266
Reconciliation
Although Sirach sometimes evidences hostility toward
enemy figures, he is still able
to counsel responses aimed
at reconciliation. Regarding a
household slave (oikethj)
he naturally advises a prudent
policy of bread and disci-
pline (paideian) and work" (30:33 [33:24]), for
"idleness
teaches much evil" (30:29 [33:28]).
Of course, "for a wicked
servant (oiket^ kakourg&) there are racks and tortures
"
(30:35 [33:27]), but Sirach's
basic perspective is revealed
when he says,
If you have a servant, let him be as
yourself,151
because you have bought
him with blood.
If you have a servant, treat him as
a brother,
for as your own soul you
will need him.
If you ill-treat him, and he leaves
and
runs away,
which way will you go to
seek him?
Sirach
30:39-40(33:31-33)
With friends and neighbors Sirach is just as cautious
about breaking the relationship
as he is in establishing it.
Four times he says to “question”
(elegcon) a friend or
neighbor (19:13-17). He may
have done or said nothing at
all, but even if he had
committed the offense, examination
151 "As yourself"
(wj sou)
may recall Lev. 19:18,
although
the LXX read wj seauton in Leviticus. Unfortu-
nately,
this passage is not preserved in Hebrew, but it must
have
read jvmk).
At any rate, the instruction is moti-
vated
differently than Lev. 19:18 with its hvhy ynx.
Here
the motivations are entirely mundane: slaves are
expensive, they are necessary,
and runaways cannot be found.
267
is urged so that it might not
happen again (vv. 13-14). The
alleged offense might be
slanderous, and that possibility
calls for caution in hearing
(v. 15). Even if the charge is
true, however, the question of
intent may be raised.
A person may make a slip without
intending it.
Who has never sinned
with his tongue?
Question your neighbor before you
threaten
(apeilhsai) him
and let the law of the
Most High take
its course.
Sirach
19:16-17
The last line of this instruction (v. 17b) is intrigu-
ing. Literally translated it
reads, "And give place to the
law of the Most High."152 What does it mean to "give
place"
to Torah? Is this a reference
to a particular passage, or
a more general allusion to some
theme of Torah which is
important to Sirach?
Most likely Sirach has in view a
particular passage:
You shall not hate your brother in
your
heart, but you shall reason with
your neighbor,
lest you bear sin because of him.
You shall not
bear any grudge against the sons of
your own
people, but you shall love your
neighbor as
yourself: I am Yahweh.
Leviticus
19:17-18
The fourfold "Question!" (elegcon) in Sirach 19:13,
14, 15 and 17 recalls the
"reason (LXX, elegceij) with
your neighbor" of
Leviticus 19:17. The Hebrew text of
Sirach has not been preserved
in this passage, but there can
152 Kai doj topon
nom& uyistou.
268
be little doubt that it read Hkvh at this point, perhaps
even Hkvt Hkvh as it is constructed in Leviticus. The
alternating "friend"
(filon) and
"neighbor" (plhsion)
following the fourfold
instruction to "question" in Sirach
19:13-17 may even recall the
shift from the rare tymf
("neighbor")153 in Leviticus 19:17 to the more common fr
("neighbor") in
Leviticus 19:18. What it means, therefore,
to "give place to the law
of the Most High" (Sir. 19:17b) is
to love one's neighbor as
oneself—even in the face of the
possibility that the neighbor
has acted as an enemy.154
The only offenses against a friend for which Sirach
holds out no hope of
reconciliation are "reviling, arrogance,
disclosure of secrets, or a
treacherous blow (oneidismou kai
uperhfaniaj
kai musthriou apokaluyewj kai plhghj dolwj
153 tymf occurs in the Hebrew
Bible only in Lev.
5:21
(2x); 18:201 19:11, 15, 17; 24:19; 25:14 (2x), 15, 17;
Zech.
13:7.
154 So also J. Smith, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of
Jesus Son of Sirach (
1974),
p. 17; Peters, p. 162, writes, "Das Gesetz gebietet
genaue Untersuchmag vor
der gerichtlichir Verurteialung
(Dt.
13, 14f.; 17, 4; 19, 18) so soll es auch
leder
einzeine dem Nichsten
gegenuber halten.
Vgl. Lv. 19, 17.”
The
passage in Sirach more likely refers to a situation
prior
to litigation. If the law of the Most High (in this
case
Lev. 19:17-18) takes its course, the passages in
Deuteronomy
to which Peters refers would be irrelevant.
Deut.
13:14 and 17:4 are irrelevant anyway for they refer
to
investigations into charges of leading Israel to worship
other
gods; Deut. 19:18 refers to investigation of false
witnesses.
None of the three are particularly relevant to
Sir.
19:17b.
269
in these cases any friend will
flee" (22:22cd).155
Violent
actions against a friend like
drawing a sword (22:21a) or
even opening one's mouth against
a friend (22:22a) need not
cause undue alarm, "for
reconciliation is possible"
(22:22b). There remain,
however, a few things which render
reconciliation impossible.
Sirach 22:19-22 and 21:16-21 are instructions directed
to an offender who wishes to
seek reconciliation. Sirach
19:13-17, on the other hand,
addresses the offended party
in a friendship. It urges
caution in allowing allegations
to rupture a fundamentally
sound friendship. The charges
should be carefully assessed,
and the law (i.e., Lev.
19:17-18) should be given its
proper role. Sirach is able
to draw even more implications
from the law in Leviticus.
The love of neighbor must
ultimately involve forgiveness.
Anger (mhnij) and wrath (orgh), these also
are abominations,
and the sinful man will
possess them,
He that takes vengeance (o
ekdikwn)
will
suffer
vengeance from the Lord,
and he will firmly
establish his sins.
Forgive (afej) your neighbor the
wrong he
has done,
and then your sins will
be pardoned (lu-
qhsontai) when you pray.
155 Sir. 27:16-21 also
speaks of betrayal of confi-
dentiality
as a hopeless situation. V. 21 explains, "For
a
wound (trauma)
may be bandaged, and there is reconcilia-
tion
after abuse (loidoriaj), but whoever has betrayed
secrets
is without hope (o de apokaluyaj musthria
afhlpisen).
270
Does a man harbor anger (sunthrei
orghn)
against
another
and yet seek healing
from the Lord?
Does he have no mercy toward a man
like
himself (omoion
aut&)
and yet pray for his own
sins?
If he himself, being flesh,
maintains
wrath (diathrei
mhnin),
who will make expiation
(ecilasetai)
for his
sins?
Remember the end of your life, and
cease from
enmity (exqrainwn),
remember destruction and
death, and be
true to the
commandments.
Remember the commandments, and do
not be angry
(mh
mhnis^j)
with your neighbor;
remember the covenant of
the Most High and
overlook
ignorance.
Sirach
27:30-28:7
The temptation to see a reflection of Deuteronomy 32:25
("Vengeance is mine")
in Sirach's condemnation of the "one
who takes vengeance" above
(28:1) is appealing,156 but
Leviticus 19:18 seems more
likely to be informing Sirach at
this point. Although the lacuna
in the Hebrew text from
Sirach 26:13 through 30:10
makes the connections between
this passage (27:30-28:7) and
Leviticus 19:18 difficult to
establish, they are present. A
comparison of the Greek text
of Leviticus 19:18 with Sirach
27:30; 28:1, 3, 5, and 7
reveals the allusive
connections between the two passages.
Leviticus 19:18 LXX begins, "And your hand shall not
exact vengeance (kai ouk ekdiketai sou h xeir)." Sirach
prefaces his instruction to
"forgive your neighbor" (28:2)
156 So
Peters, p. 228.
271
with two verses (27:30-28:1) in
which the root ekdik-
("vengeance") appears
three times. The next clause in
Leviticus 19:18 LXX reads,
"And you shall not be wrathful
with the sons of your people (kai ou mhnieij toij uioij tou
laou
sou
).” Sirach begins with the cognate noun mhnij
("wrath," 27:30) and
closes with the verb mhnis^j
("be
wrathful," 28:7). These
connections are relatively
straightforward.
The connections between Sirach 28:3 and 5 and Leviticus
19:18 are less certain because
of the lack of any Hebrew
text of Sirach at this point.
The Hebrew verb in Leviticus
19:18 translated “bear a grudge”
is rFn. It is rare and
may bear two different
meanings: "to keep" or “to be
angry.”157 The five times the verb appears in the
Hebrew
Bible with the meaning "be
angry" it is rendered by either
mhniw
("be angry"),158 or ecairw ("lift up, excite,
arouse"),159 or diamenw
("remain by, perservere").160 The
verb appears with the meaning
"keep" three times in the
157 The lexicographers do
not agree on this verb. BDB,
p.
643, lists one root rFn with two meanings: "keep,
maintain
(sc. wrath)" and "keep guard." KBL, p. 613, lists
I
rFn,
"keep, guard," and II , rFn
"be
angry, have a
grudge."
158 Lev. 19:18; Jer. 3;12;
Psalm 103:9 (102:9).
159 Nah. 1:2.
160 Jer.
3:5.
272
Hebrew Bible, and it is
translated twice by threw
("keep")161 and once by fulakissan
("guard").162 It is
quite possible that the words diathrei mhnin ("he main-
tains wrath") in Sirach
28:5 translate an original Hebrew
reading of rFn. This possibility is doubly strong since
mhnin is the
cognate noun of a verb (mhniw) used
to trans-
late II rFn and diathrei is a compound (dia + threw)
formed from a verb used to
translate I rFn. The
link
with Sirach 28:3 is weakest,
for it depends upon the possi-
bility that the compound sunthrei (sun+threw)
translates
I rFn.
On the basis of these connections, therefore, Sirach
27:30 through 28:7 may be
described as a "midrash" of
Leviticus 19:18. That Sirach
28:7 urges remembrance of the
commandments is no accident;
specifically, remembrance of
Leviticus 19:18 is urged. This
passage (Sir. 27:30-28:7)
stands as a witness to what
Sirach means when he says that
a wise man will "devote
himself to the study of the law of
the Most High" (39:1). His
study of Leviticus 19:18 leads
him to draw out (ecagw) several implications.
First, whoever seeks vengeance, which the law forbids,
may expect vengeance
(27:30-28:1), Secondly, whoever
161 Cant. 8:11, 12.
162 Cant.
1:6.
273
forgives his neighbor may
confidently pray for forgiveness
of his own sins (28:2). The
rhetorical questions in Sirach
28:3-5 presuppose the insight
that refusal to forgive a
neighbor is a sign that one
still "bears a grudge," which
is prohibited by the second
clause of Leviticus 19:18. How
can anyone expect forgiveness,
healing, mercy, or expiation
and violate the clear
expression of God's will? Sirach 28:6
undergirds the admonition to
forgiveness with the command to
remember death, and be true to
the commandments (i.e., Lev.
19:18).
The third implication of Leviticus 19:18, appearing
already in Sirach 28:2, is the
characterization of the
neighbor as one who has done
"wrong" (adikhma). This
"neighbor" is thus an
"enemy" of the "friends and kinfolk"
category. When the implications
of the commandment to love
the neighbor are brought out (ecagw) then it appears that
even the neighbor-enemy cannot
be the object of vengeance
or grudges, but must be
forgiven.163
Sirach's "midrash" of Leviticus 19:18
anticipates
Jesus' extension of the law
from love of the neighbor to
love of the enemy (Matt. 5:44).
Sirach reveals that the
commandment includes even the
neighbor who has caused some
163 An interesting variant
in Sir. 28:7 appears in 307
reading
exqr& ("enemy") for plhsion ("neighbor");
J.
Ziegler,
Sapientia lesu Filii Sirach (
Vandenhoeck and Runrecht,
1965).
274
injury (adikhma). Thus, at least some enemies have to be
forgiven (i.e., loved) if a
person intends to abide in the
commandments (emmene enolaij, Sir. 28:6). Of course,
this forgiveness does not
extend to all enemies; gentiles
are excluded from the
neighborhood (cf. Sir. 36 33 :1-17).
Yet, in his attention to
Leviticus 19:18, Sirach is on a
trajectory which must
eventually transcend racial barriers.
The difference between Sirach's exegesis of Leviticus
19:18 and Jesus', however, does
not lie in the failure to
extend the impact of love for
the neighbor to gentiles.
Jesus' instruction to love the
enemy probably has the Jewish
neighbor for its primary focus,
for his mission was "only to
the lost sheep of the house of
not to the gentiles.164 The differences between Sirach's
and Jesus' extensions of
Leviticus 19:18 to include enemies
lie rather in their clarity,
openness to new interpretation,
and "center of
gravity."
Jesus' use of the word "enemies" (exqrouj) is much
clearer than Sirach's reference
to a "neighbor" (plhsion)
who has done "wrong"
(adikhma). Jesus' reference to
enemies without any
modification165 leaves
the instruction
164 This is not to say, of
course, that Jesus would
approve
of hatred of Romans, Greeks, or other gentiles.
165 The only modifier is
that the enemies are "your"
enemies,
but what would be the point in loving someone else's
enemies?
Presumably, "even the Gentiles do the same" (Matt.
5:47).
275
open to include all enemies.
Sirach's reference to the
"neighbor," even one
who has done "wrong," makes his instruc-
tion vulnerable to
exclusivistic interpretations. Finally,
the "center of
gravity" for Sirach's instruction lies in the
commandments and the
"covenant of the Most High" (Sir.
28:7). Jesus' instruction, on
the other hand, is grounded
in his bold, "But I say
unto you," which is set over against
what "was said of old"
(Matt. 5:43-44).
Piety
The role of Leviticus 19:18 in Sirach's response to
personal enemies who are
neighbors and friends is a clue to
the importance which religious
realities and practices play
in his style of wisdom. One
sphere in which religious
practice impinges upon a
context of potential enmity is the
realm of almsgiving.
Do not avert your eye from the
needy,
nor give a man occasion
to curse you;
for if in bitterness of soul he
calls down
a curse upon
you,
his Creator will hear
his prayer.
Sirach
4:5-6
Care for the poor had long been recognized in
a peculiar concern to Yahweh.
The law codes enjoined
measures which aimed toward
some mitigation of poverty in
Israel.166
166 Cf. Exod.
23:10-11; 19:9-10; Deut. 15:7-11.
276
on behalf of the poor.167 A primary duty of the monarchy
had been to administer justice
on behalf of the poor.168
And, of course, the sages
responsible for Proverbs had
counseled compassion and aid
for the poor.169
Sirach's
counsel to help the poor,
therefore, is classical Israelite
ethics. Even the motive in the
passage above is reminiscent
of Exodus 22:22-23:
If you do afflict them (i.e., widows
and orphans),
and they cry out to me, I will
surely hear their
cry; my wrath will burn, and I will
kill you with
the sword, and your wives shall
become widows and
your children fatherless.170
With Sirach, however, almsgiving becomes more than
simply a way of avoiding God's
"affirmative action" on
behalf of the poor. It becomes
a life-securing action in
its own right. True, discretion
must be exercised in regard
to whom one helps (Sir.
12:1-7). Lending, in particular, is
a hazardous way of helping a
poor neighbor (29:1-7). In
spite of these cautions, these
hedges, as it were, about
charity, Sirach finally argues
for the wisdom of giving
alms.
167 Cf. Am. 2:6-8; 4:1;
8:4-6; Isa. 3:13-15; 10:1-2;
Jar.
5:28; 22:13-17; Zech. 7:8-1C.
168 Psalm 72:2, 4, 12-14.
169 Prov. 3:28; 11:24;
14:21, 31; 17:5; 19:17;
21:13;
22:2, 9, 16; 29:13, 14; 31:26.
170 Cf.
Exod. 22:26b.
277
Nevertheless, be patient with a man
in humble
circumstances,
and do not make him wait
for your alas,
Help a poor man for the
commandment's sake,171
and because of his need
do not send him
away empty.
Lose your silver for the sake of a
brother
or friend,
and do not let it rust
under a stone and
be lost.
Lay up treasure according to the
commandments
of the Most
High,
and it will profit you
more than gold.
Store up almsgiving in your
treasury,
and it will rescue you
from all
affliction (kakwsewj);
more than a mighty shield and more
than a
heavy spear,
it will fight (polemhsei) on your behalf
against your
enemy (exqrou).
Sirach
29:8-13172
The most dangerous attacks of all come not from
external opposition, however,
but rather from within one's
own person. The only responses
to these attacks are
religious responses. Confession
of one's faults safeguards
against loss (20:2). If someone
has already become involved
in sin, Sirach counsels that
they stop sinning and start
praying (deomai) about former sins (21:1). For sinners,
repentance is always a fitting
response to the self-enmity
which sin entails (17:25-26;
21:6).
Sirach's finest pedagogical method with this theme is
surely his allowing others to
see what he means by these
171 Deut. 15:7-11 is
probably the commandment in view
here;
so also Peters, p. 237; and Snaith, p. 144.
172 Cf.
Sir. 17:22-24.
278
responses of prayer about one's
own sins. Such prayer, of
course, involves confession and
is already a part of
repentance. Attacks emerging
from within Sirach against
Sirach are the occasion of his
only personal lament.
O that a guard were set over my
mouth,
and a seal of prudence upon
my lips,
that it may keep me from falling,
so that my tongue may
not destroy me!
O Lord, Father and Ruler of my life,
do not abandon me to
their counsel,
and let me not fall
because of them!
O that whips were set over my
thoughts,
and the discipline of
wisdom over
my mind!
That they may not spare me in my
errors,
and that it may not pass
by my sins;
in order that my mistakes may not be
multiplied,
and my sins may not abound;
then I will not fall before my
adversaries,
and my enemy will not
rejoice over me.
O Lord, Father and God of my life,
do not give me haughty
eyes,
and remove from me evil
desire.
Let neither gluttony nor lust
overcome me,
and do not surrender me
to a shameless
soul.
Sirach
22:27-23:6
Motives behind Sirach's Counsel
Several of the motives for Sirach's counsel in regard
to enemies are naturally akin
to those of earlier sages
since his view of God is so
orthodox. At one point he
appears to be influenced
particularly by Qoheleth for he
affirms that God has made
everything, good and evil alike,
to be fitting and appropriate.
279
From the beginning good things were
created
for good
people,
just as evil things for
sinners.
Basic to all the needs of man's life
are water and fire and
iron and salt
and wheat flour and milk and honey,
the blood of the grave,
and oil and
clothing.
All these are for good to the godly,
just as they turn into
evils for sinners.
There are winds that have been
created for
vengeance,
and in their anger they
scourge heavily;
in the time of consummation they
will pour
out their
strength
and calm the anger of
their Maker.
Fire and hail and famine and
pestilence,
all
these have been created for vengeance;
the teeth of wild beasts, and
scorpions and
vipers,
and the sword that
punishes the ungodly
with
destruction;
they will rejoice in his commands,
and be made ready on
earth for their
service
and when their times
come they will not
transgress
his word.
Therefore from the beginning I have
been
convinced,
and have thought this out and left
it
in writing:
The works of the Lord are all good,
and he will supply every
need in its hour.
And no one can say, "This is
worse than that,"'
for all things will
prove good in their
season.
So now sing praise with all your
heart and voice,
and bless the name of
the Lord.
Sirach
39:25-35
The difference between Sirach and Qoheleth appears in
verse 35. This goodness of all
things "in their season"173
173 V. 34 en
kair& = vtfb (Levi) is (together with
Nmz)
Qoheleth's expression in Qoh. 3:1-8.
280
provokes praise from Sirach.
Qoheleth was unable to discern
the times, and that inability
reduced him to fear.
Two motives for Sirach's responses to enmity are new:
death and shame. Death was also
a factor in Qoheleth's
thinking, and here again some
impact from him upon Sirach
must be recognized.174 Yet, the implications which Sirach
draws from the fact of death
are different from its conse-
quences in Qoheleth's thought.
Theme implications require
some discussion. Shame is
likewise an important considera-
tion for Sirach, and its role
in his counsel must be
examined.
Death. The reality of death is a motivating factor
in
Sirach's counsel to be a
compassionate person. He enjoins
care for the poor (7:32-33a)
and proper consideration for
the dead (7:33b).175 One should "mourn with those who
mourn" (7:34) and
"not shrink from visiting a sick man"
(7:35a). Deeds like these make
a person beloved in the
community (7:35b). Sirach 7:36
opens the imagination to all
areas of a person's life when
it admonishes,
174 Crenshaw, "The
Eternal Gospel," p. 47.
175 See Sir. 38:16-23 for
extended treatment of
"mourning
etiquette." Sirach advises appropriate, not exces-
sive,
mourning for the dead. V. 17bc counsels to mourn
"according
to his merit, for one day or two, to avoid criti-
cism."
Finally, however, one must banish sorrow,
"remembering
the end of life" (v. 20). Excessive sorrow
does
no good for the dead, but it can be self destructive
(v. 21).
281
In all you do, remember the end of
your life,
and then you will never sin.
The memory of the fact that "we all must die"
prohibits
exultation "over any one's
death" (8:7).176 Surely this
must refer to enemies, for who
would rejoice over the death
of a friend? The knowledge of
death also serves as a motive
to "cease from
enmity" in Sirach 28:6 where memory of death
functions in tandem with
abiding in the commandments.
Earlier discussion of this
passage (27:30-28:7)177 has
already revealed that the
commandment in question is
Leviticus 19:18.
Shame. The psychological experience of shame is a
"highly ambivalent phenomenon."178 Although it is often to
be avoided, it may also be
accepted with good graces.
Observe the right time, and beware
of evil;
and do not bring shame
on yourself.
For there is a shame which brings
sin,
and there is a shame
which is glory
and favor.
Do not be ashamed to confess your
sins,
and do not try to stop
the current of
a river.
Sirach
4:20-21, 26
176 The preceding verse
(8:6) provides a glimpse of
Sirach's
own awareness of encroaching age which inevitably
ends
in death. He commands, "Do not disdain a man when he
is
old, for some of us are growing old."
177 See above under
"Reconciliation."
178 von
Rad, Wisdom in Israel, p. 117,
282
Undoubtedly the "shame which brings sin"
includes that
which induces people to make
promises to friends, promises
which cannot be kept. Thus, a
person may make an enemy of
a friend without cause (dwrean, 20:23). On the other
hand, "a man who has lost
his sense of shame" may be
expected to default on a
neighbor's loan (29:14). Without
shame (anaidouj) "begging is sweet" (40:30). A
sense of
shame is essential to proper
etiquette.
The foot of a fool rushes into a
house,
but a man of experience
stands respectfully
(aisxunqhsetai) before it.
Sirach
21:22
It is no wonder, therefore, that the final petition in
the lament of Sirach 22:7-23:6
prays for deliverance from a
"shameless soul" (yux^ anaidei). A
shameless soul would
expose him to betraying
neighborly benefactors, a life of
begging, and a host of other
hazardous patterns of life.
Such an ambiguous phenomenon as shame requires careful
scrutiny. The long didactic
poem of Sirach 41:14 through
42:8 seeks to bring some order
out of the apparent chaos of
human shame. The poem is
composed of two parts (41:17-23
and 42:1-8) with an
introductory summons to hear (41:14-16).
The first major part (41:17-23)
lists actions of which one
should be ashamed. These
include all manner of activities
which are classic
characteristics of enemies. The second
part (42:1-8) lists those
patterns of behavior of which one
283
should not be ashamed which
include actions which are either
prudent (vv. 3-8a) or just and
faithful (vv. 1b-2).
Three points in the poem are particularly important to
notice. The last verse of the
introduction admonishes,
Therefore show respect for my words:
For it is not good to retain every
kind
of shame,
and not everything is
confidently
esteemed by
everyone.
Sirach
41:16
The first section is governed by a single command,
"Be
ashamed" (aisxunesqe) in verse 17, and is closed with a
sentence stating the
consequences of obedience:
Then you will show proper shame (aisxunthroj
alhqinwj)
and will find favor with
every man.
Sirach
41:23cd
The second section also opens with a command, this
time, "Do not he ashamed (mh aisxunq^j, 42:1),179 which
loosely governs the remainder
of the poems The closing
lines promise that whoever is
obedient to the instruction
"will be truly instructed
(pepaideumenoj alhqinwj),
and will be approved before all
men" (42:8cd).
179 The shift from plural
in 41:17 (aisxunesqe) to
singular
in 42:1 (aisxunq^j) is striking. The introduc-
tion
is addressed to the plural "my children" (tekna) in
41:14.
The Hebrew text reads Mynb together with the
plural
verb vfmw
in 41:14, but shifts to singular wvb
in
41:17; 42:1 is also singular (wvbt). Perhaps this
was
not composed at one time but in two (or more) efforts?
284
Response to Wisdom
Chapter 3 of this study noted that Sirach speaks of
attacks from the side of Wisdom
herself against her novice
devotees. How does he counsel
students to respond to her?
Sirach 4:12-16 speaks of
"loving" (agapwn),
"holding
fast" (kratwn), "serving" (latreuontej), "obeying"
(upakouwn), and
"having faith in" (empisteus^) her.
Sirach 51:19 speaks of having
"grappled" (diamemaxistai)
with her. The richest
expression of the proper response to
her, however, is that in Sirach
14:20-27.
Blessed is the man who meditates on
wisdom
and who reasons intelligently.
He who reflects in his mind on her
ways
will also ponder her
secrets.
Pursue wisdom like a hunter,
and lie in wait on her
paths.
He who peers through her windows
will also listen at her
doors;
he who encamps near her house
will also fasten his
tent peg to
her walls;
he will pitch his tent near her,
and will lodge in an
excellent lodging
place;
he will place his children under her
shelter,
and will camp under her
boughs;
he will be sheltered by her from the
heat,
and will dwell in the
midst of her glory.
Sirach
14:20-27
This desire to be near Wisdom is palpably erotic. The
desire is not to be frustrated;
it is fulfilled. To the one
who responds with this kind of
longing for Wisdom,
She will come to meet him like a
mother,
and like the wife of his
youth she will
welcome him.
Sirach
15:2
285
Wisdom of
Solomon
One of the most common responses to enemies witnessed
in wisdom literature is that,
of avoidance, and this appears
in the Wisdom of Solomon as
well.180 A second response
found in earlier wisdom
literature, and shared in the book
of Wisdom, is that of
nonanxiety in the face of enemies.181
The self-destructive nature of
enemies is also recognized in
Wisdom,182 just as it is in previous literature.
Apart from these common responses to enemies and their
attacks, a somewhat limited
range of responses may be
inferred from the Wisdom of
Solomon. The response to
strangers is evidently unique
in the wisdom literature.
A special problem in this book
concerns idolatry. How does
a wise man respond to idols and
their worshipers? Finally,
an impressive example of gentle
non-aggression may be seen
in the book of Wisdom.
Welcome to Strangers
Welcoming strangers appears only once in Wisdom, but it
is a unique response in the
wisdom literature, Actually,
Wisdom 19:13-17 argues that the
Egyptians received just
180 Cf. Wisd. 1:5, 11, 12;
2:16.
181 Cf. 2:20; 5:1; 7:30;
15:2; 17:11,
182 Cf. 1:16; 2:21; 3:11,
16, 19; 4:3, 6, 20; 5:14;
10:3; 17:2.
286
punishment for their hatred of
strangers.
The punishments did not come upon
the sinners
without prior signs in the violence
of
thunder,
for they justly suffered because of
their
wicked acts;
for they practiced a more bitter
hatred
of strangers.
Others had refused to receive
strangers
when they came to them,
but these made slaves of guests who
were
their benefactors.
And not only so, but punishment of
some sort
will come upon the
former
for their hostile reception of the
aliens;
but the latter, after receiving them
with
festal celebrations,
afflicted with terrible sufferings
those who had already shared the
same rights.
They were stricken also with loss of
sight--
just as were those at the door of
the
righteous man--
when, surrounded by yawning
darkness,
each tried to find the way through
his
man door.
If such is the fate of people
who hate and oppress strangers,
then it may be inferred that
welcoming strangers is a posi-
tive virtue.
Other wisdom literature had cautioned avoidance of
strangers, but this writer
implies that they are rather to
be welcomed with hospitality.
Most likely, this response to
strangers is due to the
Alexandrian setting of the writer.
In
natives. Diaspora Jews would
have known the heart of a
stranger (Exod. 23:9).
287
Responses to Idols and Their
Worshipers
Chapters 13 through 15 of the Wisdom of Solomon contain
a discussion of idolatry, its
origins and consequences. As
to its origins, three
possibilities are mentioned. People
misconstrued the elements of
creation (fire, wind, stars,
water) as gods (13:1-3).
Another possible origin of
idolatry is the image of a deceased
child made by a bereaved
father.
And he now honored as a god what was
once
a dead human being,
and handed on to his dependents
secret rites
and initiations.
Then the ungodly custom, grown
strong with
time, was kept as a law,
and at the command of monarchs
graven images
were worshiped.
Wisdom of Solomon
14:15c-16
The final alternative suggested for the origin of
idolatry is that a statue of an
absentee monarch may have
been set up to honor the king.
Artists, however, made the
statues as attractive and
flattering as possible in order to
curry favor with their patron.
And the multitude, attracted by the
charm
of his work,
now regarded as an object of worship
the
one whom shortly before
they had
honored as a man.
Wisdom of Solomon
14:20
Although the Wisdom of Solomon is unable to settle on
a single origin for idolatry,
no doubt exists about its
consequences. It is "the
beginning (arxh) and
cause
(aitia) of
every evil" (14:27b). The list of vices which
288
are the consequences of
idolatry in Wisdom of Solomon
15:22-29 is truly encyclopedic.
It covers offenses against
family, friends and neighbors,
property, sexuality, and
judiciary.
Apart from discussing the folly, origins and conse-
quences of this problem,
however, Wisdom says very little
about how to respond to these
people.183
Nevertheless, one
general impression emerges
quite clearly: they are ignorant
fools deserving little, if any,
sympathy.
With regard to people who worship the elements of
nature some mitigation of this
impression seems to appear.
The concession is made that
they are
. . . little to be blamed,
for perhaps they go astray
while seeking God and desiring to
find him.
For as they live among his works
they keep
searching,
and they trust in what they see,
because
the things that are seen
are beautiful.
Wisdom of
Solomon 13:6-7
This concession, however, is
immediately nullified in the
following verses.
Yet again, not even they are to be
excused;
for if they had the power to know so
much
that they could investigate the
world,
how did they fail to find sooner the
Lord
of all these things?
Wisdom of
Solomon 13:8-9
183 The idols themselves,
of course, require no response
other than rejection.
289
Wisdom's greatest ire is reserved for those who worship
the "works of men's
hands" (13:10). They are subjected to a
satire on the folly of a
woodcutter who uses his scraps to
make a god (13:11-19). The
scrap from which a god is made
is "useful for nothing"
(eij ouqen euxrhston,
13:13).
This is followed by another
satire on sailors whose god is
"more fragile than the
ship which carries him" (14:1).
Following this satire appears
the antithesis of God's
providence which can bring even
rank amateurs safely into
port (14:3-7). Wisdom's
clearest verdict on idols, their
worshipers and their makers
then appears.
But the idol made with hands is
accursed,
and so is he who made
it;
because he did the work, and the
perishable
thing was named a god.
For equally hateful to God are the
ungodly
man and his ungodliness
for what was done will be punished
together
with him who did it.
Therefore there will be a visitation
also
upon the heathen idols,
because, though part of what God
created,
they became an
abomination,
and became traps for the souls of
men
and a snare to the feet of the
foolish.
Wisdom of Solomon
14:8-11184
These people are simply "accursed." The tragedy
of it
is that although a man may make
an idol,
he is better than the objects he
worships,
since he has life, but they never
have.
Wisdom of Solomon
15:17
184 Cf.
14:30-31; 15:6, 10.
290
Gentleness
The figure of the oppressed righteous man in the Wisdom
of Solomon 2:12-20 is surely to
be taken as an exemplar in
the face of enemies.
Let us lie in wait for the righteous
man
because he is inconvenient to us and
opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against
the law,
and accuses us of sins against our
training.
He professes to have knowledge of
God,
and calls himself a child of the
Lord.
He became to us a reproof of our
thoughts;
the very sight of him is a burden to
us
because his manner of life is unlike
that
of others,
and his ways are strange.
We are considered by him as
something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the
righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at
the end
of his life;
for if the righteous man is God's
son, he
will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand
of his
adversaries.
Let us test him with insult and
torture,
that we may find out how gentle he
is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he
will
be protected.
This speech of the wicked presents a portrait of the
righteous man who is faithful
to the law and is deeply pious
(vv. 12-13). His piety makes
him something of an alien in
his milieu (vv. 14-15). He
avoids the conduct of his
enemies and affirms that
ultimately the righteous are
"happy" (makarizei, v. 16). Therefore, the wicked proceed
291
to test his gentleness (epieikeian) and forbearance
(anecikakian, v.
19). He is confident that he will be
protected (episkoph, v. 20)
Following a long digression on the blessed estate of
the righteous (3:1-9 ) , the
punishment of the wicked (3:10-
4:6), and the blessed estate
even of the righteous who die
prematurely (4:7-9) which is
illustrated by reference to
Enoch (4:10-15), this righteous
man reappears.
The righteous man who has died will
condemn
(katakrinei) the ungodly who are
living,
and youth that is quickly perfected
will con-
demn the prolonged old
age of the
unrighteous man.
Wisdom of
Solomon 4 : 16
The notice that the righteous man "condemns"
the
ungodly must not be taken to
mean that he actively engages
them in some legal contest. The
text says nothing of any
activity on his part. His mere
appearance is a condemnation,
just as his life had been a
"reproof" (elegxon) to
the
ungodly, and the sight of him
had been a "burden" (baruj)
to them before his martyrdom
(2:14-15). The text passes on
immediately to speak of the
incomprehension and scorn which
the ungodly still have for the
righteous man and then of
God's judgment on them (4
:17-19 ) .
The next time this righteous man appears (5:1) he simply
stands in the presence of his
persecutors "with great confi-
dence'" (en parrhsi% poll^). This time , however , they are
292
moved to terror (5:2). In
"repentance" (metanoountej, 5:3)
they confess:
This is the man whom we once held in
derision
and made a byword of reproach--we
fools!
We thought that his life was madness
and that his end was without honor.
Why has he been numbered among the
sons
of God?
And why is his lot among the saints?
So it was we who strayed from the
way of truth,
and the light of righteousness did
not shine
upon us,
and the sun did not rise upon us.
We took our fill of the paths of
lawlessness
and destruction,
and we journeyed through trackless
deserts,
but the way of the Lord we have not
known.
What has our arrogance profited us?
And what good has our boasted wealth
brought us?
Wisdom
of Solomon 5:4-8
Thus, the gentle, patient and silent response of the
righteous man to his enemies,
together with the vindication
of God, brings about the
repentance and confession of the
persecutors. Nothing is
explicitly said about whether this
change of heart by the ungodly
effects anything toward their
redemption. In view of their
final confession that the
"hope of the ungodly"
is futile, "like smoke before the
wind" (5:14c), however,
the likelihood is that they simply
cease to be. This is precisely
what they had said would be
their fate before they decided
to lead a life of sensual
gratification (2:1-5). The
irony is exquisite, for the
reasoning which led to their
final demise turns out to be
293
tragically correct:
For our allotted time is the passing
of a
shadow,
and there is no return from our
death,
because it is sealed up and no one
turns back.
Wisdom of
Solomon 2:5
A similar response to enemies is attributed to
on its way out of
exit, the Wisdom of Solomon
remarks,
Their enemies heard their voices but
did not
see their forms,
and counted them happy (emakarizon) for not
having suffered,
and were thankful (huxaristoun) that thy
holy ones, though previously
wronged,
were doing them no
injury;
and they begged their pardon (xarin
edeonto)
for having been at
variance with them.
Wisdom of Solomon
18:1b-2
Once again, a passive,
non-aggressive response185 to
enemies
(in this case the Egyptians)
elicits a modicum of repentance.
The Egyptians' begging
nothing toward their redemption.
Scripture answered that
problem for the writer of the
Wisdom of Solomon.
Motives behind Responses to the
Enemy
The motives which undergird these responses to enemies
are not essentially different
from those noticed in earlier
wisdom literature. Wisdom still
secures life,186 as
does
185 The motif of the
plundering of the Egyptians (Exod.
3:21-22;
11:2-3; 12:35-36) is conveniently overlooked.
186 Wisd. 10:1-21.
294
God.187 God
still brings judgment against, the ungodly,188
although in this connection the
motif of God's extreme
patience in judgment is given
quite a lot of emphasis.189
This patience aims toward the
correction and reformation of
the sinner.190 God
exercises this patience in judgment,
which aims toward repentance,
out of love for creation.
But thou art merciful to all, for
thou canst
do all things,
and thou dost overlook men's sins,
that they
may repent.
For thou lovest all things that
exist,
and hast loathing for none of the
things
which thou hast made,
for thou wouldst not have made
anything
if thou hadst hated it.
How would anything have endured if
you
hadst not willed it?
Or how would anything not called
forth by
thee have been
preserved?
Thou sparest all things, for they
are thine,
O Lord who lovest the
living.
For thy immortal spirit is in all
things.
Therefore thou dost correct little
by little
those who trespass,
and dost remind and warn them of the
things
wherein they sin,
that they may be freed from
wickedness and
put their trust in thee,
0 Lord.
Wisdom of Solomon 11:23-12:2
A new note occurs in connection with God's judgment and
its appearance to the world. God's
acts of judgment are
187 4:10-15.
188 4:18-19; 11:6-8, 15-20;
12:3-11, 23-27; 16:15-23;
18:5-19.
189 11:9-10; 12:2, 8-9, 11;
16:1-4.
190 12:10,
19:22; 16:5-14.
295
ambiguous. Even when described
in such hyperbole as is
heard in Wisdom, these acts of
God are hardly transparent.
Their evaluation is dependent
upon one's prior stance toward
God. Therefore, after
describing the waters which covered
the Egyptians, the notice is
made that
by the same means by which thou
didst punish
our enemies
thou didst call us to thyself and
glorify us.
Wisdom of
Solomon 18:8
Perhaps the most striking motive behind the responses
to the enemy in the Wisdom of
Solomon is the role of
creation. The notion that
creation turned a beneficent face
toward the righteous and a
hostile one toward the wicked is,
of course, nothing new with the
Wisdom of Solomon.191 The
exaggeration of this theme,
however, is striking. In the
Wisdom of Solomon 5:15-16 the
blessed estate of the
righteous is described in
glowing terms. Then, without any
transition, the theme of
creation as God's warrior appears
to close the passage.
The Lord will take his zeal as his
whole
armor,
and will arm all creation to repel
his enemies;
he will put on righteousness as a
breastplate,
and wear impartial justice as a
helmet;
he will take holiness as an
invincible shield,
and sharpen stern wrath for a sword,
and creation will join with him to fight
against the madmen.
Shafts of lightning will fly with
true aim,
and will leap to the target as from
a well-
drawn bow of clouds,
191 See
Chapter 3, n. 113.
296
and hailstones full of wrath will be
hurled
as from a catapult;
the water of the sea will rage
against them,
and rivers will relentlessly overwhelm
them;
a mighty wind will rise against
them,
and like a tempest it will winnow
them away.
Lawlessness will lay waste the whole
earth,
and evil doing will overturn the
thrones of
rulers.
Wisdom of Solomon
5:17-23192
So ends the discussion of the contrasting fates of the
righteous and the ungodly
(1:16-5:23).
Summary
This chapter has discerned a broad range of responses
to enemies in the wisdom
literature which extends from
hostility to love. Between
these two extremes have appeared
responses to enemies which have
been characterized as rejec-
tion of enemy behavior
patterns, avoidance and caution,
"quietism" and
gentleness, non-anxiety, piety, praise,
lament, disputation and
reconciliation. Some securing
actions against enemies and
their attacks have been noted,
including gift-giving, fearing
Yahweh, and heeding Wisdom.
The motivations for these responses have shown less
variety. Indeed, the motives
which appeared to stand behind
the various wise responses to
enemies form a remarkably
coherent set of convictions.
Predominant among these are
the traditional beliefs in the
self-destructive nature of
192 Cf.
16:24-25; 19:18-21.
297
enemy figures and the
"act-consequence relationship," as
well as the action of Yahweh
who secures life against death.
The later writers, Qoheleth and
Sirach, both allow consider-
able scope to death as a motive
in their responses to their
enemies. Sirach adds the
phenomenon of shame as a signifi-
cant factor.
A question posed in the first chapter of this study may
now be raised for
consideration. Are beneficent, non-
aggressive responses to enemies
characteristic in the wisdom
literature?193 The
answer seems to be affirmative, with
some qualification.
The great variety of responses uncovered qualifies an
affirmative answer somewhat.
Occasionally (in Sirach),
outright hostility toward some
enemies is in evidence.
Notes of self-interested
caution vis-a-vis enemies also
appear. In the book of Job
disputation between enemies is
apparent, though the question
may arise as to whether this
disputation is recommended or
merely used as a literary
device. It is probably to be
taken as a literary device.
Job is, after all, in extremis. Qoheleth, ever the
renegade, exhibits hatred and
fear toward his "enemies,"
life and God.
Although these qualifications must be kept in mind, the
question posed still requires
an affirmative answer
193 See
pp. 20-21.
298
Admonitions aiming at
reconciliation between people and
their enemies, or at least
aiming at repentance in the enemy
appear time and again. Even
such apparently negative
responses as simple rejection
of enemy behavior and avoid-
ance of enemies issue in
conciliatory responses. The cycle
of hostility meeting hostility
is precluded. Avoidance of
enemies may yield time and
space for healing to occur.
Never does a sage appear to seek vengeance against
enemies. Vengeance lies with
Yahweh. The sages seek rather
to restore health to their
social setting. They are well--
aware that two self-destructive
people can never be an
improvement on one healthy,
peaceful person and one self-
destructive person. The goal of
wisdom is nothing short of
life. Actions which tend always
toward death and away from
life strike at the heart of any
authentic wisdom. There-
fore, when the wisdom
literature is most true to its own
goals, only loving, forgiving
and life-securing responses to
enemies are appropriate.
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
This investigation has demonstrated that the sages of
described as enemies in the
Psalms. Chapters 2 and 3
located a host of enemy
designations and, descriptions from
the Psalter which also appear
in the wisdom literature of
the problems posed by the
traditional enemies.,
Chapter 4 revealed that the responses to these enemies
counseled by the sages were
frequently concerned to achieve
a measure of peace and
reconciliation between themselves
and their enemies. To be sure,
not every response had this
for its goal; not every
response of the sages to their
enemies can be harmonized with
the beneficent, loving
response urged by Proverbs
25:21-22. Overwhelmingly, how-
ever, their responses were
certainly not contradictory to
such an aim.
Time and again counsel appeared which would rule out
involvement in a cycle of
hostility. Room was left open for
repentance and eventual
restoration of relationships. The
wise evidently judged their
best interests to be in fos-
tering neighborliness rather
than insisting upon their
299
300
rights to redress of
grievances. Wise consideration, of the
other was in one's own best
interest.
Does this attitude on the part of the sages of
represent a departure from the
dominant Old Testament
attitude toward enemies?
Certainly the examples of Joseph
and his brothers and David and
Saul mentioned in Chapter One
cohere with the attitude found
in the wisdom literature.
The law of Exodus 23:4-5
evidences a similar coherence with
this attitude. Does this
phenomenon appear elsewhere in the
Old Testament?
The irenic spirit of the patriarchs also coheres with
the attitude found in the
wisdom literature. Apart from
Abraham's response to the four
kings of the east in Genesis
14:1-16, the impression of the
patriarchal narratives is
that the patriarchs went out of
their way to avoid conflict
and to mitigate it when it
arose. Even Jacob the trickster
displays this attitude. He
avoids open conflict with Esau
by leaving home in obedience to
his mother (Gen. 27:41-45).
He tolerates (and outwits)
Laban for years, and then leaves
stealthily (Gen. 29:30;
30:25-31:21). He seeks to assuage
Esau's anger with a multitude
of gifts and a "soft answer"
(Gen. 32:14-22; 33:1-11; cf.
Prov. 15:1). He rebukes Simeon
and Levi for their attack on
Shechem (Gen. 34:30). It
seems that many of the
patriarchal episodes turn on the
301
issue of conflict: how it
arose, what were its conse-
quences, and how it was
resolved.
The fact that this irenic spirit appears in the patri-
archal narratives and the
wisdom literature ought not be
taken as evidence of
"wisdom influence." Although the
patriarchal narratives still
reveal some of the kinds of
conflict which beset Israelite
families and communities
(e.g., rivalry between wives
and concubines, sibling
rivalries, disputes over water
and grazing rights, marriage
outside the clan), they do not
intend to handle these issues
didactically. Their intention
is rather to present the way
of the promise in the lives of
the fathers. Disputes and
their resolutions are simply obstacles
to the fulfillment
of the promise.
The appearance of non-aggression toward personal
enemies in such diverse
complexes as the patriarchal nar-
ratives and the wisdom
literature more probably indicates
that it was a broadly based
Israelite attitude. The wisdom
literature, however,
articulates and recommends this
typically Israelite attitude
most often and most explicitly.
Its relative absence from other
bodies of Old Testament
literature compared with its
frequent appearance in the
wisdom writings is to be
explained in terms of their respec-
tive intentions.
302
The intention of the prophetic literature is, of
course, to present the word of
Yahweh concerning
the nations. It is not
concerned with personal disputes
between individual Israelites.
Even the opponents of the
prophets themselves come into
view solely on the basis of
their standing with regard to
the word of Yahweh.
historical writings are
concerned to interpret
story by reference to Yahweh,
his word and deed. Individual
Israelites come under
consideration when they are necessary
to tell
This is precisely the reason that the doublet of
David's sparing of Saul
appears. It is not concerned to
teach how one should treat personal
enemies. Its concern is
to offer explanations of how it
came about that David sup-
planted Saul's house. The
reason is given in Saul's
response to David:
And now, behold, I know that you
shall surely be
king, and that the
established, in your hand. Swear to
me therefore
by Yahweh that you will not cut off
my descendants
after me, and that you will not
destroy my name
out of my father's house.
I
Samuel 24:21-22
Blessed be you, my son
David! You will do
many things and will succeed in
them.
I
Samuel 26:23
The relative absence of this attitude in
codes is likewise due to their
intention. The most explicit
treatment of personal enmity,
Exodus 23:4-5, probably aims to
303
limit enmity to the institutional
setting of the court, lest
it invade the neighborhood.
Within the judicial setting
itself, however, situations of
conflict are resolved by
means of judgments (MyFpwm) and sanctions, not by
tolerance, and certainly not by
the offended party helping
the offender.
The commandment to love the neighbor as oneself (Lev.
19:18), of course, has a
bearing on the problem of personal
enmity. If it is observed
enmity is excluded from the
neighborhood. Conflict is
resolved not by legal, means but
by love. Yet, this instruction
to love the neighbor
requires some
"exegesis" in order to address the problem of
enemies who are neighbors. A
sage, Sirach, is required to
draw out the commandment's
implications for neighbors who
are enemies.
The frequent appearance of non-aggressive, even loving,
responses toward personal
enemies in the wisdom literature,
on the other hand, is due to
its peculiar concerns. One of
these concerns is to instruct
people in the difficult task
of getting along with one
another. The task of life in a
neighborhood which is inhabited
by enemies as well as
friends requires a great deal
of insight. The task is com-
plicated by the fact that
enemies may appear to be friends,
and friends may become enemies.
304
This attitude toward enemies which aims to resolve
conflict and restore harmony in
the daily life with one's
fellows was not the sole
possession of the wisdom tradition;
it was the common inheritance
of all Israelites. Neverthe-
less, some of the particular
concerns of the wisdom tradi-
tion predisposed the sages to
trace out its implications in
some detail. The particular
concerns of other circles in
problems other than personal
enemies.
Impressions of the dominant attitude toward personal
enemies in the Old Testament,
however, are not formed on the
basis of the historical
literature, nor the prophetic
literature, nor the law codes.
They are formed rather on
the basis of the Psalms which
regularly ask for vengeance
upon personal enemies. What is
to be made of the striking
difference between the attitude
toward personal enemies
expressed in the wisdom
literature and that expressed in
the Psalter?
The answer to this question is to be sought in the
religious life of the sages,
for, at bottom, the primary
motivations behind their
counsel stand or fall with Yahweh's
reliability and intentionality.
Yahweh's faithfulness is
the presupposition of wisdom
and the laments which were
uttered in the cult. Qoheleth
shows that the disintegration
of this faith in God's
faithfulness and intention for good
305
renders the traditional counsel
incredible. The sages
believed in the effectiveness
of the laments.
If Yahweh had been informed of the enemies and their
attacks, then the sage could
quit worrying about them so
much. Why should valuable time
be spent planning vengeance
or seeking legal recourse when
Yahweh was fully competent to
bring enemies to judgment--in
his own good time? Therefore,
the sages set about the task of
examining, testing and
recommending ways of getting
along with enemies, friends and
neighbors (and they were often
identical) which would secure
life until Yahweh acted.
Does the wisdom literature of
remarkable way from the
dominant Old Testament attitude
toward personal enemies? As
with the closing question of
Chapter Four, this too requires
a qualified affirmation.
The attitude toward enemies
expressed in the wisdom litera-
ture is a part of all
its particular concerns and
intentions, however, the wisdom
tradition had more cause to
preserve, transmit and explicate
this cultural inheritance.
Other strands of Old Testament
tradition do not ultimately
contradict it. They simply fail
to do anything significant with
it.
The responses in the Psalms, on the other hand, provide
the religious underpinnings for
the practical responses
which appear most often in the
wisdom literature. Without
306
the practice of bringing the
enemies and their attacks
before the face of Yahweh and
the conviction that such a
practice was effective, the
sages could not have been secure
enough to offer counsel against
vengeance and for compas-
sionate aid, patience and
forgiveness toward the enemy.
Ultimately, trust in Yahweh led
to a renunciation of venge-
ance and cursing. With that
avenue closed, the way to
reconciliation was opened ever
mere broadly until one should
come who was "greater than
Solomon" (Matt. 12:42). His
prayer would be, "Father,
forgive them; for they know not
what they do" (Luke
23:34). His witnesses would learn to
pray, "Lord, do not hold
this sin against them" (Acts 7:59).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Primary Sources
Discoveries in the
Epstein,
Talmud. 6 vols. Londozi,760-.
Levi,
1. The Hebrew Text of the Book of
Ecclesiasticus.
Leiden:
E.J. Bril, 1904.
Nova
Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum. Libreria Editrice
Vaticana,
1979.
Rahlfs,
A., ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus
Testamentum
graeca iuxta LXX interpretes. 2 vols. 9th ed.
Yadin,
Y. The Ben Sira Scroll from.
Emendations and Commentary—
Exploration Society and Shrine of
the Book, 1965.
Ziegler
J., ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach.
Vandenhoeck urRuprecht, 1965.
_________
ed. Sapientia Salomonis.
hoeck und Ruprecht, 1962.
B. English.
Translations
The Five Megilloth and
Jonah: A New Translation. Introduc-
tions by H. Ginsberg.
Publication Society of
Good News Bible: The
Bible in Today's English Version.
Heidel,
A. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament
Parallels.
The Holy Bible:
Authorized King James Version.
307
308
The Holy Bible: New
International Version.
Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1978.
The Jerusalem Bible. Garden City,
Company, 1966.
New American Standard
Bible.
Company, 1977.
The New English Bible
with the Apocrypha.
The New Oxford Annotated
Bible with the Apocrypha: Revised
Standard Version. H. G. May and B. Metzger, eds.
Pritchard,
J., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to
the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton:
University Press, 1955.
C. Concordances, Grammar, and
Encyclopedias
Barthelemy,
D. Konkordanz zum Hebraischen Sirach: mit
syr.-hebra. Index.
Ruprecht, 1973.
Botterweck,
G. and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological
Dictionary
of the Old Testament. 4 vols.
Eerdmans, 1974-1980.
Buttrick,
G., ed. The Interpreter's Dictionary of
the
Bible: An
Illustrated Encyclopedia. 4 vols. with
Supplementary Volume. K. Crim, ed.
Abingdon Press, 1962, 1976.
Campenhausen,
Hans Frhr. von, E. Dinkier, G. Gloege, und
K. Logstrup, eds. Die Religion in
Geschichte und
Gegenwart:
Handworterbuch fur Theologie und
Religionswissenschaft. 6 vols. with Index. K.
Galling, hrsg. 3 Aufl. Tdbingen: J.
C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1957.
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar
as Edited and Enlarged by the Late
E. Kautzsch. A. E. Cowley, ed. 2nd English ed. rev. in
accordance with the 28th German ed.
(1909).
Clarendon Press, 1910.
309
Hatch,
E. and H. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint
and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament
including the Apocryphal Books), Supplement by H.
Redpath. Oxfords Clarendon Press,
1897, 1906.
Lisowsky,
G. Konkordanz zum Hebraischen Alten
Testament.
2 Aufl.
1958.
Mandelkern,
S. Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae
Hebraicae
atque Chaldaicae. Tel Aviv: Sumptibus
Schocken
Hierosolymis,
1978.
Santos, E. Camilo dos. An
Expanded Hebrew Index for the
Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint
D. Secondary
Sources
Ackroyd,
P. "A Note on the Hebrew Roots wxb and wvb."
Journal
of Theological Studies, 43 (1942), 160-161.
Albright,
W. F. "A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean
Age: The Nash Papyrus." Journal of Biblical
Literature, 56 (1937), 145-176.
-----.
'Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew
Wisdom.," Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 3 (1955),
1-15.
Eerdmans,
1981.
Aubert, L. "Las psaumes dans le culte
d'Israel." Revue de
Theologie et de Philosophie, NS 15 (1927), 211-240.
Baker, and
of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms CXX-CL.
Balentine,
S. "Jeremiah, Prophet of Prayer." Review
and
Expositor, 78 (1981), 331-334.
Barr,
J. Comparative Philology and the Text of
the Old
Testament.
_________.
"Vocalization and the Analysis of Hebrew among
Ancient Translators." Supplements to Vetus Testa-
mentum 16 (1967), 1-11.
310
Barton,
G. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Book
of Ecclesiastes.
Baumgartner,
W. Die Klagegedichte des Jeremias.
Alfred Topelmann, 1917.
Beauchamp, P. "Le salut corporel des justes et la
con-
clusion
du livre de las Sagesse." Biblica, 45 (1964),
491-526.
Becker,.
J. Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament.
Rom:
Papstliches Bibelinstitut, 1965.
Berridge,
J. Prophet, People, and the Word of God.
EVZ-Verlag, 1970.
Beyerlin,
W. Die Rettung der Bedrangten in den
Feindpsalmen
der Einzelnen auf institutionelle Zusammenhange
untersucht.
Birkeland,
H. The Evildoers in the Book of Psalms.
I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1955.
________.
Die
Feinde des Individuums in der israelitis-
chen Psalmenliteratur.
Blau,
J. "Zum Hebraisch der ebersetzer des Altes Testa-
ments." Vetus Testamentum, 6 (1956), 98-100.
Boecker,
H. Law and the Administration of Justice
in the
Old Testament and Ancient East. Moiser, trans.
Bonnard, P. Le
Psautier selon Jeremie. Paris: Les
Editions
du Cerf, 1960.
Bostrom,
G. Proverbastudien: die Weisheit und das
Fremde
Weiss
in Spr. 1-9.
Bright,
J. The Authority of the Old Testament.
Abingdon Press, 196T.
________.
A History of
minster press, 1959.
Bryce,
G. "Another Wisdom-‘Book’ in Proverbs." Journal of
Biblical Literature, 91 (1972), 145-157.
_________.
The
Legacy of Wisdom: The Egyptian Contribu-
tion to the Wisdom of
University Press, 1979.
311
Burnham,
J. Women in the Book of Proverbs.
Th.M. Thesis,
The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 1956.
Calvin,
J. Commentary on the Book of Psalms. 5 vols.
J. Anderson, trans.
Clarke,
E. The Wisdom of Solomon.
University Press, 1973.
Clements,
R. A Century of Old Testament Study.
Lutterworth Press, 1976.
Coats,
G. "The Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom: A Reap-
praisal." Catholic Biblical Quarterly,
35 (1973),
285-297.
Cook,
R. The Neighbor Concept in the Old Testament. Ph.D.
Dissertation, The Southern Baptist
Theological
Seminary, 1980.
Crenshaw,
J. "Method in Determining Wisdom: Influence
on
'Historical Literature'." Journal of Biblical
Literature, 88 (1969), 129-142.
_________.
Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction.
_________,
ed. Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom.
New
_________.
and J. Willis, eds. Essays in Old
Testament
Ethics J. Philip Hyatt In Memoriam.
KTAV, 1974.
Cross,
F. "The Oldest Manuscripts from
Biblical Literature, 74 (1955), 147-172,
Dahood,
M. Proverbs and Northwest Semitic
Philology. Roma:
Pontificum Institum
_________.
"Two Pauline Quotations from the Old Testa-
ment." Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 17 (1955), 19-24.
Deane,
W. The Book of Wisdom.
1881.
Delekat,
L. Asylie und Schutzorakel an
Zionheiligtum.
312
Dhorme,
E. A Commentary on the Book of Job.
H. Knight,
trans.
Driver,
S. R. A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on
Deuteronomy. 3rd ed.
1901.
_________.
An
Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament.
Duhm,
B. Die Psalmen.
Mohr (Paul-Mack), 1899.
Eaton,
Kingship and the Psalms. Naperville, Ill.:
Alec R.
Allenson, 1976.
Eissfeldt.
O. The Old Testament: An Introduction.
P. Ackroyd, trans.
Engnell,
East. Upsalla: Almqvist and Wiksells boktr., 1943.
Feininger,
B. "A Decade of German Psalm-Criticism."
Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament, 20 (1981),
91-103.
Feldmann,
F. "Zur Einheit des Buches der Weisheit."
Biblische
Zeitschrift, 7 (1909), 140-150.
Fichtner,
J. Die Altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer
Israelitisch-Judischen Auspragung: Eine Studie zur
Nationalisierung der Weisheit
Verlag von Alfred-Topelmann, 1933.
Fohrer,
G. Das Buch Hiob.
1963.
Gammie,
J. "The Theology of Retribution in the Book of
Deuteronomy." Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 32 (1970),
1-12.
_________,
W. Brueggemann, W. Humphreys, and J. Ward, eds.
Israelite
Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in
Honor of Samuel Terrien.
Gemser,
B. Spruche Salomos.
(Paul Siebeck), 1937.
313
Gerlemann,
G. "The Septuagint Proverbs as a Hellenistic
Document." Oudtestamentische Studien, 8 (1950), 15-27.
________.
Studies in the LXX III: Proverbs.
C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956,
Gerstenberger,
E. "The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets."
Journal
of Biblical Literature, 81 (1962), 249-263.
Gese,
H. Lehre und Wirklichkeit in der
Alten Weisheit:
Studien zu den Spruchen Salomon und zu dem Buche Hiob.
Ginsburg,
C. The Song of Songs and Coheleth. 2
vols. in
one.
Gordis,
R. The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job.
________.
The Book of Job: Commentary, New
Translation
and Special Studies.
Seminary of
_________.
Koheleth--The Man and His World: A Study
of
Ecclesiastes. 3rd aug.ed.
1968.
_________.
Poets, Prophets and Sages: Essays in Biblical
Interpretation.
Press, 1971.
_________.
The Wisdom of Ecclesiastes.
House, 1945.
Gunkel,
H. Die Psalmen, Ubersetzt und Erklart.
5 Aufl.
1926.
________.
und J. Begrich. Einleitung in die
Psalmen: Die
Gattungen der religiosen Lyrik
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1933.
Label,
N. "The Symbolism of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9."
Interpretation,
26 (1972), 131-157,
Hayes,
J., ed. Old Testament Form Criticism.
314
Hebgin,
S. and F. Corrigan, trans.
Psalms. 2 vols.
Press, 1960, 1961.
Hermisson,
H. Studien zur Israelitischen
Spruchweisheit.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1968.
Hertzberg,
H. Der Prediger. Gotersloh:
Verlaghaus Gerd
Mohn, 1963.
Heinisch,
P. Das
Buch der Weisheit.
dorffsche-Wrlagsbuchhandlung, 1912.
Holscher,
G. Das Buch Hiob.
(Paul Siebeck), 1937.
Hooke,
S., ed. The Labyrinth: Further Studies in
the
Relation
between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient
World.
Katz,
P. "Zur Ubersetzungstechnik der LXX." Die Welt des
Orients, 2 (1956), 267-273.
Kayatz,
C. Studien zu Proverbien Eine Form- und
Motivgeschichtliche
Untersuchung unter Einbeziehung
Agyptischen Vergleichsmaterials. NeukirchenVluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1966.
Keel,
O. Feinde und Gottesleugnner: Studien zur Image der
Widersacher in den Individualpsalmen.
Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969.
Kennedy,
J. An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the
Old
Testament.
Kirkpatrick,
A. The Psalms.
University Press, 1902.
Kiassen,
W. "Coals of Fire: Sign of Repentance or
Revenge?" New Testament Studies, 9 (1963), 337-350.
Koch,
K. "Gibt es eine Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testa-
ment?" Zeitschrift fur Theologie and Kirche, 52 (1955),
1-42.
________.
Was Ist Formgeschichte? Methoden der
Bibelexegese. 3 Aufl. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
veriag, 1974.
315
_________,
ed. Um Das Prinzip der Vergeltung in
Religion
and Recht des Alten Testaments. Darmstedt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1972.
Kohler,
L. Hebrew
Press, 1956.
Kovacs,
B. Social-Structural Constraints upon Wisdom:
The Spatial and Temporal Matrix of Proverbs 15:28-
22:16. 2 vols. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt Uni-
versity, 1978.
Kraus,
H. J. Psalmen. 2 vols. 5 Anti.
Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag des
Erziehungsvereins, 1978.
__________.
Worship in
Testament. G. Burwell, trans.
Press, 1966.
Laney,
J. "A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms."
Bibliotheca
Sacra, 138 (1981), 34-45.
Lang,
B. Die weisheit Lehrrede: Eine Untersuch von
Spruch 1-7.
1972.
Laura,
A. Kohelet. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag,
1978.
Loader,
J. Polar Structures in the Book of
Qoheleth.
Mandry,
S. There Is No God! A Study of the Fool
in the Old
Testament Particularly in Proverbs and Qoheleth.
Catholic Book Agency, 1975.
Manson,
T. The Sayings of Jesus as Recorded
in the Gospels
according to St. Matthew and
Introduction and Commentary.
McKane,
W. Prophets and Wise Men. Naperville, Ill.: Alec
R.
Allenson, 1965.
________.
Proverbs: A New Approach.
Meyer,
S. "The Psalms and Personal Counseling." Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 2 (Winter 1974), 26-77.
316
Mowinckel,
S. The Psalms in
D. Ap-Thomas, trans.
________.
Psalmenstudien. 6 vols. Kristiania:
In
kommission bei Jacob Dybwad, 1921.
_________.
"Zwei Beobachtung zum Deutung der
Nv,xA-ylefaPo.” Zeitschrift
fur die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, 43 (1925), 260462.
Morenz, S. "Feurige auf dem Haupt." Theologische
Literaturzeitung, 78 (1953), col. 187-192.
Morgan,
D. Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions.
Murphy,
R. "The Kerygma of the Book of Proverbs."
Interpretation,
20 (1966), 3-14.
________.
Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth,
Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther.
Eerdmans, 1981.
Noth,
M. The History of
_________.
Die
Israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der
Gemeinsemitischen Namengebung.
W. Kohlhammer, 1928.
________.
The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other
Essays.
D. Ap-Thomas, trans.
1967.
________
and D. Thomas, eds. "Wisdom in
Ancient Near East." Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
Vol. 3.
Oesterley,
W. 0. E. The Book of Proverbs with Introduction
and Notes.
Olshausen,
J. Die Psalmen.
Otto,
R. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into
the Non-
Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its
Relation to the Rational. J. Harvey, trans. Rev.
ed.
Pelican,
J., ed. Luther's Works. 55 vols.
Concordia Publishing House, 1956-1959.
317
Ringgren,
H. and W. Zimmerli. Spruche-Prediger:
Ubersetzt
und Erklart. Giittingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1962.
Perdue,
L. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis
of the
Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literature of
the Ancient Near East.
197T.
Peters,
N. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder
Ecclesiasticus.
Minster: Aschendorffsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913.
Pops,
M. Job: Introduction, Translation, and
Notes. 3rd
ed. Garden City,
1973.
Rad,
Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary.
J. Marks, trans.
Rev. ed.
__________.
Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. D.
Stalker,
trans. Harper and Row, 1962, 1965.
_________.
The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays.
E. Dickens, trans.
_________,
Wisdom in
1972.
Ramaroson, "’Charbons ardent’: 'sur la tete’ ou
'pour le
feu'? Proverbs 25:22a -
(1970), 230-234.
Reese,
J. Hellenistic Influence on the Book of
Wisdom and
Its Consequences.
Riddle,
D. "The Logic of the Theory of Translation Greek."
Journal
of Biblical Literature, 51 (1932), 13-30.
Rife,
J. "The Mechanics of Translation Greek." Journal of
Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), 244-252.
Ringgren,
H, Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatati-
zation of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient
Rowley,
H. H. Job.
Ruppert, L. Der
leidende Gerechte und seine Feinde: Eine
Wortfelduntersuchung.
318
Schillebeeckx,
E. Jesus: An Experiment in Christology.
H. Hoskins, trans.
Schmid,
H. Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit:
eine
Untersuchung zur Altorientalischen und Israelitiachen
Weisheitliteratur.
1966.
Schmidt,
H. Das Gebet der Angeklagten im Alten
Testament.
________.
Die Psalmen.
Siebeck) 1934.
Scott,
R. B. Y. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes:
Introduction,
Translation, and Notes. Garden City,
Doubleday and Company, 1965.
_________.
"Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in
Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum, 3 (1955), 262-279.
Skehan,
P. "A Single Editor for the Whole Book of Proverbs."
Studies
in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom.
Catholic Biblical Association, 1971.
________.
"The Text and Structure of the Book of Wisdom."
Traditio,
3 (1945), 1-12.
Skladny,
U. Die Altesten Spruchsammlimgen in
Snaith,
J. Ecclesiasticus of the Wisdom of Jesus
the Son of
Sirach.
Snaith,
N. The Book of Job: Its Origin and
Purpose.
Snidjers,
L. "The Meaning of rz in the Old Testament."
Oudtestamentische
Studien, 10 (1954), 1-154.
Speiser,
E. "The Hebrew Origin of the First Part of the
Book of Wisdom." Jewish Quarterly Review, 14 (1923-24),
455-487.
Tate,
M. "The Speeches of Elihu." Review
and Expositor,
68 (1971), 487-495.
________.
A Study of the Wise Men of
to the Prophets. Dissertation, The
Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1958.
319
Thomas,
D. Winton. "Textual and Philological Notes on Some
Passages in the Book of
Proverbs." Supplements to
Vetus Testamentum, 3 (1955), 280-292.
Toy,
C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Book of
Proverbs.
________.
"On Maccabean Psalms." Unitarian
Review and
Religious Magazine, 26, No. 1 (July 1886), 1-21.
Trible,
P. "Wisdom Builds a Poem: The Architecture of
Proverbs 1:20-33." Journal of Biblical Literature, 94
(1975), 509-518.
Tur-Sinai,
N. H. The Book of Job: A New Commentary.
Way,
A., trans. St. Basil: Exegetic Homilies.
D. C.: The
Weiser,
A. The Psalms: A Commentary. H.
Hartwell, trans.
Westerman,
C. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech.
H. White,
trans.
________,
ed. Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics.
J. Mays, ed. English translation.
2nd a:
John Knox Press, 1964.
_________.
Praise
and Lament in the Psalms. K. Crim and
R. Soulen, trans.
_________.
The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-
Critical Analysis. C
Muenchow, trans.
Fortress Press, 1981.
__________.
"Struktur and Geschichte der Klage im Alten
Testament." Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, 6b (1954), 44-80.
Whybray,
R. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old
Testa-
ment.
__________.
Wisdom in Proverbs: The Concept of Wisdom
in
Proverbs 1-9.
1965.
320
Winston,
D. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New
Translation with
Introduction and Commenary. Garden City, New or
Doubleday and Company, 1979.
Wolff,
H. W. Anthropology of the Old Testament.
M. Kohl,
trans. Rev. ed.
Wright,
A. "The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of
the Book of Qohelet." Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 30
(1968), 313-334.
Wright,
G. The Biblical Doctrine of
Press, 1954.
Zimmerli,
W. "The Place and Limit of Wisdom in the Frame-
work of the Old Testament
Theology." Scottish Journal
of Theology, 17 (1964), 146-158.
_________.
"Zur Struktur der alttestamentlichen Weisheit."
Zeitschrift
fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,
NS 10 (1933), 177-204.
Zimmermann,
F. "The Book of Wisdom: Its Language and
Character." Jewish Quarterly 57 (1966), 1-27,
101-135.
APPENDIX I
Enemy Designations within the Wisdom
Literature
The byvx-Group
byvx enemy Prov. 16:7; 24:17;
Job
13:24; 27:7; 33:10
Mmvqtm one who Job 27:7
raises himself
rc foe Job 6:23; 16:9; 19:11
NFW adversary Job 1:6, 7 (2x), 8, 9,
12
(2x); 2:1, 2 (2x), 3,
4,
6, 7
xnvW hater Prov. 25:21; 26:24;
27:6;
Job 8:22; 34:17
xnwm enemy Job 31 :29
anqesthkwj opponent Wisd.
2:18; Sir. 46:6
antidikoj
opponent Sir.
33(36):7
ecouqenwn one who Wisd. 3:11; Sir. 19:1
sets at nought
exqra enmity Sir.
6:9; 37:2
exqroj enemy Wisd. 5;17; 10:12, 19;
11:3,
5; 12:20, 22;
15:14;
16:4, 8, 22;
18:5,
7, 10; Sir. 5:15;
6:4,
9, 13; 12:8, 9, 10,
16
(2x); 18:31; 19:8;
20:23;
23:3; 25:7, 14,
15;
27:18; 29:6, 13;
30:3,
6; 33(36):7, 10;
42:11;
45:2; 46:1, 5, 6,
16;
47:7; 49:9; 51:8
qlibwn oppressor Wisd.
5:1; 10:15
qumoj rage Wisd.
16:5; 18:21; 19:1
321
322
katisxuwn one who Wisd.
10:11
has power over
mishtoj hateful Sir.
20:15
oneidizwn reproacher Sir.
22:20
paresthkwj bystander Sir.
51:2
polemioj
enemy Wisd.
11:3
polemisthj
warrior Wisd. 18:15
satan adversary Sir. 21:27
upenantioj opponent Wisd.
11:8; 18:8
Sir.
23:3; 47:7
The
fwr-Group
rybx mighty Job 24:22
smH-wyx man of Prov. 3:31; 16:29
violence
lvf-wyx unjust Prov. 29:27
man
Mymd-ywnx men of Prov.
29:10
blood
dgvb treacherous Prov. 2:22; 11:3, 6;
13:2,
15; 21:18; 22:12;
23:28;
25:19
fcvb one who gains Prov.
1:19; 15:27
by violence
hvxg pride Prov. 29:23
hxg pride Prov. 15:25; 16:19;
Job
40:11, 12
lzvg robber Prov.
28:24
hfr-wrvd one who Prov.
11:27
seeks evil
dz
ruthless Prov.
21:24
323
xFvH sinner Prov.
1:10; 13:21; 23:17
JrvH reproacher Prov.
27:11
rqw-Nvwl false Prov.
6:17, 24; 10:31;
tongue 12:19; 17:4, 20; 21:6;
25:23; 26:28; 28:23
frm evildoer Prov. 17:4; 24:19;
Job
8:20
lfylb-df
worthless Prov. 19:28
witness
MnH-df witness Prov. 24:28
without cause
Mybzk-df lying Prov.
21:28
witness
rqw-df false Prov.
6:19; 12:17; 14:5;
witness 19:5, 9;
25:19
Cyrf ruthless Prov. 11:16; Job 6:23;
15:20;
27:13
qwvf oppressor Prov.
14:31; 22:16;
28:3;
Qoh. 4:1
fwr-yP wicked Prov.
4:24; 5:4; 6:2,
mouth 12; 8:13; 10:6, 11 (2x),
14;
11:9, 11; 14:3;
15:28;
18:6, 7; 19:28;
22:14;
26:28
Nvx-ylfvp
worker Prov. 10:29; 21:15
of iniquity Job 31:3;
34:8, 22
fwr
wicked Prov.
2:22; 3:33; 4:14,
19;
5:22; 9:7; 10:3, 6,
7,
11, 16, 20, 24, 25,
27,
28, 30, 32; 11:5, 7,
8,
10, 11, 18, 23, 31;
12:5,
6, 7, 10, 12, 21,
26;
13:5, 9, 17, 25;
14:11,
19, 32; 15:6, 8,
9,
28, 29; 16:4; 17:15,
23;
18:3, 5; 19:28;
20:26;
21:4, 7, 10, 12
(2x),
18, 27, 29; 24:15,
324
16,
20, 24; 25:5, 26;
28:4,
12, 15, 28; 29:2,
7,
12, 16, 17; Job 3:17;
8:22;
9:22, 24; 10:3;
11:20;
15:20; 16:11;
18:5;
20:5, 29; 21:7,
16,
17, 28; 22:18; 24:6;
27:7,
13; 34:18; 36:6,
17;
38:13, 15; 40:12;
Qoh.
3:17; 7:15; 8:10,
13,
14 (2x); 9:2
rqw-ytpW lying Prov. 4:24; 5:3; 10:18;
lips 12:22
adikwn wrongdoer Sir.
4:9
adikoj wrongdoing Wisd. 3:19; 4:16; 10:3;
12:12;
14:31; 16:24;
Sir.
17:14; 27:10;
32(35):18;
40:13
aqetwn one who sets Wisd.
5:1
aside
amartanwn sinner Wisd;
14:31; Sir. 10:29;
19:4;
3815
amartia
sin Wisd. 1:4; 10:13
amartwloj sinner Wisd.
4:10; 19:13;
Sir.
1:25; 2:21; 3:27;
5:6,
9; 6:1; 7:16; 8:10;
9:11;
10:23; 11:9, 21,
32;
12:4, 6, 7, 14;
13:17;
15:7, 9, 12;
16:6,
13; 19:22; 21:6,
10;
23:8; 25:19; 27:30
28:9;
29:16, 19; 35(32):
17;
36(33):14; 39:25,
27;
40:8; 41:5, 6, 11
anaidhj shameless Sir.
23:6; 26:11; 40:30
anomoj lawless Wisd. 17:2; Sir. 16:4;
21:9;
31(34):18; 39:24;
40:10;
49:3
asebeia impiety Wisd.
14:9
325
asebwn one who is Wisd.
14:9
impious
asebhj impious Wisd.
1:9, 16; 3:10;
4:3,
16; 5:14; 10:6, 20;
11:9;
12:9; 16:16, 18;
19:1
afairoumenoj one who takes Sir.
31(34):22
away for oneself
glwssa tongue Sir. 5:13, 14; 20:16
27:25;
28:14, 15, 17;, 18;
51:2,
5, 6
glwsswdhj babbler Sir. 8:3; 9:18; 25:20
diabolh slander Sir.
26:5; 28:9; 51:2, 6
dolioj treacherous Sir. 11:29
dwron gift Sir. 20:29; 40:12
egkatalipwn
one
who Sir. 3:16
forsakes
epikataratoj more Wisd. 14:8
accursed
ergazomenoj worker Sir. 27:10; 51:2
qrasuj
bold Sir. 22:5
kakia badness Wisd, 2:21; 4:11; 5:13;
7:30;
12:2; 16:14
kakoj bad Wisd.
14:6; 16:8;
Sir.
7:1; 20:18;
36(33):1
kakwn one
who Sir. 33(36):8
harms
kakourgoj scoundrel Sir.
11:33; 30:35(33:27)
katarwmenoj nursed Wisd. 12:11;
Sir.
31(34):24
l^sthj robber Sir. 36:31(26)
326
loidoroj abuse Sir. 23:8
parabainwn transgressor Sir.
10:19; 19:24;
23:18;
40:14
paranomoj
lawless Wisd.
3:16; Sir. 16:3
ponhreumenoj rascal Sir.
19:26
ponhria badness Wisd. 4:6, 14; 10:7;
17:11;
Sir. 12:10;
25:13;
34(32):24
ponhroj bad Sir. 4:20; 5:14; 14:5,
6,
8, 9, 10; 19:5;
27:27;
34(31):13, 24;
51:12
prosexwn
one
who Sir. 28:16, 26
holds to
stoma mouth Wisd. 1:11
ubrij insolence Sir. 10:6, 8; 21:4
ubristhj insolent Sir. 8:11; 32(35):18
one
uperhfania arrogance Sir. 10:7; 15:8; 51:10
uperhfanoj
arrogant Wisd. 14:6;
Sir. 3:28;
11:30;
13:1, 20; 21:4;
23:8;
27:15, 28;
34(31):26;
35(32):18;
51:10
xeiloj lip Sir. 5:12
The
Neutral Group
rz stranger Prov. 2:16; 5:3, 10, 17,
20;
6:1; 7:5; 11:15;
14:10;
20:16; 22:14;
27:13;
Job 19:15, 27
rw prince Qoh. 10:16, 17
327
allotrioj alien Wisd.
19:15; Sir. 8:18;
11:34;
21:25; 23:22,
23;
29:22; 33(36)2;
35(32):18;
40:29 (2x);
45:18;
49:5
arxwn ruler Sir. 10:14;
33(36):10;
46:18
basileuj king Wisd. 10:16; 18:11;
Sir.
10:3
bohqwn helper Sir. 12:17
boulh counsel Sir. 23:1
dunasthj lord Sir. 8:1; 10:3
ekklhsia
assembly Sir.
26:5
eteroj other Sir. 11:6
katadunasteusaj one who Wisd.
15:14
exercises
power over
krataioj mighty Wisd.
6:8
oxloj crowd Sir.
26:5
plhqoj multitude Wisd.
4:3; 11:17; 16:1;
Sir,
5:6; 7:9; 31(34):
19;
36(33):11; 51:3
plousioj rich Sir. 8:201 13:2, 3, 18,
19,
20, 21, 22, 23;
25:2
sumbouloj counselor Sir.
6:6; 37:7, 8
sunagwgh
assembly Sir.
16:6; 21:9
The
Friends and Kinfolk Group
Hx brother Prov. 19:7; Job 6:16;
19:13
fdym close Job 19:14
acquaintance
bvrq neighbor Job 19:14
328
fr companion Prov. 6:1, 3 (2x);
12:26;
14:20; 17:18;
18:17,
24; 19:4 (2x);
25:8,
9, 17; Job 12:4;
16:20,
21
adelfoj brother Wisd. 10:10
goneij parent Wisd. 12:6
esqiwn one
who Sir.
20:16
eats
etairoj companion Sir.
11:6; 37:2, 4, 5
pathr father Wisd.
14:15; Sir. 41:7
plhsion neighbor Sir. 10:6; 19:14, 17;
27:18,
19; 28:2;
31(34):22
uioj son Sir.
16:1
filoj friend Wisd.
1:16; Sir. 6:8, 9,
10,
13; 12:9; 13:21;
19:13,
14, 15; 20:23;
22:20,
21, 22 (2x);
36(33):6;
37:1, 2, 4, 5,
6
The
Animals Group
yrx lion Prov.
28:15
hyrx lion Job
4:10
yrpk
young lion Prov.
19:12; 20:2; 28:1
Job
4:10
xybl lion Job.
4:11
lewn lion Wisd. 11:17; Sir.
4:30;
21:2;
25:16; 27:10;
28:23
APPENDIX
II
Enemy Behavior within the Wisdom
Literature
dbx (Pi.) destroy Prov. 1:32; 29:3;
Job
12:23: Qoh. 3:6;
7:7;
9:18
Nvx mischief Prov. 17:4; 19:28;
30:20;
Job 4:8, 11:14;
15:35;
18:7
rWb lkx eat Qoh.
4:5
flesh
hlx curse Prov. 29:24; Job 31:30
Hlx (Ni.) be Job 15:16
corrupt
Jxb in anger Job
18:4
brx lie in wait Prov.
1:11, 18; 7:12;
12:6;
23:28; 24:15
wvb (Hi.) put to Prov. 10:5; 12:4; 14:35;
shame 17:2; 19:26; 29:15
hzb
despise Prov.
14:2; 15:20;
19:16
rwfb HFb trust Prov.
11:28
in
riches
Nyb-xl not Job 9:11; 23:8; 42:3
understand
wqb (Pi.) seek Prov. 17:11, 19; 29:10
Job
10:6; Qoh. 7:29
jrb (Pi. ) bless Prov. 27:14; Job 1:5,
11;
2:5, 9
ldg (Hi.) triumph Job
19:5
over
hbd whispering Prov.
10:18; 25:10
329
330
xkd (Pi.)
crush Prov. 22:22; Job 6:9;
19:2
qld burn Prov.
26:23
hgh
moan Prov.
24:2; Job 27:4
hvh destruction Prov. 17:4; 19:13
Job
6:2, 30; 30:13
jlh (Hith.) walk Job 18:8
about
llh (Hith.) boast Prov.
25:14
llh (Pi.) praise Prov.
28:4
hmh murmur Prov. 7:11; 9:13
grh kill Prov. 1:32; 7:26;
Job
5:2; 20:16; Qoh. 3:3
hrh conceive Job 15:35
Mmz devise Prov.
30:32
hmz device Prov.
10:23; 21:27; 24:9
hdH sharp Prov.
5:4
qlH I (Pi.) dis- Prov. 16:19; Job 21:17
tribute
qlH II (Hi.) flatter Prov.
2:16; 7:5; 28:23;
29:5
hmH poison Job
6:4
smH violence Prov.
4:17; 10:6, 11;
13:2;
26:6; Job 16:17;
19:7
hnH encamp Job
19:12
MnH without cause Prov. 1:11, 17; 3:30;
24:28;
26:2; Job 1:9;
2:3;
9:17; 22:6
CpH-xl take no Prov.
18:2
pleasure
331
rPH dig Qoh. 10:8
CH arrow Prov.
7:23; 25:18;
26:18;
Job 6:4; 34:6
brH sword Prov. 5:4; 12:18; 25:18;
30:14;
Job 1:15, 17;
5:15,
20; 15:22;
19:29
(2x); 27:14
JrH reproach Prov.
27:11; Job 27:6
JrH (Pi.) reproach Prov.
14:31; 17:5
qrH gnash Job
16:9
bwH devise Prov. 16:30; Job 6:26
lpF whitewash Job
13:4
JrF tear Job
16:9; 18:4
dly bear Job
15:35
xry-xl not fear Job 9:35
bzk lie Prov.
6:19; 14:5, 25;
19:5,
9; 21:28; 30:8
hlk (Pi.) destroy Prov.
16:30; Job 9:22
hrk dig Prov.
26:27
Cyl (Hi.) scorn Prov.
3:34; 14:9; 19:28
bfl mock Prov.
1:26; 17:5; 30:17;
Job
9:23; 11:3; 22:19
wqvm snare Prov.
12:13; 13:14;
14:27;
18:7: 20:25;
22:25;
29:6, 25;
Job
34:30
hmzm device Prov.
12:2; 24:8;
Job
21:27; 42:2
hbwm device Prov.
6:18; 15:26;
Job
5:12; 21:27
hmrm deceit Prov,
12:5, 17, 20;
14:8, 25; 26:24;
Job
15:35; 31:5
332
Cxn despise Prov.
1:30; 5:12; 15:5
fbn (Hi.) pour Prov. 15:2; 15:28
out
Hdn (Hi.) compel Prov.
7:21
fvn (Hi.) shake Job
16:4
hnvkn-Nyx not true Job
42:7, 8
lpn (Hi.) cast Job 6:27
(lot)
Jqn II (Hi.) en- Job
19:6
compass
bbs surround Job
16:13; Qoh. 9:14
rvs depart Prov.
5:7; Job 21:14;
22:17;
34:27
lvf injustice Job
34:10, 32
hlvf injustice Prov.
22:8; Job 6:29,
30;
13:7; 15:16; 27:4;
36:23
tvf (Pi.) pervert Job 8:3;
19:6; 34:12
Qoh.
7:13
bzf forsake Prov.
27:10; Job 20:19
zzf (Hi.) show Prov. 21:29
boldness
vynyfb in his Prov. 3:7; 12:15;
16:2;
own
eyes 21:2; 26:5, 12,
16;
28:11;
30:12; Job 32:1
lmf trouble Prov. 24:2; Job 3:10;
4:8;
5:6; 7:3; 11:16;
15:35;
16:2; Qoh. 1:3;
2:10,
11, 16, 19, 20,
21,
22, 24; 3:13; 4:4,
6,
8, 9; 5:14, 17, 18;
6:7;
8:15; 9:9; 10:15
hnf III (Pi.) af- Job 30:11
flict
333
Crf tremble Job 31:34
qwf oppress Prov. 14:31;
22:16;
28:3,
17; Job 10:3;
Qoh.
4:1 (2x)
Hvp (Hi.) breathe Prov. 6:19; 12:17;
out 14:5,
25; 19:5, 9; 29:8
HP trap Prov. 7:23;
22:5;
Job
18:9; 22:10;
Qoh.
9:12
hcp open Job 35:16
wrp spread Prov. 29:5
Npc hide Prov.
1:11, 18;
Job
10:13; 17:4; 21:19
Mvq rise Prov.
24:22; 28:12, 28;
Job
16:8; 24:14; 30:12;
31:14
llq (Pi.) curse Prov.
20:20; 30:10, 11;
Qoh.
7:21, 22;
10:20 (2x)
hllq curse Prov. 26:2;
27:14
Nyf-Crq wink Prov. 6:13;
10:10; 16:30
the
eye
twq bow Job 20:24
Jdr pursue Prov. 28:1; Job 13:25;
19:22,
28; 30:15
Mvr be high Prov, 30:13
fvr (Hi.) shout Job
30:5
Cvr run Prov. 1:16;
6:18;
Job 15:26; 16:14
qHr be far Prov. 19:7;
22:5
Job
30:10
ffr (Hi.) do evil Prov.
4:16; 24:8
334
fr evil Prov. 1:16; 2:12, 14
(2x);
3:7; 4:14; 5:14;
6:14,
24; 8:13 (2x);
12:20,
21; 13:17; 14:19,
22;
16:6; 20:22; 21:10;
23:6;
25:20; 26:23;
28:5,
10, 22; 29:6;
Qoh.
1:13; 2:17; 4:3,
8,
17; 5:13; 6:2; 8:3,
5,
9, 11, 12; 9:3 (2x),
12;
10:13; 12:14
hfr evil Prov.
3:29, 30; 6:18;
11:19,
27; 14:32; 15:28;
16:27,
30; 17:13 (2x),
20;
24:1, 16; 26:26;
28:14;
Job 20:12; 42:11;
Qoh.
2:21; 5:12 (2x),
15;
6:1; 7:14, 15; 8:6,
11;
9:12; 10:5; 11:2,
10;
12:1
fwr
(Hi.) condemn Prov. 12:2; 17:15;
Job
9:20; 10:2; 15:6;
32:3;
34:12, 17, 29;
40:8
twr net Prov. 29:5;
18:8
MFw bear a grudge Job
16:9; 30:21
Hmw rejoice Prov. 24:17; Job 31:29
xnW hate Prov. 22,
29; 5:12;
6:16;
8:13 (2x); 9:8;
13:5,
24; 15:27; 19:7;
25:17;
26:28; 28:16;
29:10;
29:24; 30:23;
Qoh.
2:17, 18; 3:8
hxnW hatred Prov.
10:12, 18; 15:17;
26:26;
Qoh. 9:1, 6
lxw request Job
31:30; 38:3; 40:7;
42:4
ddw devastate Prov. 11:3; Job 12:6;
15:21
xvw emptiness Prov.
30:8; Job 15:31;
31:5
335
dHvw bribe Prov. 17:8,
23; 21:14;
Job
15:34
tHw (Hi.) ruin Prov. 6:32;
11:9
tHw pit Prov. 26:27;
Job 9:31
Hkw forget Prov.
2:17; 3:1; 4:5;
Job
8:13
vdy-Hlw stretch out Job 1:11, 12; 2:5
his
hand
Mlw (Pi.) repay Prov.
20:22
rmw watch Job 10:14;
13:27; 14:16;
24:15;
29:2; 33:11;
Qoh.
5:7
Mynw teeth Prov.
30:14; Job 16:9
rqw falsehood Prov. 6:17, 19; 10:18;
12:17,
19, 22; 13:5;
14:5; 17:4,
7; 19:5, 9;
20:17;
21:6; 25:14;
25:18;
26:28; 29:12;
Job
13:4; 36:4
hft err Prov.
7:25; 14:22; 21:16
agapan love Sir. 3:26;
34(31):5
agein lead Wisd. 14:23
agorazein buy Sir. 20:12;
37:11
agrupnia sleeplessness Sir.
34(31):1, 2, 20;
42:9
adikein do wrong Wisd.
14:29; Sir. 4:9;
13:3;
32(35):13;
33(36):9
adikhma injury Sir. 10:6;
28:2
adikia injustice Wisd. 1:5; 11:15;
Sir.
7:3, 6; 10:7, 8;
14:9;
17:20, 26; 20:28;
27:10;
32(35):3; 40:12;
41:18
336
adikoj unjust Iliad. 1:8; 3:19; 406;
10:3;
12:12, 23; 14:30,
31;
16:24; Sir. 1:21;
5:8;
7:2; 10:7; 17:14;
19:25;
27:10; 31(34:):
18;
32(35):12, 18;
40:13;
51:6
adikwj unjustly Wisd. 12:13, 23; 14:28,
30
aqetein set aside Wisd. 5:1
aq&oj unpunished Sir. 7:8
airein take Sir. 27:25
aisxunein shame Sir.
4:20; 13:7; 41:17
aisxunh shame Sir. 4:21; 5:14; 20:22,
23,
26
akouein hear Sir.
19:9, 10
aliskein be caught Sir. 9:4; 27:26, 29
allassein change Wisd. 4:11; 12:10;
Sir.
7:18
amartanein sin Wisd. 11:16; 12, 2, 11;
14:31;
15:2 (2x), 13;
Sir.
5:4; 7:7, 36;
10:29;
15:20; 19:4, 16,
28;
20:21; 21:1; 23:11;
24:22;
35(32):12;
53:15;
42:1
amartia sin Sir.
5:5; 10:13; 12:14;
13:24;
16:9; 17:20;
18:27;
19:8; 21:2;
23:12,
13, 16; 26:28;
27:13;
28:2; 35(32):12;
48:15,
16
amartwloj sinner Sir.
11:9, 32; 12:14;
16:13;
19:22; 23:8;
28:30;
28:9; 29:16, 19;
35(32):17
amelein neglect Wisd. 3:10
337
anabainein go up Sir.
48:18
anairein raise Wisd. 1:11; 14:24;
Sir.
21:2
anapterein excite Sir.
31(34):1
anastrefein turn upside Sir.
12:12, 16
down
anatellein make to Wisd. 5:6
rise
up
anatrepein turn
over Sir. 12:12, 16; 29:16
anelehmwn merciless Wisd.
12:5; 19:1;
Sir.
13:12; 32(35):18;
37:11
anqistanai oppose Wisd.
2:18; 5:23;
10:19;
11:3; 12:12;
Sir.
8:2; 46:6, 7
anienai send up Sir. 30:8
anoigein open Sir.
20:15; 22:22
anomhma lawless Wisd. 1:9; 3:14; 4:20
deed
anomia lawlessness Wisd. 5:7, 23;
Sir.
23:114 41:18
anosioj profane Wisd. 12:4
apagein lead away Sir. 46:3
apairein carry
off Sir. 48:18
apanainesqai disown Sir.
4:4
apantan meet Sir. 34(31):22;
36(33):1
apeiqein disobey Sir. 2:15; 23:23; 30:12
apodidonai give
back Sir. 29:6 (2x)
apokteinein kill Wisd.
16:14; 18:5;
Sir.
30:23
338
apolluein destroy Sir.
6:4; 8:2; 10:3,
16,
17; 22:27; 27:16,
18;
28:13; 29:18;
30:23;
34(31):25; 46:6;
49:7
apoplanan lead astray Sir. 13:6
apostellein send Wisd.
16:18; Sir. 48:18
aposterein rob Sir.
4:1; 29:6, 7;
31(34):21,
22
apostrefein turn back Sir. 4:4, 5; 14:8;
21:15;
27:1; 29:7, 9;
46:11
apotinein pay back Sir.
20:15
aptesqai fasten Sir.
13:1
apwqein thrust away Sir.
13:10
arkein ward off Wisd.
14:22
arpazein steal Wisd.
4:11; Sir. 6:2
arrwstia weakness Sir.
18:19
asebein be impious Sir.
15:20
aspazesqai greet Sir.
41:20
atimazein dishonor Sir.
3:13; 8:4, 6;
10:23,
29; 22:5
atimia dishonor Wisd.
5:4; Sir. 1:30;
3:10;
5:13; 20:26; 29:6
afairein take
from Wisd. 18:15; Sir. 9:13;
31(34):22
afiein send forth Wisd.
10:14; Sir. 23:1
afistan depose Wisd. 1:5; 3:10; 10:3;
Sir.
10:12; 13:10;
15:11;
16:7; 19:2; 47:24
afrwn without sense Sir. 16:23
339
axrhstoj useless Wisd.
3:11
ballein cast Sir.
27:25; 37:8
baskanein envy Sir. 14:6, 8
baskanoj envious Sir.
14:3; 18:18; 37:11
bdelugma abomination Sir.
10:13; 19:23;
27:30
bdelussein loath Sir. 11:2; 16:8; 20:8
bohqein help Sir. 12:17
boqroj hole Sir. 12:16; 27:26
boulouein deliberate Wisd.
18:5; Sir. 12:16
boulh counsel Sir.
19:22; 23:1; 37:7
gogguzein mutter Sir.
10:25
goggusmoj murmuring Wisd.
110, 11;
Sir.
46:7
daneizein lend Sir.
20:15
diabolh slander Sir. 28:9; 38:17; 51:6
diaboulion counsel Wisd.
1:9
diairein divide Sir.
27:25
diamaxesqai fight Sir.
8:1, 3; 51:19
diamenein stand by Sir.
12:15
diastrefein distort Sir.
11:341; 19:25; 27:23
diathrein watch
closely Sir. 28:1, 5
diafqeirein destroy Wisd.
16:19; 18:2;
utterly Sir.
47:22
diafqora destruction Sir.
34(31):5
diaxwrizein separate Sir.
6:13; 12:9
didonai give Sir.
4:5; 11:33; 13:6;
20:15;
27:23
340
dihgeisqai describe Sir.
19:8; 21:25
diistanein set apart Sir.
28:14
dikazein judge Wisd.
2:19; Sir. 8:14
diodeuein travel Wisd.
5:7
through
diwkein pursue Wisd. 16:16;
19:2, 3;
Sir.
11:10; 29:19;
34(31):5
dolioj deceitful Sir. 22:22
doloj guile Wisd. 14:25,
30
docazein magnify Sir.
10:26, 27
dunastuein be powerful Sir.
12:5; 48:12
dwrean in vain Sir. 20:23; 29:6, 7
egkaqizein seat upon Sir. 8:11
egkalein bring
change Wisd.
12:12
egkatakeipein forsake Sir,
3:16; 4:19; 7:30;
9:10;
29:14, 17; 41:8
eipein say Wisd. 2:1;
5:3 (2x);
12:12;
Sir. 5:1, 3, 4,
6;
7:9; 11:19, 23, 24;
12:16;
13:6, 23; 15:11,
12;
16:17; 19:14 (2x);
20:16;
34(31):12; 37:1,
8;
39:17, 34
ekballein throw
out Wisd. 19:3; Sir. 7:26;
28:9,
15
ekdikein avenge Sir.
28:1; 39:30; 46:1
ekdiwkein chase away Sir.
39:30
ekzhtein seek out Sir.
47:25
ekkaiein kindle Sir.
28:8, 11
ekklinein turn aside Sir.
8:2; 12:15;
35(32):17;
46:2
341
ekpiptein drive
out Sir. 31(34):7
ekteinein stretch
out Sir.
46:2
ekthkein waste
away Sir.
18:18; 34(31):1
ektriqenai set
out Wisd. 18:5
ektribein destroy Wisd.
11:19; 12:9;
Sir.
33(36):7; 46:18;
47:7;
48:21
ekfainein disclose Sir.
14:7; 19:25
ekxein pour out Sir. 16:11; 28:11;
31(34):22;
33(36):7
elegxein reprove Wisd. 1:3; 2:11; 4:20;
Sir.
20:2
elpizein hope Sir.
31(34):7
emballein throw
in Sir. 28:9
empiplanan fill Wisd.
5:7; Sir. 12:16;
14:9
empisteuein entrust Sir. 19:4
endreuein lie
in Wisd.
2:12; 10:12;
wait for Sir. 5:14; 11:31, 32;
27:10,
28; 28:26
enedron ambush Sir. 8:11; 11:29
enqumeisqai consider Wisd.
3:14; Sir. 17:31
enqumhma thought Sir.
32(35):19
entrepein hesitate Wisd.
2:10
ecairein lift
up Sir.
10:15, 17; 26:29;
32(35):18;
33(36):7;
37:7
ecallasein change Wisd.
2:15
ecoleqreuein destroy Wisd.
12:8
ecomologein confess Sir. 51:2, 12
342
ecouqenein set at Wisd.
4:18; Sir. 34(31):
nought 22, 31
ecouqenoun set at nought Sir. 34(31):22,
31;
47:7
epagein bring on Sir. 1:30; 4:17, 21;
23:16;
46:3; 47:20;
48:2
epairein be
elated Sir. 33(36):3; 46:2;
47:4;
48:18
epegeirein awaken Sir.
46:1
epexein hold upon Sir. 5:1, 8; 13:11;
32(35)02
epibainein go
upon Sir. 2:12; 9:2
epiblepein look upon Sir.
11:30
epiginwskein observe Wisd.
5:7; Sir. 19:27
epilanqanein forget Sir.
7:27; 23:14; 29:15;
37:6
epipiptein fall
upon Sir. 25:19
epispan pursue Wisd. 1:12; 19:3
episunagein collect Sir. 16:10
epitiqenai put on Sir.
11:31
epixairein rejoice
over Sir.
8:7; 23:3
epixein pour over Wisd. 17:15
ergazesqai work Wisd. 3:14; Sir. 51:2
ergon work Wisd. 1:12; Sir. 10:6
erizein strive Sir. 8:2; 11:9
etazein examine Wisd.
2:19; 6:6
eudokein be
well pleased Sir. 18:31
eufrainein delight Sir.
19:5; 27:29;
32(35):19
343
eufrosunh joy Wisd.
2:9
efistanai set
upon Wisd. 18:17; 19:1
zhtein seek Sir. 12:12; 51:3
qelhma will Sir. 8:15; 35(32):17
qlibein oppress Wisd. 5:1; 10:
Sir.
4:4; 30:21,
34(31):31;
46:5, 16
qliyij oppression Sir. 32(35):20
qoruboj tumult Wisd. 14:26
qrasuj rash Sir. 4:29
qumoj anger Wisd. 10:3; 11:18;
Sir.
39:28 (2x);
45:18,
19
idein see Wisd.
2:17
istanai stand Wisd.
18:16; Sir. 27:26;
37:9
isxuein prevail Sir. 29:6
kaqairein purge Sir. 28:14; 31(34):23
kakia bad Wisd.
16:14
kakopoiein do
bad Sir.
19:28
kakoj bad Wisd. 15:12; Sir. 12:3
kakoun do bad Wisd.
19:16; Sir. 3:26;
7:20;
11:24; 30:40
(33:31);
33(36):9;
38:21;
49:7
kakwj badly Wisd.
14:29, 30
kaloj beautiful Sir. 12:16; 13:6
kataballein overthrow Sir.
1:30; 7:7; 8:16;
47:4
katagein lead down Sir.
32(35):15; 48:3, 6
344
katagelan mock
at Sir. 7:11; 20:17
katadikazein condemn Wisd.
2:20; 11:10
katadunasteuein exercise Wisd.
2:10; 15:14;
power over 17:2; Sir. 48:12
kataisxunein put to
shame Sir.
2:10; 22:4, 5;
42:11,
14
katalambanein seize Sir.
7:1; 11:10; 23:6
kataleipein forsake Sir.
13:4, 7; 23:8, 22,
26;
28:23; 29:14; 49:4
katamanqanein observe
well Sir.
9:5, 8
katanohsij observation Sir.
41:21
katapauein lay
to rest Sir. 5:6; 10:17
katara curse Sir.
23:26; 29:6
katarasqai curse Sir. 3:16; 4:5, 6;
21:27; 23:14; 28:13;
31
(34):24; 36(33):12
katarassein shatter Wisd.
17:4; Sir. 46:6
katastrefein turn down Sir. 10:13, 16; 27:3;
28:14
katafqeirein destroy Wisd. 15:19, 22
katafronein think Wisd.
14:30
contemptuously
katisxuein overpower Wisd.
7:30
kauxasqai boast Sir. 11:4
kenoj empty Wisd. 1:11; 3:11;
Sir.
23:11
kinein remove Sir. 12:18; 13:7
krinein decide Wisd. 6:4; 12:10
krufaioj secret Wisd.
17:3
345
ktasqai acquire Sir.
6:4; 20:23; 29:6
kukloqen all around Sir.
46:5, 16; 47:7;
51:4
kuliein roll along Sir. 27:27
lalein speak Sir.
13:6, 22
lalia speech Sir. 5:13;
13:11
lambanein take Sir.
4:22, 27; 42:1
legein say Sir.
12:16; 23:18;
35(36):10
likman winnow Wisd.
11:18, 20
logizesqai reckon Wisd.
2:1, 16, 21; 5:4
loidoria abuse Sir.
29:6
lumainein treat with Sir.
28:23
indignity
lupein grieve Sir. 3:12;
4:2; 26:28;
30:9
luph pain Sir. 12:9;
18:15; 22:4
mainesqai be mad Wisd.
14:28
mastigoun flog Wisd. 12:22;
16:16
maxaira sword Sir.
28:18
maxh battle Sir.
8:16
megalauxein boast Sir. 48:18
meterxesqai go with Wisd. 14:30
misein hate Wisd.
12:3; Sir. 9:18;
12:6;
19:9; 20:8; 21:28;
25:2;
27:24 (2x);
34(31):16
odontej teeth Wisd.
16:10
cause pain Wisd.
14:24
346
odunh pain Wisd. 4:19; Sir. 27:29
oleqroj destruction Sir. 39:30
omnuein swear Wisd. 14:29, 30, 31;
Sir..
23:10, 11
oneidizein reproach Wisd.
2:12; Sir. 8:5;
18:18;
20:15; 22:20;
41:7,
22
onomazein name Sir.
23:10
orgh wrath Wisd. 10:3; 11:9;
Sir.
28:3; 33(36):9;
45:18,
19
orkoj oath Sir.
23:9
orussein dig Sir.
27:26
ofqalmoj eye Sir. 4:5; 12:16; 14:8;
26:11;
27:1, 22, 23
pagij trap Wisd. 14:11; Sir. 9:3,
13;
27:20, 26, 29; 51:2
parabainein transgress Sir. 10:19; 19:24;
23:18;
42:10
paraluein undo Wisd.
17:15, 19
paramenein stay beside Sir. 6:8, 10
paratacij placing in Wisd. i2:9
line
of battle
parexein hold beside Sir.
29:4
paristanai make a stand Sir. 23:22, 23;
51:2
parodoj passage Wisd. 17:9
patassein beat Sir. 48:21
periexein surround Sir.
51:7
peripatein walk Sir. 10:27
347
pikria bitterness Sir.
4:6
pimplanai fill full Sir.
23:11 (2x)
planan mislead Wisd. 2:21; 5:6; 11:15;
12:24;
13:6; 14:22;
15:4;
17:1; Sir. 3:24;
9:8;
15:12; 31(34):7
planh error Wisd. 1:12;
12:24
pleonazein be abundant: Sir.
20:8
plhqunein make full Sir.
23:16; 48:16
plhrhj full Wisd. 5:22;
11:18;
Sir.
1:30; 19:26
plhroun fill Wisd. 18:16
poiein do Sir.
7:1, 12; 8:15, 16;
14:7;
18:31; 19:13(2x);
20:4;
27:27; 28:17;
30:38(33:29);
31(34):
26;
32(35):18; 34(31):
10;
45:19
polemein fight Sir.
4:28; 29:13
polemoj battle Wisd.
14:22; Sir. 47:5
ponhein toil Sir.
13:5
ponhreuesqai be evil Sir.
19:26
ponhria evil Wisd. 10:5;
Sir. 34(31):
24;
46:7
ponhroj evil Sir. 11:33;
17:31; 19:5
poreuesqai go Wisd. 1:11;
Sir. 5:9;
8:15; 12:11; 18:30
prosagein bring to Sir. 31(34):20
prosagoreuein greet Wisd.
14:22
prosdexesqai receive Wisd. 19:15
favorably
348
prosexein hold to Sir.
11:33; 28:16, 26
proskalein summon Wisd.
1:16; Sir. 13:9
prosporeuesqai come to Sir.
12:14
prostiqenai put
to Sir.
3:27; 5:5; 19:13;
21:1
proswpon face Sir.
4:4, 22, 27; 6:12;
7:6;
12:18; 14:8; 18:24;
19:27;
22:25; 26:5;
32(35):12,
13; 34(31):
6;
42:1
profqanein outrun Sir.
19:27
rhgnunai shatter Wisd.
4:19; Sir. 19:10
romfaia sword Sir. 21:3; 22:21;
26:28;
46:2
saleuein shake
to Wisd. 4:19; Sir. 28:14;
and fro 29:18
skandalon trap Wisd.
14:11
sklhrunein harden Sir.
30:12
span draw (a sword) Sir.
22:21
speirein sow Sir. 7:3
sterein deprive Sir. 28:15
sugkuptein conspire Sir. 12:11; 19:26
sumbouleuein advise Sir.
37:7
sumpolemein join
in war Wisd. 5:20
sunekpolemein join in war Wisd.
5:20
suntribein crush Sir. 13:2; 32(35):18
(2x);
33(36):10
tapeinoun humble Sir.
12:11; 31(35):26
taraxh confusion Wisd. 14:25; Sir. 11:34
349
tektainein devise Sir.
11:33; 27:22
tiktein beget Sir. 8:18
ubrij insolence Wisd. 2:19; 4:18;
Sir.
10:6
upantan go to meet Sir. 12:17
uperhfania arrogance Sir. 22:22; 48:18
uperhfanoj arrogant Sir. 35(32):12
uperidein show Sir.
23:11; 32(35):14
contempt
for
uperoran show Sir.
14:8
contempt
for
usterein be behind Sir.
7:34; 13:4
fauloj trivial Sir. 20:16
filiazein love Sir.
37:1
fqeggesqai utter a Wisd.
1:8; Sir. 13:22
sound
fqora destruction Wisd. 14:25
foneuein murder Sir.
9:13; 31(34):22
fonoj murder Wis. 14:25
fronein have Wisd.
14:30
understanding
fulassein guard Wisd.
18:4; Sir. 19:9
yeudhj false Wisd. 14:28
yeudoj lie Sir. 7:12, 13
yiqurizon whisper Sir.
12:16; 21:28
APPENDIX III
Derivative Enemy
Designations
Derivative, but
Traditional
The
byvx-Group
Jx-lfb lord of Prov.
22:24
anger
Nbx-llvg one who Prov. 26:27
rolls
a stone
bng-Mf-qlvH partner Prov. 29:24
of
a thief
Cmvg-rpvH one who Qoh.
10 :8
digs
a pit
tHw-hrvk one who Prov.
26:27
digs
a pit
romafaia sword Sir. 39:30
The
fwr-Group
lfylb-Mdx worthless Prov.
6:12; 16:27
man
dHvw-ylhx tents of Job 15:35 (cf. v. 34)
bribery
Nvx-wyx wicked man Prov.
6:12
Nvcl-ywnx scoffers Prov. 29:8
vrwfb-HFvb one who Prov.
11:28
trusts
in
his
riches
tvmzm-lfb lord of Prov. 24:8
devices
hnvz harlot Prov. 23:28
350
351
hlvf-frvz one who Prov.
22:8
sows
injustice
lmf-frvz those who Job
4:8
sow
trouble
Mdx-tdrH dread
of Prov. 29:25
man
Nvx-ywrvH those who Job
4:8
devise
mischief
fr-ywrvH those who Prov.
14:22
devise
evil
wrl-gfvl one who Prov.
17:5
mocks
the poor
qylHm one who Prov. 28:23
flatters
Jxnm adulteress Prov. 30:20
vbl-hwqm one who Prov.
28:14
hardens
his heart
Jdrm one who Prov.
11:19
pursues
hgwm one who Prov.
28:10
misleads
Jxvn one who Prov. 6:32
commits
adultery
vnvwlb-jphn one with Prov.
17:20
a
perverse tongue
zvln one who Prov. 14:2
is
devious
Jls crookedness Prov. 11:3
hrvt-ybzvf those who Prov.
28:4
forsake
the law
vynyf-hcvf one
who Prov. 16:30
winks
his eyes
352
bl-wqf one of Prov.
17:20
crooked
heart
qlH-hp flattering Prov. 26:28
mouth
vytpw-fwp transgression Prov.
12:13
of
his lips
vytqw-frvq one who Prov.
16:30
compresses
his lips
tvnvz-hfvr one who Prov.
29:3
keeps
company
with
harlots
Hcvr murderer Job 24:14
evil eye Prov.
23:6; 28:22
dyx-Hmvw one who Prov. 17:5
is
glad at calamity
lx-yHkvw those who Job
8:13
forget
God
Myfwr-tvlbHt counsels Prov.
12:5
of
the wicked
agapwn xrusion one who Sir.
34(31):5
loves
gold
anhr poluorkoj man of Sir. 23:11
many
oaths
axaristoj ungrateful one Sir.
29:16
baskanoj envious one Sir. 18:18
baskanwn one who is Sir.
14:8
ofqalmwn envious of eyes
glwssa tongue Sir. 28:18,
23
glwssa trith triple-tongue Sir. 28:14, 15
dianeuwn ofqalm& one who Sir. 27:22
winks
the eye
353
diwkwn diafora one who Sir.
34(31):5
pursues
profit
oj ekei ecousian whoever has Sir.
9:13
foneuein power to kill
kratwn amartian one
who Sir.
10:13
uperhfanian clings to sin
pride
logwn autou akoh report
of Wisd.
1:9
his(=ungodly’s)
words
luph pain Sir.
30:23
pleonektou eye of a Sir. 14:9
ofqalmoj greedy one
uponoia ponhra wrong Sir.
3:24
opinion
yalloush woman
singer Sir.
9:4
yiqurizwn whisperer Sir. 21:28
yiquron-diglwsson whisperer Sir. 28:13
deceiver
yuxh ponhra evil soul Sir. 6:4
The
Neutral Group
Mdx(h) (the)
man Prov. 21:16; 20:25;
Qoh.
1:3; 7:29
wyx man Qoh.
4:4
rywf-wyx rich man Prov.
28:11
hvbg high one Qoh.
5:7
rbg man Prov. 29:5
wr-rbg poor man Prov. 28:3
rvd generation Prov. 30:11, 12, 14
Myrybk mighty ones Job 34:27 (cf. v. 24)
354
Mdx-ynb-bl heart
of Qoh. 6:11; 9:3
the
sons of man
jlm king Prov. 16:12;
24:21;
Qoh. 8:2; 9:14
lwvm ruler Prov. 29:12
dygn prince Prov.
28:16
Fylw ruler Qoh.
10:5
antilhmptorej helpers Sir.
13:22
(plousiou) (of
a rich man)
pneumata winds Sir.
39:28
sarc kai aima flesh and Sir.
17:13
blood
The
Friends and Kinfolk Group
Nvdx master Prov. 30:10
hwx wife Prov.
12:4; Job 2:9
Nb son Prov. 10:5;
17:2; 19:26;
Job
1:5
Mw-ylb-ynb sons
of no Job 30:10 (cf. v. 8)
reputation
lbn-ynb sons of folly Job 30:10 (cf. v. 8)
rfn youth Prov.
29:15
dbf servant Prov. 30:10; 14:35;
Qoh.
7:21
Nyf eye Prov. 30:17
HHrp rabble Job 30:12
daneizomenoj borrower Sir.
29:6
daneizwn lender Sir.
29:6
gunh woman/wife Sir. 9:2, 3; 19:2;
23:22;
42:14
355
kallei gunaikoj beauty of Sir.
9:8
a
woman
emporoj merchant Sir. 26:29
zhtwn plhqunai one who seeks Sir. 27:1
to
get rich
qugathr daughter Sir. 22:4, 5; 26:10;
42:9,
11
kaphloj tradesman Sir. 26:29
teknon son Sir. 3:12; 4:1; 11:10;
18:15;
21:1; 30:9;
54(51):22;
41:7
The Animals
Group
hfpx Nvwl tongue
of Job
20:16
a
viper
exeij vipers Sir. 39:30
qhrioij deinoij dread Wisd. 12:9
wild
beasts
qhriwn odontej teeth of Sir.
39:30
wild
beasts
neoktisouj qumou newly
created Wisd.
11:18
plhreij qhraj unknown beasts
agnwstouj pur- full of rage,
pnoon fusiwntaj or such as
asqma bromon breathe out
likmwmenouj fiery breath,
kapnou deinouj or belch forth
ap ommatwn a thick pall
spinqhraj of
smoke,
astrapton- or flash terrible
taj sparks from
their
eyes
oyij sight Wisd.
11:19
skorpioi scorpions Sir. 39:30
sfhkaj wasps Wisd. 12:8
356
Derivative and Non-Traditional
Mylyvx fools Prov.
12:15; 14:9;
15:5;
24:9
bvyx Job Job
1:9, 11; 2:5, 9;
9:11,
20, 35; 11:3, 14,
15;
15:6, 16; 16:4, 8;
18:4;
22:6; 23:8; 27:4,
6;
31:5, 16, 29, 30;
32:1;
35:16; 40:8; 42:3
ynx I Qoh.
2:17, 18, 20
tvmkH / hmkH Wisdom Prov. 1:26 (cf. 20);
8:13
(cf. v. 1)
MymkH wise men Job
5:15 (cf. v. 13)
Myrwy upright Prov. 29:10
Mylysk stupid Prov.
1:29 (cf. v. 22),
fellows 32; 10:18, 23; 14:8;
15:2,
20; 18:2, 7;
26:5;
Qoh. 4:5, 17
Mydwk Chaldeans Job
1:17
Mycl scoffers Prov.
1:29 (cf. v. 22)
hWfmh the work Qoh.
2:17
hlhltm madman Prov. 26:18
Myltpn wily Job
5:15 (cf. v. 13)
yqn innocent Job 22:19
lcf sluggard Prov. 26:16
Mymvrf crafty Job
5:15 (cf. v. 13)
Mytp simple Prov. 1:29 (cf. v. 22)
qydc righteous Prov. 13:5; Job 22:19
NFW(h) (the)
Satan Job 1:11, 12; 2:5
xbW Zabeans Job 1:15
357
hrvt-yrmvw those
who Prov.
28:4
keep
the law
aisxunh shame Sir.
4:21
anqrwpoj kakatexnoj evil intent Wisd.
15:4
epinoia of human art
anqrwpoi sum- men in bondage Wisd.
14:22-26 (cf. v.
for% h turan- to misfortune
nidi or royal authority
douleusantej
antanaklwmenh echo thrown Wisd.
17:18
ek koilothtoj back from a
orewn exw of the
mountains
apaideutoi yuxai uninstructed Wisd.
17:1
souls
arxaioi gigantoi ancient Sir. 16:7
giants
afrwn fool Sir.
16:23; Wisd. 5:4
basileij Iouda kings Sir.
49:4, 7
of
Dauid David Sir.
47:4, 5, 7
deomenou needy Sir.
4:5
dikaioj righteous Wisd. 4:16; 10:20
dikh justice Wisd. 1:8;
11:20;
14:30,
31
egw I Sir. 22:25,
27; 23:1;
27:24
eidwloi eqnwn heathen Wisd. 14:11
idols
ekklhsia congregation Sir. 46:7
elattoumenouj kardia one who Sir. 16:23
is
devoid of
understanding
elehmonsunh almsgiving Sir.
29:13 (cf. v. 12)
358
enupnia dreams Sir.
31(34):7
ecakosiaj six hundred Sir. 16:10
xiliadaj thousand men
ecouqenwn sofian one
who Wisd. 3:11
kai paideian despises
wisdom
and
instruction
Efraim Ephraim Sir.
47:24-25 (cf. v.
23)
Hliaj Elijah Sir.
48:2-3, 6 (cf.
v.
1 )
Ihsouj Joshua Sir. 46:1-3
indalma specters Wisd. 17:3
kerameuj potter Wisd.
15:12 (cf. v. 7)
kladouj ornewn melodious Wisd. 17:17
sound
of birds
koiliaj orecij gluttony Sir. 23:6
o kosmoj the world Wisd.
5:20
kthsij creation Wisd. 16:24
ktupoj aphnhj harsh crash Wisd.
17:17
katarriptomenwn of rocks
petrwn hurled down
laon people Sir.
46:7
mwroj fool Sir.
18:18; 20:16
neothj telesqeisa youth Wisd.
4:16
taxewj quickly perfected
oinoj wine Sir.
19:2; 34:31):25
panourgia cleverness Sir. 19:23, 25
perisseuwn en highly Sir. 19:24
fronhsei prudent man
359
phlourgoj worker in Wisd. 15:12, 13 (cf.
clay v. 7)
planwmenoj misguided Sir. 16:23
man
pneuma dunamewj mighty Wisd.
5:23
wind
pneuma surizon whistling Wisd. 17:17
wind
potamoi rivers Wisd. 5:22
pur fire Wisd. 16:22
ruqmoj udatoj rhythm of Wisd. 17:17
poreumenou bia violently
rushing
water
Salwmwn Solomon Sir. 47:20 (cf. v. 13)
Sennaxhrim Sennacherib Sir. 48:18
skiagrafwn ponoj fruitless Wisd. 15:4
akarpoj toil of
painters
skirtwntwn z&wn unseen Wisd.
17:18
oromoj aqewrhtoj running
of
leaping
animals
11);
Wisd. 10:19
sumbouloj counselor. Sir. 37:7, 8
tolmhroj foolhardy Sir. 8:15
fellow
udwr qalasshj water of Wisd. 5:22
the
sea
upolhmyij hasty Sir.
3:24
judgment
fantasma specters Wisd.
17:15
fantisiasia apparitions Wisd. 18:17
360
floc flame Wisd.
16:19 (cf. v. 18)
foboj fear Wisd.
17:15; 18:17
xalacai hailstones Wisd.
5:22
xrusion gold Sir.
8:2
yuxh prodosi% soul's Wisd. 17:15
surrender
wruomenwn sound of Wisd. 17:18
aphnestatwn the
most
qhriwn fwnh savage roaring
beasts
God
(This includes both names Prov. 3:33-34; 6:16;
and
terms such as lx, hvlx, 22:23; 24:22;
Job 1:11;
Myhlx, hvhy, ydW 2:3, 5; 6:4, 9; 8:3;
h dunamij (tou qeou), qeoj 9:17, 20, 22, 23, 31
qeou krisij, kurioj, pneuma (cf. vv. 2ff., 13);
dunamewj sou (=tou qeou) 10:2, 3, 13, 14 (cf. vv.
o poihsaj, o tapeinwn, 2,
8); 12:23; 13:25, 27
o uyistoj.) (cf.
33:11); 14:16;
16:9,
13, 14 (cf. vv.
7-9,
11); 19:6, 12, 22;
21:17,
19; 30:11, 21;
34:10,
12; 36:23; 38:3
(=40:7);
42:4, 11; Qoh.
1:13;
2:25; 5:17-19;
6:1-2;
7:13, 14; 9:1,
9-10,
11-12; Sir. 1:30;
3:16;
4:6, 28; 5:3, 6;
7:11;
10:13-17; 12:6;
16:6-11;
18:24 (cf. v.
23);
26:28; 27:24;
32(35):18-20;
33(36):3,
7,
9; 36(33):12 (cf. v.
11);
46:6; 48:21; Wisd.
1:3;
4:18; 5:20 (cf. v.
15);
11:10, 15, 20;
12:2,
4, 9, 22-23;
16:18;
18:5, 16
Abstract
THE
"ENEMY" IN ISRAELITE WISDOM LITERATURE
John
Keating Wiles, Ph.D.
The
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1982
Chairman:
Marvin E. Tate
The purpose of the dissertation was to demonstrate that
the Israelite sages were aware
of the enemies known from the
Psalms. Following a brief
survey of interpretations of the
enemies in the Psalms, the
study began by noting and dis-
cussing all designations of
enemies located in individual
laments, thanksgiving songs,
and songs of confidence which
also appeared in the wisdom
literature.
A second avenue was to note which figures were
described as enemies were
described in the Psalter. This
involved determining how
enemies were portrayed in the
Psalms and then locating
similar presentations in the wisdom
literature. Some figures were
portrayed with enemy char-
acteristics in the wisdom
literature who did not appear in
the Psalms. These new enemy
figures were called "derivative
enemies."
Following this groundwork the possibility of asking
aster wise responses to the
enemy emerged. The leading
question was whether or not
Proverbs 25:21-22, with its
361
362
beneficent treatment of the
enemy, was characteristic of the
responses counseled in the
wisdom literature.
The investigation revealed that the sages were aware of
the enemies encountered in the
Psalms. The responses coun-
seled by the wise were
frequently concerned to achieve peace
and reconciliation between
themselves and their enemies.
Counsel appeared which ruled
out involvement in a cycle of
hostility.
The suggestion was made that this attitude was not the
sole possession of the wisdom
tradition, but rather the
common inheritance of
particular concerns of wisdom
predisposed the sages to trace
out its implications in some
detail while other circles in
The key to the conciliatory responses of the wise was
suggested to be their religious
life. They believed in the
effectiveness of the laments
and, therefore, had no need to
seek vengeance. They were
liberated to set about the task
of finding ways of getting
along with enemies which would
secure life until Yahweh acted.
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
John Keating
Wiles
PERSONAL
Born: September 1, 1950,
Parents: John C. and Ruth K. Wiles
Married: Carolyn Joy Winsett, June
11, 1977
Child: Sarah Winsett Wiles, born
March 6, 1982
EDUCATIONAL
Public Schools,
1955-1968
May, 1972, Theory and
Composition major
M.Div., Midwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary,
MINISTERIAL
Music and Youth Director,
Music and Youth Director,
Stroud,
Music and Youth Director,
Interim Music Director,
Comanche,
Music and Youth Director,
Interim Music Director,
ACADEMIC
Grader, Dr. Ben Philbeck, Midwestern
Baptist
Theological Seminary,
1977
Fellow, Dr. Marvin Tate, The
Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary,
1978-1979
Instructor, Biblical Languages and
Interpretation,
Simmons University Bible
College, 1979-1981
Instructor, Hebrew, The Southern
Baptist Theological
Seminary, 1981-1982
ORGANIZATIONAL
Omicron Delta Kappa, National
Leadership Fraternity
The Society of Biblical Literature
363
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu