A Biblical Theology of Gerassapience 9781453900365

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
Editor’s Preface ix
Acknowledgments xi
Chapter One: Introductory Matters 1
Challenges and Purpose of the Study 3
Nature and Scope of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Methodological Concerns 25
Linguistic Approach to the Study 25
Tradition-Historical Approach to the Study 32
Social-Anthropological Approach to the Study 36
Chapter Three: Philological Concerns I:The Semantic Domain of (“Wisdom”) 49
History of Scholarship 49
Etymological Analysis 54
Lexical Analysis 57
Comparative Analysis 66
Summative Definition 69
Chapter Four: Philological Concerns II:The Semantic Domain of (“Old Age”) 87
History of Scholarship 88
Etymological Analysis 93
Lexical Analysis 95
Comparative Analysis 100
Summative Definition 102
Chapter Five: Social Anthropology of Gerassapiencein Pre-Monarchical Israel 111
Evidences of Gerassapience in the Patriarchal Narratives 112
Functions of Gerassapience in Early Israel 128
Chapter Six: Social Theology of Gerassapiencein Monarchical Israel 143
Introductory Overview of the Deuteronomic History 143
Evidences of Gerassapience in the United Monarchy 146
Evidences of Gerassapience in the Divided Monarchy 157
Functions of Gerassapience in the Monarchical Israel 161
Chapter Seven: Conflicting Views of Gerassapiencein Post-Monarchical Israel 175
Evidences of Gerassapience in the Wisdom Literature 176
Evidences of Gerassapience in the Book of Psalms 186
Functions of Gerassapience in Post-Monarchical Israel 193
Chapter Eight: Concluding Remarks 207
Semantic Elements of Gerassapience in Ancient Israel 209
Functional Elements of Gerassapience in Ancient Israel 211
Selected Bibliography 215
Index 253

Citation preview

AjayiJoel:HebrewDD.qxd

4/13/2010

5:48 AM

Page 1

JOEL A. A. AJAYI received his M.Div. in biblical studies and his M.A. in adult education from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisiana. He earned his Ph.D. in Old Testament from Baylor University in Waco, Texas, where he also completed a post-doctoral gerontology program. He is currently Adjunct Professor of Old Testament in the Distant Learning Program at Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia. Continuing his interest in Old Testament (biblical) socio-cultural themes, Dr. Ajayi is currently researching the motif of “the right hand of God” in biblical traditions.

A Biblical Theology of Gerassapience

“Joel A. A. Ajayi has done us all a great service by bringing together the Old Testament understanding of wisdom and the Old Testament understanding of old age. He treats this Old Testament thematic pair with linguistic, tradition-historical and socio-anthropological approaches in three historical periods: pre-monarchy, monarchy, and postmonarchy. With this approach, he is able to articulate the diversity of Old Testament views of the wisdom of old age. In a society already grappling with issues tied to aging, this probing biblical study will richly repay its readers.” W. H. Bellinger Jr., Chair, Department of Religion, and W. Marshall and Lulie Craig Professor of Bible, Baylor University, Waco, Texas

134 A J AY I

Ancient cultures, such as that of the Hebrews, commonly associated wisdom with advanced years. In A Biblical Theology of Gerassapience, the author investigates the validity of this correlation through an eclectic approach—including linguistic semantic, tradition-historical, and socio-anthropological methods—to pertinent biblical and extra-biblical texts. There are significant variations in the estimation of gerassapience (or “old-age wisdom”) in each period of ancient Israel’s life—that is, in pre-monarchical, monarchical, and post-monarchical Israel. Throughout this study, appropriate crosscultural parallels are drawn from the cultures of ancient Israel’s neighbors and of modern societies, such as the West African Yoruba tribe. The overall results are bi-dimensional. On the one hand, there are semantic elements of gerassapience, such as the elusiveness of “wisdom” and the mild fluidity of “old age.” Both terms have strong contextual affinity with minimal exceptions. Thus, the attribution of wisdom to old age is evident but not absolute in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). On the other hand, gerassapience is depicted as primarily didactic, through direct and indirect instructions and counsels of the elderly, fostering the saging fear-of-Yahweh legacies. On the whole, socio-anthropocentric tendencies of gerassapience (that is, of making old age a repertoire of wisdom) are checked by theological warrants of theosapience (Yahwistic wisdom). Therefore, in the Hebrew Bible, the fear of Yahweh is also the beginning of growing old and wise.

A Biblical Theology OF Gerassapience

J O E L A . A . A J AY I

www.peterlang.com PETER LANG

Studies in Biblical Literature 134

AjayiJoel:HebrewDD.qxd

4/13/2010

5:48 AM

Page 1

JOEL A. A. AJAYI received his M.Div. in biblical studies and his M.A. in adult education from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisiana. He earned his Ph.D. in Old Testament from Baylor University in Waco, Texas, where he also completed a post-doctoral gerontology program. He is currently Adjunct Professor of Old Testament in the Distant Learning Program at Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia. Continuing his interest in Old Testament (biblical) socio-cultural themes, Dr. Ajayi is currently researching the motif of “the right hand of God” in biblical traditions.

A Biblical Theology of Gerassapience

“Joel A. A. Ajayi has done us all a great service by bringing together the Old Testament understanding of wisdom and the Old Testament understanding of old age. He treats this Old Testament thematic pair with linguistic, tradition-historical and socio-anthropological approaches in three historical periods: pre-monarchy, monarchy, and postmonarchy. With this approach, he is able to articulate the diversity of Old Testament views of the wisdom of old age. In a society already grappling with issues tied to aging, this probing biblical study will richly repay its readers.” W. H. Bellinger Jr., Chair, Department of Religion, and W. Marshall and Lulie Craig Professor of Bible, Baylor University, Waco, Texas

134 A J AY I

Ancient cultures, such as that of the Hebrews, commonly associated wisdom with advanced years. In A Biblical Theology of Gerassapience, the author investigates the validity of this correlation through an eclectic approach—including linguistic semantic, tradition-historical, and socio-anthropological methods—to pertinent biblical and extra-biblical texts. There are significant variations in the estimation of gerassapience (or “old-age wisdom”) in each period of ancient Israel’s life—that is, in pre-monarchical, monarchical, and post-monarchical Israel. Throughout this study, appropriate crosscultural parallels are drawn from the cultures of ancient Israel’s neighbors and of modern societies, such as the West African Yoruba tribe. The overall results are bi-dimensional. On the one hand, there are semantic elements of gerassapience, such as the elusiveness of “wisdom” and the mild fluidity of “old age.” Both terms have strong contextual affinity with minimal exceptions. Thus, the attribution of wisdom to old age is evident but not absolute in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). On the other hand, gerassapience is depicted as primarily didactic, through direct and indirect instructions and counsels of the elderly, fostering the saging fear-of-Yahweh legacies. On the whole, socio-anthropocentric tendencies of gerassapience (that is, of making old age a repertoire of wisdom) are checked by theological warrants of theosapience (Yahwistic wisdom). Therefore, in the Hebrew Bible, the fear of Yahweh is also the beginning of growing old and wise.

A Biblical Theology OF Gerassapience

J O E L A . A . A J AY I

www.peterlang.com PETER LANG

Studies in Biblical Literature 134

A Biblical Theology of Gerassapience

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 134

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Joel A. A. Ajayi

A Biblical Theology of Gerassapience

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ajayi, Joel A. A. A biblical theology of gerassapience / Joel A. A. Ajayi. p. cm. — (Studies in biblical literature; v. 134) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Aging—Biblical teaching. 2. Older people in the Bible. 3. Bible. O.T.—Theology. 4. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1199.A35A33 220.8’30526—dc22 2009040988 ISBN 978-1-4539-0036-5 ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2010 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in Germany

To my late parents and my late grandparents: Mr. Ezekiel Mosobalaje Ajayi and Mrs. Charlotte Aderinola Adetoro Ajayi, Mr. James Akanbi Olatunbosun and Mrs. Grace Aina Olatunbosun, whose joint legacies of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and parental wisdom pointed me in the right path of life (Prov. 22:6)

CONTENTS Editor’s Preface.............................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments.......................................................................................... xi Chapter One: Introductory Matters ..................................................1 Challenges and Purpose of the Study...................................................... 3 Nature and Scope of the Study.............................................................. 17 Chapter Two: Methodological Concerns.........................................25 Linguistic Approach to the Study.......................................................... 25 Tradition-Historical Approach to the Study.......................................... 32 Social-Anthropological Approach to the Study .................................... 36 Chapter Three: Philological Concerns I: The Semantic Domain of   (“Wisdom”) ............................49 History of Scholarship........................................................................... 49 Etymological Analysis .......................................................................... 54 Lexical Analysis.................................................................................... 57 Comparative Analysis ........................................................................... 66 Summative Definition ........................................................................... 69 Chapter Four: Philological Concerns II: The Semantic Domain of   (“Old Age”)................................87 History of Scholarship........................................................................... 88 Etymological Analysis .......................................................................... 93 Lexical Analysis.................................................................................... 95 Comparative Analysis ......................................................................... 100 Summative Definition ......................................................................... 102 Chapter Five: Social Anthropology of Gerassapience in Pre-Monarchical Israel .........................................................111 Evidences of Gerassapience in the Patriarchal Narratives .................. 112 Functions of Gerassapience in Early Israel ......................................... 128

viii

CONTENTS

Chapter Six: Social Theology of Gerassapience in Monarchical Israel.................................................................143 Introductory Overview of the Deuteronomic History ......................... 143 Evidences of Gerassapience in the United Monarchy......................... 146 Evidences of Gerassapience in the Divided Monarchy....................... 157 Functions of Gerassapience in the Monarchical Israel........................ 161 Chapter Seven: Conflicting Views of Gerassapience in Post-Monarchical Israel ........................................................175 Evidences of Gerassapience in the Wisdom Literature....................... 176 Evidences of Gerassapience in the Book of Psalms............................ 186 Functions of Gerassapience in Post-Monarchical Israel ..................... 193 Chapter Eight: Concluding Remarks..............................................207 Semantic Elements of Gerassapience in Ancient Israel ...................... 209 Functional Elements of Gerassapience in Ancient Israel.................... 211 Selected Bibliography ................................................................................. 215 Index ........................................................................................................... 253

EDITOR’S PREFACE More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume, Joel Ajayi explores the themes of Aging and Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible. This study however does not seek to explore each theme independently, but rather argues for a distinct correlation between wisdom and old age in the Hebrew Bible and select extra-biblical texts. The author coins the term gerassapience to capture the essence of the relationship between the two ideas. Employing philology, social-anthropology, social theology, Ajayi concludes that old age has a repertoire of wisdom, though he notes that longevity in and of itself is not a guarantee of wisdom. Scholars who are engaged in this area of scholarship will find much here to examine, reflect on, challenge and I believe above all allow for a serious expansion of the discourse. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai Series Editor

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The road that leads to this end has been a long and tiresome one. Of course, it is not a road less traveled. Therefore, I have walked in the footsteps of a host of predecessors and in the company of many colleagues. However, due to different circumstances, individual travelers on the scholarly road move at different conducive paces. To me, reaching this gigantic milestone at the end of this academic tunnel is worth celebrating: thus, I hereby raise my “Ebenezer” to the Lord (I Sam. 7:12). Many people have contributed in diverse ways to this achievement. Everyone of them deserves recognition, but space is very limited for a detailed appreciation list. My family tops the short enumeration for accepting the research as a “family project.” In this regard, my wife, Ayoade, played multiple roles of a committed spouse, a faithful mother, a prayer warrior, a comforter, an encourager, and a typist. I can never thank her enough for such a deep involvement. My lovely children also got involved in different ways, during their younger years in the late nineties. My son, Sina, was always eager to wheel my boxes of loaned books to Baylor Moody library for renewal. His artistic skill was also very helpful in reviewing this work for publication. My oldest daughter, Mubo, regularly teamed up with mom to help type a few paragraphs of each chapter. My five-year-old daughter, T’Olu, was delighted in cheering me up by her periodic remarks: “Daddy, you read lots of books everyday. Can I help read a little bitty?” Moreso, I always enjoyed the occasional company of my “baby” girl, Titi, sitting on my lap or sometimes taking over my study table. She was my “little editor” who would not leave a page of my manuscripts unmarked. Back home in Nigeria from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, my younger sisters and brothers: Mrs. Rhoda Raaji, Dr. Michael Ajayi, Mrs. Julie Ogunsola, and Mr. Johnson Ajayi, jointly supplied me with needed materials and constantly uplifted me with fervent prayers. My maternal uncle Amao Olatunbosun also deserves mention along with these extended family members, whose supports I so much appreciate. Furthermore, I thank Baylor University for giving me admission and scholarship. This great opportunity has exposed me to some of the best teachers in biblical studies and gerontology. At this point, Dr. William H. Bellinger, Jr. deserves a special recognition. As teacher, academic advisor and research supervisor, he demonstrated a strong commitment to my success. His occasional affirmative remarks, such as, “I know you can do it” and “Move on,” literally got me going. I am thankful for his condescending

xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

attitude beyond the academic realm to be a Christian friend and trusted confidant. Doctors Bruce Cresson and Ben Dickerson are two other significant scholars, who taught me and also served on my dissertation committee. Their well-taken insightful suggestions jointly gave my writing an indelible shape, for which I am grateful. In addition, I also feel fortunate to study under renowned British professor Ronald E. Clements, during his visit to Baylor. He gave me helpful advice on the initial idea of this research. Besides our academic relationship, I appreciate his special interest in knowing and visiting with my family. At Baylor Graduate Studies in Religion office, my academic life was impacted also by our energetic secretaries: Sandra Harman, Carolyn Edwards, and Clova Gibson. Their roles as middle persons are not menial but crucial to the successful completion of my program of study. Finally, I must mention some of many other Christian friends for their valuable contributions to this success. All along, my family and I have enjoyed the constant support of our long-time friends, the Rev. Dr. and Mrs. Johnson Omoni, who have proven true that common saying: “A friend in need is a friend indeed!” Likewise, Mr. and Mrs. G. M. “Mac” Gorham have related to my family and me like parents and grandparents. Their expressed belief is that “the Christian family is not defined by [biological] blood.” Moreover, by their various supports, our family friends at Western Heights and Highland Baptist churches of Waco have showed us that the Christian love (agape) cuts across cultural boundaries. In reality, words cannot express our profound appreciation to all and everyone who have served as God’s instruments in this successful academic journey. Much thanks to y’all. And above all, to God be the glory!

Joel A. A. Ajayi 2010

CHAPTER ONE Introductory Matters Being a sacred document of faith and socio-religious history, the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible1 has been subjected to various scholarly investigations since the dawn of the modern era. At the on-set, Old Testament study was dominated by the quest for a theological understanding of the Hebrew Bible. This earliest orthodox confessional approach made no distinction between biblical theology and dogmatic theology or between Old Testament theology and New Testament theology. Old Testament theology as a discipline in the modern sense is just about two centuries old. As Ralph Smith notes, many Old Testament scholars ascribe its foundation to an eighteenth-century rationalist, Johann Philipp Gabler, who attributed the confusion in the Christian world to “an improper use of the Bible” and lack of distinction “between dogmatic theology and the simple historical religion of the Bible.” Through his March 30, 1787, inaugural speech at the University of Altdorf, he thus “called for a separation of dogmatic and biblical theology,” and hence “he is often called the father of biblical theology.”2 Gabler’s call was in response to a demand for what was termed “biblical theology” since about the mid-seventeenth century—a critical trend which resulted from the insufficiency of and danger posed by the Protestant Reformation principle of sola scriptura with regard to the method of doing theology. Of course, neither Gabler nor the Reformers did originate the phrase “biblical theology.” He rather employed and described this concept as a “historical discipline” to be distinguished from dogmatic theology, while he articulated the purpose and a three-stage method of a theology which, ironically in years to come, would also be called “biblical theology.”3 In the quest for a proper frame of reference, however, several generations of scholars after Gabler have raised a dense cloud of semantic debates over the term “biblical theology.”4 Beginning with the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation, the historical-critical approach was gradually applied to Old Testament study. During the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, this method became fullfledged from Germany to the Western world with a sharp departure from the orthodox approach. Regardless of noticeable Jewish and Christian hostility to this departure, a dialogue was introduced between the two approaches (the traditional theological and the historical studies of the Hebrew Bible) during

2

CHAPTER ONE

the world-wars era.5 This synthetic approach resulted in the formation of the so-called “biblical theology movement”6 and the emergence of the neocritical era. With its sole preoccupation with the literary rather than the theological nature of biblical texts, the New Criticism further became a threat to the discipline of biblical theology.7 Since the thirties, Old Testament theology has witnessed a gradual shift from methodological preoccupations to concerns for the meaning or message of the Old Testament. This shift was accelerated in some significant ways by the inception of the biblical theology movement. First, the movement introduced a radical way of doing theology, which served (in my evaluation) as a kind of “back-to-the-Bible” track for those who, in search for a way better than the earlier approaches, seemingly have strayed from doing true biblical theology. Second, the relationship between biblical studies and biblical theology became heightened through the numerous literature produced by the movement’s adherents. Brevard Childs sketches five common concerns of the biblical theology movement as: the attempt “to recover a theological dimension” or “to penetrate the heart of the Bible,” to study the Bible as a unified whole, the divine revelation as historical, the biblical thought as distinctive, and the biblical faith as uniquely outstanding in its ancient Near Eastern setting. Although this seeming consensus gradually suffered a breakdown due to both internal and external pressures which eventually killed the movement itself, Childs asserts that the need for doing biblical theology remains a challenge to biblical scholars.8 Thus, scholars have made various attempts to construct or structure Old Testament theologies. One of such efforts has been the quest for a center or an overarching theme of Old Testament theology. Some examples of these thematic approaches include the following. Walther Eichrodt uses the covenant idea as central to all faith statements in the Old Testament.9 Gerhard von Rad focuses on the concept of salvation history based on the great acts of Yahweh.10 To Walther Zimmerli, “the thematic significance of the first commandment,” that is, “obedience to Yahweh, the one God, who delivered Israel out of slavery and is jealous of his own uniqueness, defines the fundamental nature of the Old Testament faith.”11 Samuel Terrien develops his study around the theme of the “presence of God.”12 Walter Kaiser sees the theme of “promise” as the backdrop of Old Testament theology.13 Disputing the idea of “the center of the Old Testament,” Claus Westermann calls for doing Old Testament theology via the original tripartite nature of the Old Testamentthe Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, since “the structure of an Old Testament theology must be based on events rather than concepts.”14 Using Exod. 5:22–6:8 as his own premise, Elmer Martens as

CHAPTER ONE

3

well argues for “God’s design” as the central theme of Old Testament theology.15 Challenges and Purpose of the Study Some other scholarly advancements have been made beyond the quest for a central theme in Old Testament theology. One of such recent and current trends in biblical theology is the treatment of a single theme throughout the Old Testament or the entire Bible. The “Overtures to Biblical Theology” series is notable in this respect. Some examples of single biblical themes already investigated in this series include: blessing (Claus Westermann, 1968/1978), land (Walter Brueggemann, 1977), death (Lloyd Bailey, 1979), suffering of God (Terence Fretheim, 1984), power (J. P. M. Walsh, 1987), holiness (John Gammie, 1989), and prayer (Samuel Balentine, 1993).16 The attempt at developing single themes has begun to spread beyond the borders of biblical theology since the past three decades. Building on the foundations laid by the nineteenth-century classic sociologists like Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, who introduced an inter-disciplinary dialogue between religion (theology) and sociology, and those of W. Robertson Smith (1889), Herman Gunkel (1917), Alfred Bertholet (1919), Johannes Pedersen (1920), and Gustaf Dalman (1928–29), who “pioneered the use of anthropology in biblical interpretation,”17 modern scholars also have attempted a similar dialogue between religion (theology) and gerontology. The responses of biblical scholars to this challenge of inter-disciplinary study of aging and old age have come in forms of articles, essays, and books. The earliest of such works addressed the theme of “elders.” In 1895, Otto Seesemann completed his pioneer study (a doctoral dissertation) at Leipzig on “Die Ältesten im Alten Testament” (“The Elders in the Old Testament”), which evaluates the role of ancient Israelite elders mainly as family/clan chiefs or judges. He structures his research after one of the early traditional patterns of Old Testament studies, covering “der Hexateuch,” “die historischen Bücher,” “die Propheten,” and “die Ketubim.” He introduces his work with the argument that no separate proof is needed besides the projection in his study that the Hebrew  broadly means “old (advanced) in years” (“alt an Jahren”), a social status characterized as “respected and superior” (“angesehen und vornehm”). He notes that, on the basis of their superiority (“Vornehme”) and authority (“Behörde”), elders were acknowledged as natural advocates or representatives in the pre-monarchical Israel. He further observes that, as the Hebrew settlements in Canaan grew from individual villages to stable cities, however, the leadership authority and appearance of

4

CHAPTER ONE

the ancient Israelite elders dwindled. Whether and to what extent the Canaanite-Phoenician influx partook of this change in social order cannot be determined. Apart from the apparent urbanization, Seesemann stresses that the monarchy was largely responsible for the relegation of the elders. No wonder, with the continuing cessation of the monarchy during the post-exilic era, he concludes, ancient Israelite elders regained their traditional social status as highest authorities over the Jewish communities (“als oberste Behörde an der Spitze der jüdischen Gemeinde”).18 Between the early fifties and early sixties (more than fifty years after Seesemann’s epochal research), a cluster of studies on the theme of “elders” also appeared. In 1950, H. Duesberg issued his article on “Old Men According to the Old Testament.” In his opinion, God sets death in old age as a farewell to a happy life (“la mort est l’adieu à la vie heureuse,” p. 262) and as a reminder (“mort et rappelle,” p. 241) that human life is not endless (“non avec l’éternité,” p. 238). He also observes that regardless of physical discomforts of old age, the aged (“vieux”) are accorded honor for their wisdom (“sagesse”), which is rarely found among the youth (“jeunes,” pp. 244ff.).19 While John McKenzie (1959), Jean van der Ploeg (1961), and G. Henton Davies (1962) employ this theme also under the common title of “The Elders in the Old Testament,” Jan Dus (1960) and Horstklaus Berg (1961) title their works: “Die ‘Ältesten Israels’.” McKenzie also expresses the view that the elders were downgraded by various Israelite monarchs, and thus their authority as family chiefs eroded. After highlighting their functions, he compares them with elders of other ancient Near Eastern cultures. With no effort to identify the Hebrew term rendered “elder,” he begins his study with a list of various uses of “elder,” omitting the passages in which the term specifically means “old age.” McKenzie’s conclusion is that “in all but a few instances, the elders in the OT appear as a distinct social grade or collegiate body with certain political and religious functions, and not merely as ‘old men’.”20 Dus and Berg also respectively analyze the social status and functions of the elders in the ancient Israelite society. They as well note the traditional honor accorded “the elders” for their age and their social roles mainly as family chiefs and tribal judicial leaders and advisers.21 Van der Ploeg holds a contrary opinion regarding the Hebrew term, . He traces various uses of the word throughout the Hebrew Bible and concludes that the term generally signifies “old” (“vieux”) or “old man” (“vieillard”). Not only that, he also notes a clear connection between old age and wisdom in these writings. He does not dispute the fact about the suppression of the elders’ power during the monarchical era. However, he argues like Seesemann that the elders regained their governing authority as esteemed

CHAPTER ONE

5

chiefs, counselors, and judges on the basis of the law following the demise of the monarchy, but he differs in suggesting the time to be near the exilic (“après l’exil?”) period.22 In his own overview of the term “elders,” Davies suggests an “implied” relationship “between the elderly, the elders, and the wise” in ancient Israel. He also differs in his assessment of the function of the elders, concluding that “it is also clear that the elders exercised a continuing role in Israel’s life . . . . Elders are thus represented as a constant feature of Israel’s life from the days of Moses to those of Ezra, and they were as prominent under the monarchy as before it.”23 Expressing a view quite similar to Davies’, W. S. Roeroe as well argues in his 1976 dissertation: “Die Ältestenamt im Alten Testament” (“The Office of the Elders in the Old Testament”), that ancient Israel’s elders maintained their pre-monarchic local roles and even added on new functions as state officials during the monarchic era. He cites certain deuteronomistic and prophetic writings in support of his argument.24 Reviv’s work, The Elders in Ancient Israel, which first appeared in Hebrew in 1983 and was translated into English six years later, becomes the first published monograph devoted to the study of that ancient Israelite social institution. By its title, the book seems to have promised more than it actually delivers. On the whole, Reviv fails to give proper and adequate treatment to relevant and vital biblical texts themselves. Instead, he devotes considerable space and time to other ancient Near Eastern texts and uses these as his yardsticks for analyzing the status and role of ancient Israelite elders.25 The essay by Ed Glasscock in 1987: “The Biblical Concept of Elder,” also betrays its title. By its structure and contents, it is clear that Glasscock’s primary concern is with the New Testament and not with the “biblical” concept of elder in reality. More so, he includes only two Old Testament passages among about 23 citations found in the study.26 In his own published dissertation in 1988, Joachim Buchholz treats the theme of “elders” with a preoccupation with the exilic period. Using the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic History (whose literary development he sets in the exilic era) as basis, he argues that the elders’ somewhat significant pre-exilic roles diminished during the exile and their presence became even functionally insignificant at the return of the exiles to Judah.27 Another doctoral dissertation on the subject of “elders” was completed in 1990 at Harvard University by Timothy Willis. He employs an interdisciplinary method (combining cultural anthropology with traditional biblical hermeneutics) in his study. He also draws cross-cultural comparisons from African and Middle Eastern societies. The first part of this work is devoted to an overview of pre-monarchical and monarchical Israel. Here,

6

CHAPTER ONE

Willis observes how ancient Israel was transformed from a tribal or segmentary lineage society to a monarchy or political state around 1000 B. C. E. Biblical passages which refer to “elders” in the pre-exilic Israelite history are evaluated in the second part of this work. Willis now identifies three groups of elders that functioned in pre-exilic Israel as city elders, tribal elders and “royal elders” (“senior officials in the royal court”). He also notices that early Israelite elders had leadership power and authority which dwindled as ancient Israel’s monarchs usurped their social position. Of course, he adds that the traditional clan elders continued on the local level to preserve tribal solidarity, while a few senior members in the royal court were revered as “elders” in lieu of their superior experience and wisdom. In a thematic research of this magnitude (361 pages), one would normally have expected that more attention would be given to the semantic aspect of the pivotal term (“elders”) beyond the three sentences which Willis allotted to it. In his observations on the characteristics and functions of the various groups of elders, however, he makes several references to “experience and wisdom” as their most prized outstanding attribute.28 The first known work to address the biblical theme of aging and old age is a forty-seven-page book issued in German in 1926. The main focus of this four-chapter concise study by Lorenz Dürr is the span or estimation of life in the Old Testament world. First, Dürr examines the span of life in the Old Testament in general. Here, he observes that a life blessed of Yahweh generally reaches advanced years, as depicted in the expressions such as dying “in a good old age” and “old and full of days/years” (Gen. 25:8; 35:29; Judg. 8:32; I Chron. 29:28; Job 42:17). Second, he evaluates the blessing of the fourth commandment (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) regarding seeing longevity of days in the “Promised Land,” as younger generations fulfill their filial responsibility of honoring their aged parents. Dürr devotes his third chapter to highlighting the euphemisms used for dying (“sterben”) in the ancient Near Eastern writings. Some of these expressions in the Hebrew Bible include: going the way of the world, lying with one’s fathers, and going down to the pit ( ),  which are contrary to the common expressions in both the Akkadian and Egyptian texts, such as one going or being gathered to his/her destiny yonder, when the buyer is killed, one reaching his/her peak, and one stepping into his/her horizon (especially kings). In the concluding chapter, he addresses the overcoming of the Old Testament life’s ideal, wherein the myth of death and grave (“Tod und Grab”) is transposed by the honor in death accorded to Yahweh’s righteous ones (“Frommen,” Ps. 116:15). Dürr’s study also includes a noteworthy observation on the connection between wisdom and advanced years in the Old Testament. He states

CHAPTER ONE

7

that the intellectual vigor (“geistigen Frische”) and instruction (“Verfügung”) concerning life’s wisdom-product resides fully in a radiant old age (“sonniges Alter”), which is guarded by God’s grace. Men of such age earn the respect of young people (“der Jugend”), for being full of peaceful instruction (“ruhiger Weisung”) for the inexperienced (“die Unerfahrenen”) and soothing words for the injured lives. “That is the ideal goal (‘das Idealziel’) of the Old Testament life of wisdom (‘Lebensweisheit’),” Dürr concludes.29 Nearly five decades also elapsed following Dürr’s work before further significant studies were conducted on aging and old age. The seventies in particular saw very few works on this theme, one of which however proves to be the first extensive investigation of the social functions of old age in the ancient world. That work was also originally a doctoral dissertation completed at the University of München in 1973, which E. J. Brill has published under the same title in two volumes in 1980 and 1985 respectively. Eckhard von Nordheim titles his meticulous research: “Die Lehre der Alten” (“The Teaching of the Aged”) in which he employs the form-critical method to explore the theme of “testament” as a literary Gattung in both the canonical and extra-canonical Hebrew writings as well as in the writings of ancient Israel’s neighbors. The first volume addresses “The Testament as a Literary Genre in the Judaism of the Graeco-Roman Era,” focusing particularly on the testamentary literature such as the testaments of the twelve patriarchs and others. In the second volume, von Nordheim examines “The Testament as a Literary Genre in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East.” Here he evaluates key texts from four different types of literature: a) the Old Testament texts (namely, I Chron. 2; Gen. 49–50; Deut. 31–34; and Josh. 23–24), b) the Old Testament Apocryphal texts (namely, I Macc. 2:49–70; Tob. 4:1– 21 and 14:3–11), c) the Mesopotamian texts (namely, the “Teaching of Suruppak” and the “Speech of Achikar”), and d) the Egyptian texts (namely, the Teachings of Ptahhotep, Anchscheschonki and King Amenemhet I). On the whole, von Nordheim discovers a notable variability in the uses of the form “testament” in these writings. He locates the Sitz im Leben of the Gattung in the ancient Israelite wisdom and in the Mesopotamian and Egyptian cults respectively. More so, he sees “testaments” as a medium whereby individual aged persons, out of their whole wealth of life’s practical experiences (“der gesammelte Schatz der Erfahrungen der Alten”) and more especially at their death beds, transmit their final legacies (wisdom instructions and blessings) to their children (younger generations).30 In 1976, Lothar Ruppert explored “Der alte Mensch aus der Sicht des Alten Testamentes” (“The Old Human Being in the View of the Old Testa-

8

CHAPTER ONE

ment”). He discovers that old age was considered an important segment of life in ancient Israel. The wisdom of old age or older people is attested and highly esteemed throughout the Old Testament and more especially in the Wisdom Literature. However, old-age burdens of senile infirmity and stubbornness also do not go unnoticed. Ruppert understands the promise of a “long life in the land” which accompanies the fourth commandment rather in the spiritualized sense of the deuteronomic text, which refers to the “long life” of individual Israelites or of ancient Israel as a nation (“die Länge des Lebens Israels,” p. 276). Contrary to this view, however, the New Testament portrays old human beings and old age more frequently in the physical sense. On the whole, if old age or old human beings would be valuable and successful, blessed with immaterial vigor and true wisdom, Ruppert concludes that ancient Israelites must have the fear of and communion with Yahweh their God.31 Furthermore in 1979, Josef Scharbert wrote his article: “Das Alter und die Alten in der Bibel” (“Old Age and the Old People in the Bible”). He begins this six-part work with an examination of various terms used for and in relation to old age in “der Sprache der Bibel” (p. 339), covering the Old Testament in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and the New Testament. He notes that the Hebrew  and its cognates are used generally to depict persons of venerated age, bearing top-ranking social responsibilities such as judges and advocates. In the second section, he presents what he terms “concrete evidences” (“konkrete Angaben”) to support the idea of this esteemed age, which ranges in biblical traditions from sixty years to 120 years. Scharbert discusses the power and moral principles of the old people in the next section. Here, he notes that the Covenant and Holiness codes enjoin the honoring of the aged folk who served as political elements, royal counselors, and wisdom teachers to younger generations. The infirmities of old age is considered next, the fear of which proves beneficial, according to Scharbert, in that it draws the older people closer to Yahweh as their Sustainer. He cites the aged psalmist (Ps. 71:9–18) and the old Qohelet (Koh. 11:9–12:7) as examples. In the fifth section, Scharbert presents some theological observations about old age in the Old Testament. In his own view, the promise of long life or days that is attached to the command to honor one’s father and mother means “advanced age” (“hohes Alter”), but he adds that this promise does not guarantee wisdom in old age and neither does it constitute a reward for a virtuous life (“langes Leben nicht immer Lohn für tugendhaftes Leben,” p. 350). Wisdom belongs to Yahweh, he stresses, and the pious Israelites knew that “in old age (both) infirmity and greatness, foolishness and wisdom, obstinacy and intelligent discretion lie closely together” (“im Alter

CHAPTER ONE

9

liegen Schwäche und Grösse, Torheit und Weisheit, Eigensinn und kluge Zurückhaltung nahe beieinander,” p. 351). He concludes his work with an examination of the venerated age in the New Testament, wherein he discovers that neither the partial glorification of the esteemed age in the Old Testament wisdom books nor the skeptical view of old age in the Book of Job nor the burden of old age in Qoheleth is acknowledged.32 More and more in-depth treatments of the biblical theology of aging and old age began to appear since the early eighties. Rolf Knierim and Frank Stagg concurrently break the ground of this scholarly trend. The 1981 onevolume comprehensive evaluation of religion and aging, Ministry with the Aging, includes Knierim’s essay on “Age and Aging in the Old Testament.” Knierim approaches his study from an anthropo-theological perspective. His phenomenological method sheds light on three aspects of aging in ancient Israel. First, in the biological perspective, he sees the phenomenon of aging and age as a natural part of the total human life span, whose concluding phase, old age, is considered generally as a sign of blessing from Yahweh, regardless of its weakening vitality. Second, in the sociological perspective, he sees being or becoming old as a diachronic and synchronic integral part of the ancient society. Third, in the psychological perspective, Knierim notes a correlation between old age and wisdom but adds that advanced years also could be devoid of true wisdom without the fear and spirit or breath of Yahweh.33 In his book, The Bible Speaks on Aging (1981), Stagg attempts to interpret biblical texts which are relevant to age, aging, and ageism, with the aim of discouraging ageism by making both older and younger people understand what the Bible says about stereotyping. Throughout this study, Stagg strategically hints at the relationship between age and wisdom that, in ancient Israel as well as in the Judaic tradition, wisdom does not automatically come with age, but “prevailingly, old age is esteemed.”34 Another in-depth study of aging after Knierim and Stagg’s is Rachel Dulin’s doctoral dissertation titled, “Old Age in the Hebrew Scriptures: A Phenomenological Study,” and completed in 1982 at Northwestern University. In this scholarly evaluation of old age (revised and published in 1988 as, A Crown of Glory: A Biblical View of Aging), Dulin admits following Knierim’s suggested methodology. Thus, she also undertakes a “phenomenological thematic study” of aging. Her opening chapter examines the phrase, “length of days” as the ancient Israelite concept of “the fountain of youth,” drawing some illustrations from the ancient Near Eastern literature. Chapter two focuses on the physical characteristics of old age, such as, gray hair, loss of eyesight, loss of potency, loss of hearing, loss of taste, and others. The third chapter considers the

10

CHAPTER ONE

psychological characteristics of old age such as frustration over losses of alertness, mental acumen, independence, and self-respect. “The Old and the Community” is treated in the fourth chapter, wherein the status and indispensable presence of the aged in society are discussed. The concluding chapter features “Old Age and Human Reflection.” Here, old age is examined in relation to the concepts of wisdom, retribution, and spiritual experience. Like Stagg regarding the attribution of sapience to old age, Dulin also poses for a median stance: “to grow old did not guarantee a person the attainment of wisdom, nor did it necessarily stop one from moving into an advisory position as an elder in Israel. Wisdom from this perspective was gained only through God’s wish and regardless of the aging process.”35 Moreover in 1982, Abraham Malamat issued his four-page article on “Longevity.” In this concise work, he examines the biblical concepts of life span and old age and compares them with the views of ancient Israel’s neighboring (such as Mesopotamian and Egyptian) cultures, noting especially their similarities.36 As biblical scholars continue their investigations on aging and old age, theologians also strive on in their studies of this theme. Consequently, several writings have been published on the theology of aging which cite biblical texts but which could not be technically categorized as biblical studies. One of such works, which collates comparative religious views of aging, was published in 1982 by Opera Pia International, Inc. as: Aging: Spiritual Perspectives. This volume features several theological articles which incorporate numerous scriptural citations.37 In their respective studies, W. Paul Jones (1984), Nathan R. Kollar (1985), T. Herbert O’Driscoll (1985), Stephen Post (1992), Sheldon Isenberg (1992), and Stephen Bertman and W. Andrew Achenbaum (1994) address the issue of spirituality of aging and old age.38 Post examines “aging and meaning” in the Christian tradition, comparing both Catholic and Protestant theological perspectives. Although the concept of “virtuous aging” is common to both traditions, they differ in their interpretations of this idea. While Catholics view aging as a virtue in terms of the “contemplative vision of God” through “otherworldly orientation,” Protestants emphasize “obedience to divine commandment within the world” (pp. 132–33). Also, while Catholics (and fundamentalist Protestants) perceive aging and death in light of the Augustinian tradition of “original sin,” liberal Protestants maintain that no such gruesome depictions of aging and death as natural evils exist in the Scriptures. Post as well observes that whereas Augustine lavished his youthful days in lustful living, he ironically spent his old-age years in deep devotion to the Holy Scriptures. For to Augustine, “old age is not a time to ‘relapse,’ to slide back into vice.”39 In his

CHAPTER ONE

11

own examination of “Aging in Judaism,” Isenberg discovers two strands: the positive and the negative dimensions of old age in both the Hebrew Bible and the Judaic literature. On the one hand, old age is portrayed generally in positive terms, such as “a crown of glory,” a divine blessing, a honorable life stage, and a wisdom repository. On the other hand, old age is viewed occasionally in negative terms, such as a curse, “days of sorrow/darkness,” and a time of feebleness and infirmities. Isenberg’s study incorporates considerable elements of biblical scholarship. For instance, he addresses such issues as the concept of life span or age in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, the Deuteronomist’s view of ancient Israel’s elders with regards to honor and wisdom, and the portrayal of advanced years in both the Old Testament wisdom literature and “the Hellenistic Jewish wisdom literature.” His evaluation of the Judaic literature even includes the Cairo Geniza documents. He quotes S. D. Goitein’s concluding observation of the socioreligious life in that Egyptian settlement as follows: “ ‘In the Bible-oriented society of the Geniza, good old age was the natural reward for (and, therefore, proof of) a virtuous life’.”40 Interestingly, Bertman and Achenbaum also trace the Deuteronomic portrait of the old-age experiences of ancient Israel’s King David and compare them with those of the ancient Greek King Oedipus, in order to argue that “gerontocracy” was the dominant form of government in ancient worlds.41 Furthermore, Dale Schlitt’s 1985 “Theological Reflections on Aging” examines the themes of “temporality, experience and memory” in old age.42 Both K. Brynolf Lyon and William Hendricks also wrote their theologies of aging in 1985. Lyon’s Toward a Practical Theology of Aging is issued as a part of the “Theology and Pastoral Care” series. Two of the seven chapters of this work examine aging in the context of the Christian theological tradition and in relation to the themes of hope, blessing, and redemption.43 Hendricks presents his work, A Theology for Aging, as “an elemental Christian theology” (a kind of “theological anthropology” in my assessment) from “a conservative, Protestant, conversionist perspective” and his own personal “practical experience” of aging (p. 7). Although his study is not a biblical theology of aging nor “a scholarly, formal, academic theology” but a “confessional” type of “theology based on revelatory insights as filtered through the experiences of older Christians” and saturated with biblical citations, he claims for it “the authority of God through Scripture . . . from the first page” (pp. 7, 8). On the whole, Hendricks’ theological treatment of the “revealed wisdom of the elders” even seems to be parenthetical in his work.44 Robert Carlson also writes a theological reflection on “The Gift of Wisdom,” which appears in Affirmative Aging. He sees age and wisdom as a

12

CHAPTER ONE

dyad in biblical traditions, but wisdom as “fundamentally a gift of God” and “always a gift to be shared.” He asserts that “while wisdom does not come automatically with old age, wisdom seldom comes without the honing of life that long experience brings.”45 Since the mid-eighties, some Old Testament scholars have focused their studies on the concept of old age or aging specifically in the Wisdom Literature. The earliest in this category is James Crenshaw’s essay on “Youth and Old Age in Qoheleth” (1986). According to him, this article is a part of his larger 1984–85 research project on “The Depiction of Old Age in Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature.” Crenshaw admits that on the whole, wisdom and good counsel are associated with advanced years in Ugarit, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Israel. On the contrary, this traditional idealization of old age does not satisfy at least one of ancient Israel’s sages, Qoheleth, who portrays the pains and discomforts of aging and old age.46 In 1988, Michael Fox also came forth with his essay on “Aging and Death in Qohelet 12.” Fox first explores earlier exegetical approaches to this passage, which include: allegorical or literal interpretation (such as by Michael Leahy, 1952; Oswald Loretz, 1964; and M. Gilbert, 1981);47 parabolic interpretation (such as by J. F. A. Sawyer, 1976);48 and transitional interpretation (such as by Hagia Witzenrath, 1979).49 Since this trial allegorical approach is proven inadequate, Fox further examines the interplay of meaning set forth from three dimensions (three meaning-types) which are not mutually exclusive: the literal, symbolic and figurative/allegorical meanings. While the poem is not an allegory, he opts for a figurative interpretation or “an imaginative reading” through which he hopes the reader could discern and personalize the author’s meaning. Since Qoheleth is probably an aged person, Fox concludes that this meaning results from a life of accumulated experience.50 Norbert Lohfink’s article on Qoh. 11:9–12:8 also notices the elderly advice given by the author (who apparently is an older person) to the younger generation to enjoy life before it becomes too late. He sees striking similarities between this ancient Israelite wisdom text and other ancient Near Eastern texts, such as the Egyptian Song of the Harper and the Greek lyrics of Mimnermos (c. 600 B. C. E.) and of Theognis (c. 600–500 B. C. E.). He also notices that Qoheleth is profoundly unique.51 In The Bible Today issue dedicated to an evaluation of the aging process, Reidar Bjornard contributes his essay, titled “Aging According to Wisdom Literature.” He explores how old age and the aged were valued in ancient Israel. He observes that “a close correlation between growing old and attaining greater wisdom” seems natural in this ancient culture. Bjornard thus concludes that “aging means acquiring knowledge and wisdom,” and that this experience is “a task

CHAPTER ONE

13

pleasing to God” in the Hebrew tradition (pp. 331, 333).52 As special attention is being given to the Wisdom Literature, of course, research on the biblical concept of aging and old age also continues through the mid-eighties and into the nineties. In 1985, Jean-Pierre Prevost presented his essay in French: “Vieiller ou ne pas vieiller? Le point de vue de l’Ancien Testament” (“Older or not Older? The Point of View of the Old Testament”). In this three-part work, Prevost first evaluates various terms used for and in relation to old age in the Old Testament, including ,  /  ,   , and  . He concludes this section with a discussion on the chronological criteria for determining who is old (“l’âge des ‘anciens’ “) in the Hebrew Bible. Second, he considers the social status of the aged (elders). Here, he sees the elders both at the center and the periphery of ancient Israelite societal affairs. At the center, they functioned as counselors (“des porteparole”), judicial authorities, socio-political chiefs, and witnesses (“témoins”) to the giving of Yahweh’s instructions to the people of ancient Israel. On the periphery, the elders enjoyed societal respect and protection as commanded by Yahweh (Lev. 19:32). Prevost concludes his article with the Old Testament depiction of the experience of growing old. Here, he sees old age as a desire (being a divine blessing, Gen. 25:8; Exod. 23:26; Ps. 91:16), as a dread (due to the physical decline that accompanies it, Deut. 31:1–2; Ps. 71:18; Eccl. 12:1–7), and as a disputed concept regarding the traditional association of old age with wisdom (“vieillese et sagesse”). He argues that there are biblical witnesses to the fact that wisdom does not always belong to old age, such as Job 12:1–12; 32:6–9; Qoh. 4:13; Ps. 119:100.53 In a 1986 article, Ralph Smith discusses “Attitudes Toward Aged People in the Old Testament.” He notes that the general attitude was that of respect and honor toward the elderly people for their wisdom, especially in giving counsel to younger folks and making judgments at the city gates. “However, old age and long life was no guarantee of wisdom,” he also observes.54 More so in 1987, Stephen Sapp and J. Gordon Harris’ books respectively came off the press. Sapp’s work, Full of Years, has been described by its publisher as a “Bible-based guidebook” on aging. Although he cites Scriptures throughout the five-chapter book, Sapp thoroughly discusses the biblical concept of aging and obligations toward the aged only in two chapters. In chapter two, he treats the depiction of old age in the Hebrew Bible from anthropological, sociological, and biological perspectives. He concludes that the Hebrews understood aging as part of God’s plan and old age as a blessing from God. The wisdom that comes with aging compensates for the decline of physical vitality in growing older, Sapp indicates. Chapter three examines “Aging and

14

CHAPTER ONE

the Elderly in the New Testament” also from anthropological and sociological perspectives. Attitudes toward aging in the New Testament also reinforce the Old Testament concept. On this account, Sapp concludes: “The New Testament also reflects the attitude of the Old Testament that the elderly generally possess greater wisdom and therefore are worthy of special respect.”55 The book, Biblical Perspectives on Aging, appears as a volume in the “Overtures to Biblical Theology” series. Through his cross-disciplinary approach in this work, Harris explores the socio-theological concepts of aging in the ancient Near East, with closer attention being focused on ancient Israel, Early Christianity, and Judaism. He delineates the relationship between God and the elderly vis-a-vis the attitudes toward them in ancient societies. He sees the Old Testament God as the Defender of the cause of the weak and the oppressed through the social structures of the community. To ensure social justice via respect and honor for the aged folks, God gave ancient Israel the Decalogue and wisdom instructions such as Proverbs as a manual for daily living. A common theology was developed thereby, and despite the threat posed against this social order by the emergence of the monarchy and the infiltration of foreign influences in ancient Israel, Harris notes that the Hebrews maintained their traditional commitment to giving honor to whom honor was due: the elderly who were designated as “sages and heirs of divine enlightenment.”56 Harris also treats the values of aging in the New Testament and rabbinic literature as two significant responses to the earlier Hebrew varied common theology. He concludes that both Early Christianity and Judaism also upheld the validity of filial honor and obedience to parents and older leaders. Whereas the New Testament subjects such respect and obedience to the supremacy of God’s kingdom, rabbinic teachings “never questioned the wisdom of elders and the absolute nature of filial responsibilities.”57 No other book has appeared that I know of since Harris’ comprehensive treatment of the biblical theology of aging. The four known studies that follow his work are essays. Lloyd Bailey (1989) and Robert Martin-Achard (1991) also adopt for their respective works the title: “Biblical Perspectives on Aging.” Two other essays were issued in German in 1992: Willy Schottroff’s work which is included in the Wolff Festschrift, and Otto Kaiser’s study which is featured in the Sauer Festschrift. Bailey begins his study with the recognition of the difficulty in using the modern mode of understanding to interpret the ancient concept of aging, which the Bible itself does not fully address. He evaluates two attitudes which are related regarding the aged and the aging process in ancient Israel. He states that the first has

CHAPTER ONE

15

attracted deep scholarly treatment (especially by Harris and Sapp), while the second suffers scholarly neglect. On ancient Israel’s attitude toward the aged, Bailey notes three basic underlying assumptions: that older people have mature experience and wisdom generally resides with the older generation but wise counsel is not with the elders only, that older folks are custodians of religious tradition, and that long life may be considered God’s blessing. Hence, respecting the aged has been commanded by God. On the attitude toward aging, Bailey concludes that it was generally accepted by the Hebrews “as part of the life-cycle, as part of the Creator’s design for all living things.”58 Martin-Achard also notes that old age is depicted as a gift of God in the Hebrew Bible. Despite the physical infirmities associated with old age, the covenant people of God still generally view life as a good thing, and its prolongation, as “a manifest sign of the divine blessing.”59 After reviewing three dominant scholarly views on the command: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16), Martin-Achard briefly discusses the issues of wisdom and hope in old age. Although not all ancient Israel’s “elders” are old men, he concludes, Old Testament people of advanced years are generally honored, for “their great age has allowed them to acquire wisdom which is contested here and there (Ps. 119.100; Job 12.12; 32.4ff.).”60 Finally, both Schottroff and Kaiser’s works address social issues as related to old age in the Hebrew Bible. Schottroff discusses “Alter als soziales Problem in der hebräischen Bibel” (“Old Age as a Social Problem in the Hebrew Bible”). The highlights of this work include: the age marked for becoming old, the worth and dignity of old age, the family’s responsibility of caring for the aged, and dreams and hopes of older folk. Schottroff begins his observation on the worth and dignity of old age with a striking statement: “The worth of old age lies in its wisdom” (“Der Wert des Alters liegt in seiner Weisheit,” p. 69). He adds to this comment that the Hebrew Bible also indicates that, sometimes, foolishness accompanies old age, citing the examples of Job and Elihu who challenged the traditional opinion of the Joban three friends (Job 12:12–13; 32:9; cf. Ps. 119:100). Furthermore, Schottroff notes that, despite the weakening and deterioration of strength that comes along with advanced years, the social audience (Horeren) accorded the aged people in the ancient Israelite society attests to the honor and respect (Ehre und Ehrerbietung) which old age also brings along as a compensation for their physical losses.61 Kaiser’s essay is on “ ‘Und dies sind die Geschlechter . . .’ Alt und jung im Alten Testament” (“ ‘And These Are the Generations . . .’ Old and Young in the Old Testament”). In this study, he examines the Old Testament teaching regarding intergenerational

16

CHAPTER ONE

relationships, concentrating on the young and the old. He observes the social structure of ancient Israelite society, with regard to the place of individuals within the family, tribe, and nation. He sees the aged as the conveyors of blessing upon the young. He also notes the reciprocal regard that transpired in society, wherein the young honored their elderly for their wisdom and experience and the aged also esteemed their younger generations. The society as a whole enjoyed God’s blessings and prosperity.62 It is evident that most of the works being evaluated above have overwhelmingly demonstrated some awareness of the correlation of wisdom with old age in ancient Israel. These studies also display a general acceptance of the biblical witness to the traditional social status of the aged as pillars of the ancient community of faith, in terms of the blessings they conferred upon, wise counsels they gave to, and wisdom legacies they left behind for younger generations. Although scholarly opinions vary as to the extent in which wisdom is the property of old age, a consensus seems to surface that, despite the traditional attribution of sapience with advanced years, the endowment of wisdom remains the prerogative of Yahweh. Of all scholarly endeavors made to study aging and old age in ancient Israel, however, no attempt points in the direction of investigating in detail the connection between wisdom and old age. Since this theme has socio-theological significance, it deserves further scholarly investigation. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to probe that Hebrew tradition for further awareness. Certainly, ancient Israel as the covenant people of Yahweh did not exist in a social vacuum. They had a socio-religious history, which preserves the mode of their relationship with Yahweh as well as of their interpersonal relationships. Such a history did not evolve overnight: it underwent a process of development, during which it was transmitted both orally and literarily to become what are known today as biblical traditions. By virtue of their social status, the Hebrew older people played a significant role in the transmission of these ancient socio-religious traditions.63 Evidently, wisdom was a key aspect of these traditions, and the family had served as its initial social location.64 To some scholars, the family played a role beyond the initial stage but even became a medium of continuity through all periods of ancient Israelite life.65 Since the importance of family continued from early Israel through the monarchical era and even until post-exilic time, as attested also in the Wisdom Literature, I intend to explore in this work how the traditional association of sapience with advanced years had transpired over time, paying particular attention to changes that occurred in the socio-cultural semantics of wisdom and old age, with the aim of making some significant contribution to Old Testament research.

CHAPTER ONE

17

Nature and Scope of the Study Although this project is a study in biblical theology, it is limited in scope. It is not biblical theology in the sense of covering the whole Christian Bible. It is not even an Old Testament theology in the sense of detailing all aspects of the Hebrew Bible. By nature, the research will address a single (dyad) theme of “wisdom and old age,” which is actually an attempt to highlight the correspondences between these two distinct Old Testament theological themes. In a sense, I will endeavor to look beyond studies that have been conducted on these themes. This scholarly venture is also not an attempt to explore Old Testament wisdom theology either as a segment or as an entity, since that theme has been subjected to various extensive investigations. Although some aspects of wisdom theology (such as issues of Sitz im Leben and semantics) will be discussed, a detailed evaluation of the origin or social location of wisdom is outside the scope of this study. In short, I have chosen a technical description of what I intend to do in the following pages to be a biblical (an Old Testament) theology of “geronsapience” or “gerassapience.”66 This work is designed to have eight chapters. Chapter one, which is being presented up to this point and beyond, addresses two introductory matters. First, research challenges, such as the state of affairs on biblical theology of aging and old age as well as the goal of the study, have been treated above. Second, the nature (such as kind of scholarly discipline in view) and the scope or structure of the study (such as periods of ancient Israelite history to be covered) are now being discussed. The focus of chapter two will be methodological concerns pertaining to the project, which include mainly linguistic, tradition-historical, and socio-anthropological approaches. Both the third and the fourth chapters will feature philological concerns. Here, a panoramic view of both pivotal terms, “wisdom” and “old age” and their cognates, will be presented. This exploration of the etymological and semantic spectra of both terms is to set the stage for their contextual features to be examined in the following three chapters. Chapters five, six, and seven will be the core of this research, wherein the alleged Hebrew tradition of associating wisdom with advanced years will be evaluated. These chapters each will address different overlapping views of the tradition in accordance with the generally accepted notion of the threestage development of Hebrew wisdom tradition. A socio-anthropological view of the tradition will be the main concern of chapter five. Hence, relevant biblical texts, such as, Gen. 48:1–49:28; Exod. 18:1–27; Lev. 19:32; Num. 11:16ff.; Deut. 22:13–19; 32:1–33:29; Josh. 23:1–24:31; and I Sam. 2:22–3:18; 4:13, 18, concerning “folk wisdom” and “old age” in pre-

18

CHAPTER ONE

monarchical Israel, will be assessed. A socio-theological view of the tradition in monarchical Israel will be the core of chapter six. Thus, an examination of the relationship between “royal wisdom” and “old age” in such texts as, II Sam. 19:31–40; I Kings 2:1–9; 3:1–4:34; 10:1–11:8; 12:1–20; and Jer. 1:1–10; 26:16–19; becomes necessary. Chapter seven will present conflicting views of the tradition in post-monarchical Israel. During this era of “scribal wisdom” proper, the socio-cultural functions of old age with reference to traditional sapiential legacies also will be evaluated. This chapter will draw relevant textual materials from three major Old Testament writings: a) the book of Psalms, such as Pss. 37; 71; 92; and 119:97–104; b) the Wisdom Literature, such as, Job 12:1–20; 15:7–10; 32:1–14; Prov. 1:1–9:18; 20:26– 29; 23:15–25; and Eccl. 11:7–12:14; and c) the Apocryphal literature, such as, Wis. 4:7–9, 16–17; Sir. 8:6–9; 25:3–6; 32:1–13; II Macc. 6:18–31; and IV Macc. 5:1–9:9. The concluding chapter (eight) will feature a summary of discussions and research findings on the Hebrew tradition of associating wisdom with advanced years.

CHAPTER ONE

19

NOTES 1

2

3

4

Both terms, “Old Testament” and “Hebrew Bible,” will be employed interchangeably in this project to refer to the scriptural document containing 39 books. Of course, I am aware of the current scholastic debate over which name should be assigned to the first part of the Christian Scriptures, which is popularly designated as “Old Testament” in the Protestant tradition, as Tanakh in the Jewish tradition, and as “Hebrew Bible” in the world of biblical scholars. For the nature of this argument, see the introduction (pp. 1–8) and the four essays in “Part One: What’s in a Name? The Problem of What We Study” (pp. 9–85) of Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying the Bible in Judaism and Christianity, eds. Roger Brooks and John J. Collins (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990). Ralph L. Smith, Old Testament Theology: Its History, Method, and Message (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Nelson Pub., 1993), 22, 30. Smith also indicates that although Gabler wrote no book himself, he inspired his contemporaries to write biblical theologies. Thus, G. L. Baur’s Theologie des Alten Testaments was the first Old Testament theology text published in 1796. See pp. 21–35 for details. For information about a translated and printed text of Gabler’s epochal address, see the following footnote. See Johann Philipp Gabler, “On the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” trans. John Sandys-Wunsch and Laurence Eldredge, in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth Century Old Testament Theology, 1930–1990, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 1, eds. Ben C. Ollenburger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel, with a series preface by David W. Baker (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 492–502. Hasel notes that the earliest known use of the phrase “biblical theology” was by Wolfgang Jacob Christmann in Teutsche Biblische Theologie (Kempten, 1629). See Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1972/1991), 10–11. Interestingly since forty years ago, Ebeling had issued an article (which remains influential) whereby he points out the ambiguity in the idea of “biblical theology.” He questions what we mean by this term: “the theology contained in the Bible” or “the theology of the Bible itself” or “theology in accordance with the Bible, scriptural theology.” See Gerhard Ebeling, “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology’,” Journal of Theological Studies 6 (Oct. 1955): 210–25. Cf. W. J. Wessels, “Biblical Theology: A Challenge to Biblical Scholars,” Scriptura 40 (1992): 30–39. For instance, Høgenhaven lists three of several meanings assigned to the phrase in the English-speaking countries as follows: a) the continental tradition defines “biblical theology” as a “theological discipline” (which encompasses both Old and New Testament theologies) whose task is to analyze and explain “main themes and common trends in the biblical literature;” b) the academic (university/college) tradition tends to use “biblical theology” as the title for a course in “biblical exegesis” (covering Old and New Testament studies); and c) “Biblical Theology” has been the adopted name of a neo-critical era in the biblical studies guild. See Jesper Høpenhaven, Problems and Prospects of Old Testament Theology, The Biblical Seminar (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1988), 73– 79. Cf. Hasel, Basic Issues, 11. I endorse the continental concept of “biblical theology”

20

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

CHAPTER ONE described above, and it is from this definitive premise that I intend to do theology in this study. Some Old Testament scholars have described the “departure” as “the death of Old Testament theology,” and the “dialogue” as “the revival of Old Testament theology.” For example, see Smith, OT Theology, 29–50. Childs sees this movement as peculiarly American and strongly Protestant, arising after the Second World War in response to the loosely defined post-Reformation European “Biblical Theology.” See Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 13–31. Cf. Smith, OT Theology, 50–52. According to Blenkinsopp, I. A. Richards, William Empson, and others pioneered the New Criticism in the twenties and thirties. Contrary to the historical-critical studies of biblical texts, this new approach sees the text as “a closed system” and as having “a life of its own independent of its origins and even of its author’s intention.” Thus, the text “should be interpreted apart from either the historical or other realia to which it refers or the circumstances of its production and reception.” See Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 27, 28. Childs’ own response to this challenge has been a proposal for studying the Bible as a unified whole in a canonical context. See Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, 13–147. See Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961). See Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Bros., 1962). Walther Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline, trans. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978), 116. See Samuel Terrien, Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology, Religious Perspectives 26 (New York: Harper & Row, 1978). See Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978). Claus Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology, trans. Douglas W. Scott (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978), 9 (see pp. 9–12 for details). See Elmer A. Martens, A Focus on Old Testament Theology: God’s Design, with a foreword by Carl E. Armerding (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981). What has been presented in these opening paragraphs constitutes only a terse overview of the development of Old Testament theology, since a scrutinized study of that discipline is outside the scope of this research. For more detailed accounts, see Robert C. Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology, rev. ed. (New York: Seabury Press, 1963); Ollenburger, Martens, and Hasel, Flowering of OT Theology; and “The Story of Old Testament Theology,” in Smith, OT Theology, 21–71. See Claus Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church, trans. Keith Crim, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968/1978); Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); Lloyd R. Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979); Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984); J. P. M. Walsh, The Mighty From Their Thrones: Power in the Biblical Tradition, Overtures to

CHAPTER ONE

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

21

Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987); John G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989); and Samuel E. Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Maintaining the method which Balentine has described in the previous year as “less useful” than his adopted socio-literary and theological approach (see Balentine, Divine-Human Dialogue, 13–32), Miller also has presented an excellent form-critical treatment of the biblical theme of prayer outside the auspices of the “Overtures to Biblical Theology” series. See Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1994). Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250–587 BCE (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), xxi. Matthews and Benjamin detail the foundational works. Otto Seesemann, “Die Ältesten im Alten Testament,” Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde (Philosophischen Fakultät, Universität Leipzig, 1895), 57. H. Duesberg, “Le Vieillard dans l’Ancien Testament,” La Vie Spirituelle 82–83 (1950): 237–67. John L. McKenzie, “The Elders in the Old Testament,” Biblica 40 (1959): 522. See Jan Dus, “Die ‘Ältesten Israels’,” Communio Viatorum 3 (1960): 232–42; and Horstklaus Berg, “Die ‘Ältesten Israels’,” Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde (Theologischen Fakultät, Universität Hamburg, 1961). Jean van der Ploeg, “Les anciens dans l’Ancien Testament,” in Lex Tua Veritas, Festschrift für Hubert Junker, eds. von Heinrich Gross and Franz Mussner (Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1961), 175–91. The semantics of  and related terms will be addressed in detail in chapter four of this research below. G. Henton Davies, “Elder in the Old Testament,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962: 72. See W. A. Roeroe, “Die Ältestenamt im Alten Testament,” Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde (Theologischen Fakultät, Universität Mainz, 1976). See Hanoch Reviv, The Elders in Ancient Israel: A Study of a Biblical Institution, trans. Lucy Plitmann (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989). See also his article: “Elders and Saviors,” Oriens antiquus 16 (1977): 201–204. No wonder, Reviv’s work has been subjected to several critical evaluations. For a few of these critiques, see Joachim Buchholz, review of The Elders in Ancient Israel, by Hanoch Reviv, in Biblica 72 (1991): 100– 103; and Leslie J. Hoppe, review of The Elders in Ancient Israel, by Hanoch Reviv, in Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 132–34. See Ed Glasscock, “The Biblical Concept of Elder,” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (JanuaryMarch 1987): 66–78. See Joachim Buchholz, Die Ältesten Israels im Deuteronomium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1988). See Timothy M. Willis, “Elders in Pre-Exilic Israelite Society,” (Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1990). Cf. his later essay: “Yahweh’s Elders (Isa. 24,23): Senior Officials of the Divine court,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 375–85. Lorenz Dürr, Die Wertung des Lebens im Alten Testament und im antiken Orient. Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung des Segens des vierten Gebotes (Münster: Aschendorffsche, 1926/27), 3. More than five decades after Dürr’s work, Maier also came up with his

22

30

31

32

33 34 35

36

37

38

CHAPTER ONE more specific study on the estimation of old age in the post-biblical Judaic tradition. The highlights of this article include: post-biblical linguistic uses of “old age” and related terms, age limits including scope and stages of life, positive estimation of old age (such as longevity as blessing, the command to honor the aged including parents, and older folk’s expertise in or wisdom of the Law), and negative estimation of old age in both Early Judaism and the Rabbinic Literature. See Johann Maier, “Die Wertung des Alters in der jüdischen Überlieferung der Spatantike und des frühen Mittelalters,” Saeculum 30 (1979): 355–64. See Eckhard von Nordheim, “Die Lehre der Alten (Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Alten Testament und im Alten Vorderen Orient),” Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde (Theologischen Fakultät, Universität München, 1973) = Die Lehre der Alten I. Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der Hellenistisch-Römischen Zeit (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980) and Die Lehre der Alten II. Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Alten Testament und im Alten Vorderen Orient (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985). Of course, Westermann also has earlier argued for a close connection between wisdom and blessing in the Hebrew Bible. See Westermann, Blessing in the Bible, 35–39. For a more recent study of the Old Testament theme of blessing, see Hans-Peter Müller, “Segen im Alten Testament. Theologische Implicationen eines halb vergessenen Themas,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 87 (1990): 1–35. See Lothar Ruppert, “Der alte Mensch aus der Sicht des Alten Testamentes,” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 85 (1976): 270–81. See Josef Scharbert, “Das Alter und die Alten in der Bibel,” Saeculum 30 (1979): 338– 54. See Knierim, “Age and Aging,” 21–36. Frank Stagg, The Bible Speaks on Aging (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1981), 181. Rachel Z. Dulin, “Old Age in the Hebrew Scriptures: A Phenomenological Approach,” (Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1982) = A Crown of Glory: A Biblical View of Aging (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 77. See Abraham Malamat, “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” Archiv für Orientforschung 19 (1982): 215–18, cited in J. Gordon Harris, Biblical Perspectives on Aging: God and the Elderly, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 119 n. 4, 120 n. 7. Malamat’s work could not be procured for review in this writing. See Francis V. Tiso, ed., Aging: Spiritual Perspectives, with a foreword by Ettore DiFilippo and a preface by Thomas Berry (Lake Worth, FL: Sunday Pub., 1982). Some of the essays of interest in this volume include: “Aging: The Jewish Perspective” by Asher Finkel (pp. 111–34), “A Christian Theology of Aging” by Jose Pereira (pp. 135– 62), and “Epilogue: Wise Elders and Old Fools” by Francis V. Tiso (pp. 249–54). See W. Paul Jones, “Aging as a Spiritualizing Process,” Journal of Religion and Aging 1 (Fall 1984): 3–16; Nathan R. Kollar, “Towards a Spirituality of Aging and Old Age,” Journal of Religion and Aging 1 (Spring 1985); 49–59; T. Herbert O’Driscoll, “Aging: A Spiritual Journey,” in Affirmative Aging: A Resource for Ministry, eds. Lorraine D. Chiaventone and Julie A. Armstrong (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 1–11; Stephen G. Post, “Aging and Meaning: The Christian Tradition,” in Handbook of the Humanities and Aging, eds. Thomas R. Cole, David D. van Tassel and Robert Kastenbaum (New York: Springer, 1992), 127–46; Sheldon Isenberg, “Aging in Judaism: ‘Crown of Glory’ and ‘Days of Sorrow’,” in Handbook of the Humanities and Aging,

CHAPTER ONE

39

40

41 42

43

44 45 46

47

48

49 50

51

52

53

54

55

56 57

23

147–74; and Stephen Bertman and W. Andrew Achenbaum, “Aging and Spiritual Empowerment: The Stories of Oedipus and David,” in Aging and the Religious Dimension, eds. L. Eugene Thomas and Susan A. Eisenhandler, with a foreword by Harry R. Moody (Westport, Conn./London: Auburn House, 1994), 67–83. Post, “Aging and Meaning,” 138. Cf. Augustine, The Confessions (New York: Penguin, 1961), 321; and Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 428–32. Isenberg, “Aging in Judaism,” 161. See also S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza: Vol. 5, The Individual (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 125. See Bertman and Achenbaum, “Aging and Spiritual Empowerment,” 67–83. See Dale M. Schlitt, “Temporality, Experience and Memory: Theological Reflections on Aging,” Église et Théologie 16 (1985): 79–105. See K. Brynolf Lyon, Toward a Practical Theology of Aging, Theology and Pastoral Care, with a series foreword by Don S. Browning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). See William L. Hendricks, A Theology for Aging (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1986). Robert W. Carlson, “The Gift of Wisdom,” in Affirmative Aging, 64–65, 76. See James L. Crenshaw, “Youth and Old Age in Qoheleth,” Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986): 1–13. See Michael Leahy, “The Meaning of Ecclesiastes [12:2–5],” Irish Theological Quarterly 19 (1952): 297–300; Oswald Loretz, Qohelet und der Alte Orient (Freiburg, 1964); and M. Gilbert, “La description de la vieillesse en Qohelet XII 1–7 est-elle allégorique?” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 32 (1981): 96–109. Cf. D. Buzy, “Le portrait de la vieillesse (Ecclésiaste, XII, 1–7),” Revue biblique 41 (1932): 329–40. See John F. A. Sawyer, “The Ruined House in Ecclesiastes 12: A Reconstruction of the Original Parable,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1976): 519–31. See Hagia Witzenrath, Süss ist das Licht (St. Ottilien, 1979). See Michael V. Fox, “Aging and Death in Qohelet 12,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42 (1988): 55–77. See Norbert Lohfink, “ ‘Freu dich, junger Mann . . .,’ Das Schussgedicht des Koheletbuches (Koh 11, 9 -12, 8),” Bibel und Kirche 45 (1990): 12–19. Reider B. Bjornard, “Aging According to Wisdom Literature,” The Bible Today 30 (Nov. 1992): 330–34. See Jean-Pierre Prevost, “Vieiller ou ne pas vieiller? Le point de vue de l’Ancien Testament,” Église et Théologie 16 (1985): 9–23. Ralph L. Smith, “Attitudes Toward Aged People in the Old Testament,” Biblical Illustrator 12 (Summer 1986): 40. Stephen Sapp, Full of Years: Aging and the Elderly in the Bible and Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987), 127–28. Harris, God and the Elderly, 35. Ibid., 103. Harris also later wrote a short article on “Old Age” in 1992 which seems to be a summary of his earlier book. See J. Gordon Harris, “Old Age,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992: 10–12. His latest essay highlights biblical teachings on spirituality in old age, which includes illustrative biblical cases, such as, Caleb (Numbers, Joshua), Barzillai (2 Samuel), and Naomi (Ruth). See J. Gordon Harris, “Spiritual Well-being, Maturity, and Aging: Biblical Illustrations,” in Aging and the Religious Dimension, 105–14.

24 58

59

60 61

62

63

64

65

66

CHAPTER ONE Lloyd R. Bailey, “Biblical Perspectives on Aging,” Quarterly Review 9 (Winter 1989): 61. Robert Martin-Achard, “Biblical Perspectives on Aging,” trans. John Bowden, in Aging, Concilium 1991/3, eds. Lisa Sowle Cahill and Dietmar Mieth (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1991), 32. Ibid., 37. See Willy Schottroff, “Alter als soziales Problem in der hebräischen Bibel,” in Was ist der Mensch . . .? Beiträge zur Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, Hans Walter Wolff zum 80. Geburstag, eds. Frank Crüsemann, Christof Hardmeier, and Rainer Kessler (München: Kaiser, 1992), 61–77. See Otto Kaiser, “ ‘Und dies sind die Geschlechter . . .’ Alt und jung im Alten Testament,” in Zur Aktualität des Alten Testaments, Festschrift für Georg Sauer zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Siegfried Kreuzer and Kurt Lüthi (Frankfurt and Main/Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 29–45. Knight has noted that the agents of ancient Israelite traditions “include priestly circles, Levites, storytellers, court officials, professional mourners, wisemen, elders, the family, and schools of disciples gathered around significant prophets.” See Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 9 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975), 7. Three stages that have won tentative scholarly consensus regarding the Hebrew wisdom development include the family, royal and scribal stages. For example, see Roland E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 3–5; and Ronald E. Clements, Wisdom in Theology, The Didsbury Lectures, 1989 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992), 22–26. For a few examples, see Westermann, Blessing in the Bible, 35–39; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism, The Oxford Bible Series (Oxford/New York/Toronto: Oxford Univ. Press, 1983), 11; and Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 567–71. I have coined these catchwords, “geronsapience” and “gerassapience” from two words of two different languages.  is the Greek word, meaning “an old man” (human). Its abstract noun form is  (), which means “old age.” “Sapience” comes from the Latin word sapientia, meaning “wisdom.” Thus, “geronsapience” literally designates “old man (human) wisdom,” while “gerassapience” means “old-age wisdom.” See F. Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Chicago/London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965), s. v. , and ; and Richard A. Miller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Drawn Practically from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), s. v. “sapientia.”

CHAPTER TWO Methodological Concerns Although Old Testament theology is now more than two centuries old, its crisis certainly remains far from being over. As scholars strive on in search for its true identity, so the debates over the proper way to do Old Testament theology continue. As indicated in the previous chapter, the scholarly pendulum has swung back and forth from methodological preoccupations to concerns for the meaning of the Old Testament. The result of these struggles has been an array of methodologies which apparently dogs the steps of anyone who attempts doing Old Testament theology today. The present study has been described in the introductory chapter as a thematic approach to Old Testament theology. By its nature, the dyad theme being examined seems to warrant an eclectic method of investigation. Thus, three approaches—the linguistic, tradition-historical and socioanthropological methods—will be jointly employed in my treatment of “wisdom and old age” in this project. The focus of this chapter then is to define the task of each of these approaches and to highlight their interrelated applicabilities to the theme in mind. Linguistic Approach to the Study Like many other human languages, biblical Hebrew (that is, the language of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) has a long history of intensive scholarly investigation. With the rise of the comparative-historical philology since the early nineteenth century, the scrutiny of the Old Testament language became more systematized. This linguistic trend was accelerated by the emergence of “general linguistics” as the modern science of human language, which many scholars often credit to a Swiss scholar, Ferdinard de Saussure (1857–1913), who in the early twentieth century “first clearly articulated” several of “the salient characteristics of the field.”1 Briefly defined, linguistics is the study of the nature and structure of language, “including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and historical linguistics.”2 The philological preoccupations with languages prior to the inception of modern linguistics were proven shallow as biblical scholars adopted the new descriptive method. James Barr notes that the increase in the pace of new linguistic research since 1951 has propelled “remarkable shifts in emphasis and understanding” of biblical

26

CHAPTER TWO

Hebrew. He sees four interwoven categories of influences that have encouraged these changes. First, knowledge of pertinent Semitic languages of the ancient Near East as well as of a few other linguistic relatives has increased. Second, this increased linguistic knowledge is more intensely applied to textual problem solving within the Hebrew Bible. Third, knowledge of the Hebrew language and manuscript traditions, including their transmission process to contemporary times, also has increased. Fourth, there have been innovative approaches to the study and understanding of language in general.3 According to Barr, the medieval Jewish grammarians laid out the rudimentary form of the comparative-historical studies of Semitic languages which, from the nineteenth century onwards, focused on linguistic features as phonology, morphology and lexicography. Various Semitic languages, including Akkadian, Ugaritic, Arabic, Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac and the like were examined and the results were applied to the linguistic evaluation of the biblical Hebrew. In such earlier philological studies, little attention was given to syntax, although etymology was upheld as a method with a “tendency to suppose that a correct translation was also an account of the meaning of a word.”4 Evidently, semantics5 as a constituent of modern linguistics found no recognition in the older philology. This neglect would not subside until the period when this older approach to the study of the Old Testament language, “the historical philology,” would succumb to the newer approach, “modern linguistics.” Of course, philology and linguistics are not diametrically different fields. They differ only in the sense that the former investigates a language as a literary text in order to determine its historical authenticity and meaning, while the latter studies human language mainly as a phenomenon. They intertwine so that philology is later described as the “historical linguistics” in the modern scholarly convention.6 The demand for a shift from the older philology and its haphazard etymology to new ways of studying the biblical Hebrew was first launched by Barr through his 1961 revolutionary work, The Semantics of Biblical Language. In this book, Barr charged biblical scholars in generalwith specific references to the so-called “biblical theology movement” and individuals as Johannes Pedersen, Thorleif Boman, and Gerhard Kittelwith doing biblical theology or exegesis through erroneous methods which violate the basic principles of linguistic semantics. He attacks Pedersen and Boman’s theory of a unique Hebrew thought which they have attempted to delineate through Hebrew linguistic structure.7 Barr also declares as improper the method employed to evaluate the idea of “the unity of the Bible” which is based on a common theological

CHAPTER TWO

27

substructure as reflected in certain Hebrew roots. He laments that, out of sheer ignorance or negligence of the principles of synchronic (descriptive) linguistics, scholars exploit “vocabulary stocks” (p. 34) to present their etymological arguments, while also disregarding the arbitrary nature of word as well as the diachronic (historical) linguistic factor. Kittel’s epochal work, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum neuen Testament, receives a heavy dose of criticism in this respect. According to Barr, Kittel and his associates in Theologisches Wörterbuch depend heavily on etymologies (or “inner lexicography”) and “remote association of words” (or “outer lexicography”) to the neglect of the semantic contexts. Although their work begins where their predecessors’ lexicographical labors (that is, works on “external lexicography” which pay some attention to semantic matters8) end, they take these previous lexical studies for granted in their attempt to press for their redundant so-called “inner lexicography” on the basis of a theology of Heilsgeschichte (“salvation history”). In Barr’s opinion, such extraneous efforts as well as scholars’ general failure to address semantic issues or general practice of reading “the ‘meaning’ of a word (understood as the total series of relations in which it is used in the literature) . . . into a particular case as its sense and implication there” virtually amount to a case of “illegitimate totality transfer.”9 Barr has followed up his criticisms in Semantics of scholars’ abuse of etymology and neglect of semantic matters with several other works. His Biblical Words for Time was intended to exemplify the proper way of doing exegetical biblical theology, which he does with added criticisms of such works as Oscar Cullman (1946) and John Marsh’s (1952) erroneous methodological categorizations of the concept of time.10 He also reiterates his former criticism of Boman’s “entirely artificial explanation of the ‘time’ system,” whereby he attempts “to show that the Hebrew expressions relating to time (such as adverbs and prepositions) were not derived from spatial terms.”11 Although Barr’s own works (Semantics and Time) were criticized by their reviewers, he acknowledges these criticisms and appreciates especially the ones that offer “substantial contributions to the discussion” in his revised edition of Time, wherein he also updates his argument with more supporting evidences from the newer studies done by other scholars.12 Barr was not alone in the assault on the misuse and overuse of etymology and the subsequent call for an in-depth evaluation of the semantic features of biblical words. In 1967, John Sawyer also issued his article on “Root-Meanings in Hebrew” in which he clarifies Barr’s charges and claims in Semantics as well as suggests some new lines of approach to biblical linguistic semantics. In Sawyer’s view, “the ‘context of situation’, however,

28

CHAPTER TWO

is a more important factor in determining the meaning of a word than the lexical context.”13 And like Barr, he also presents a concrete application of this suggested approach in his subsequent work on the Hebrew words for salvation.14 More so, Barr has followed up his semantic discussion with other writings in the seventies. For example in 1971, he proposed a few theses regarding the relations between semantic studies and biblical theology.15 In his 1974 essay on “Etymology and the Old Testament,” he identifies two types of etymology: 1) the “scholarly etymology” whose features include delineating chronological linguistic changes, categorizing linguistic cognates, and analyzing phonological correspondences “between different languages” or “between different stages of the same language” (p. 3), and 2) “popular” or “indigenous etymology” whose main feature is “a play on word-similarity, rather than a serious analysis of root meanings” (p. 26). Here, he sees the term “etymology” as loose and elusive in matters of definition. Hence, it has been mistaken for historical linguistics. To apply etymology to Old Testament studies beyond the traditional “serious analysis of root meanings,” Barr calls for taking the “transparency” route, meaning “that the user feels not only that the word has a meaning but that you can see through it to some kind of reason why it has that meaning.”16 In another essay on the biblical term " (included in the 1977 Zimmerli Festschrift), Barr further demonstrates how a semantic approach to biblical words supersedes mere etymological investigations.17 Finally in 1979, he concludes his overview of Semitic linguistic studies in relation to the Old Testament with a review of the newer approach to biblical linguistics, which “affirms the importance of both synchronic and diachronic axes in description.”18 These challenges issued to biblical scholars since 1960 onwards to engage in semantic discussion have yielded some significant results, as observed by Barr. For instance, G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (since 1970) and Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (since 1971) have demonstrated proper usage of linguistic (semantic) methods in their Old Testament theological dictionaries.19 Since the eighties, some other scholars also have made substantial contributions to the appeal for utilizing semantics in biblical exegesis. One of them is G. B. Caird who in his work, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, discusses and illustrates (through several various examples from biblical accounts and modern cultures) the essence of semantics in the linguistic studies of the Bible. In the first section of this three-part book, he gives an in-depth attention to general semantic issues such as the uses and abuses of language, the meaning of meaning,

CHAPTER TWO

29

changes in meaning, and three characteristic elements of a language which are opacity, vagueness and ambiguity.20 Moisés Silva is another notable scholar whose work Biblical Words and Their Meaning is the first comprehensive investigation of biblical lexicography. Accenting Barr’s charging of early modern biblical scholars with “overemphasizing” or “misusing” of “lexical study in the task of interpretation,” Silva as well challenges “the very conception of ‘theological lexicography’,” suggesting the expression “lexical theology” as “a more accurate and revealing description” (pp. 28, 29). He argues that, while “it is impossible to do too much lexicography” (since his work also encourages the study of words), a preoccupation with lexical research may delimit words without treating them as “linguistic entities” that possess “extralinguistic” meanings (pp. 28–29, 31). Thus, he understands the scope of “biblical lexicography” as including both “historical semantics” and “descriptive semantics,” which constitute the two major divisions of his work. By this approach, Silva also gives credence to the usefulness of the diachronic and synchronic principles in biblical interpretation.21 To provide a remedy to what he identifies as deficiency in the knowledge of biblical languages which results in ambiguous biblical exegesis, Silva issued another work in 1990. In God, Language, and Scripture, he provides useful guidance to students of biblical languages and exegesis.22 Some other recent studies on biblical semantics, such as by Johannes Louw (1991), Walter Bodine (1992), Harold Scanlin (1992), several articles in the sixth issue of Zeitschrift für Althebräistik (1993), Charles Kennedy (1994) and Ellen van Wolde (1994), also acknowledge the efforts of earlier scholars and endorse the call for both diachronic and synchronic studies of the biblical languages. Like Barr, Louw as well labels collated substitute words as “glosses” and mere “translational equivalents” which do not constitute meanings. Since words are not the sole element of a language, and since “meaning is not another word . . . [but] a definition”—”the content of what people intend to communicate,” Louw presses for a distinction “between lexical meaning and contextual meaning.”23 In his introductory essay to the book, Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, Bodine notices a communication gap between biblical scholars and linguists, which he attributes to their different orientations. Because of the nature of their written text, biblicists address diachronic issues in their studies. On the contrary, linguists analyze languages from a synchronic perspective. Bodine then stresses that the purpose of their volume is to bridge the communication gap so that biblical scholars may see the value of combining the synchronic method with their traditional diachronic study of biblical texts.24

30

CHAPTER TWO

Since meaning involves communication, Scanlin similarly emphasizes the importance of applying both diachronic and synchronic principles in the field of lexicography to be able to delineate the proper relationship between words and meanings in a semantic domain.25 The Zeitschrift für Althebräistik volume features various lectures and responses delivered during the first (1992) European Science Foundation Network Workshop on the Semantics of Classical Hebrew in Bischofsheim. These works include: James Barr’s “Scope and Problems in the Semantics of Classical Hebrew” [(pp. 3–14) which features: “The restriction of the corpus”, “Diachronic change of meaning”, and “Meanings as we know them and meanings as they know them,” and to which U. Rüterswörden offers a response article on pp. 15–20]; Pierre Swiggers’ “Recent Developments in Linguistic Semantics and Their Application to Biblical Hebrew,” which identifies four major “fertilizations” in the historical development of linguistic semantics and illustrates (through 2 Sam. 12:1–13) how biblical Hebrew scholars could do both intratextual and intertextual semantic studies (pp. 21–25); Jonas Greenfield’s “Etymological Semantics” [(pp. 26–37) a critique of Barr’s major works on biblical languages which attracts a response article by Bertil Albrektson on pp. 38–44]; Pierre Swiggers’ “Paradigmatical Semantics” [(pp. 44–54) to which Ernst Jenni responds on pp. 55–59]; Ida Zatelli’s “Pragmalinguistics and Speech-Act Theory as Applied to Classical Hebrew” [(pp. 60–74) to which G. I. Davis responds on pp. 75–78]; Pelio Fronzaroli’s “Componential Analysis” (pp. 79–91); J. S. Petöfi’s “Logical Semantics: An Overview from a Textological Point of View” [(pp. 92–108) to which J. Gunnarsson responds on pp. 109–13]; and Johannes H. Hospers’ “Polysemy and Homonymy” [(pp. 114–23) to which A. Lemaire responds on pp. 124–29].26 In his essay, Kennedy tries out an etymological semantic exercise on the biblical term for “idolatry.” He compares the Masoretic concept with the Septuagint concept of idol, concluding with an observation on how its original meaning (“image”) got lost when the Latin term idolum appeared with its negative connotation of a “false god.”27 Finally, in her own recent “text-semantic” evaluation of the Hebrew Bible, van Wolde demonstrates how “a well-considered combination of bottom-up and top-down semantics” works in Hebrew biblical passages such as the stories of Noah and Job. She argues that the historical-critical exegesis (or the “top-down semantics”) with its characteristic diachronic approach “acknowledges only the principle of causality for explaining phenomena,” whereas the “bottom-up” or synchronic semantics creates “multiple conditions for textual analysis.”28

CHAPTER TWO

31

In light of the various observations above, I intend to explore the semantic domains of both “wisdom” and “old age” in this study. This linguistic semantic approach will feature the suggested combination of both the diachronic and synchronic dimensions of both pivotal terms with the hope of capturing their lexical and contextual meanings. As Barr, Sawyer and others have noticed, there are dangers of misuse and/or overuse of terms in the comparative-philological method which may result in theological jargon. Certainly, “to establish the root meaning of a word does not establish its meaning in a given passage.”29 This statement may better be understood in the words of that popular cliché: “Words don’t have meanings; meanings have words.”30 One interesting feature of the West African Yoruba language can illustrate this understanding of the relationship between words and meanings. In that language, several words (or symbols of words) having no etymological kinship may share the same spellings with totally different denotations and connotations. For instance, the three-letter word owo may refer to about nine different terms, which respectively signify: honor or respect, a hand, a broom, a group or category of people or things, names of two western Nigerian cities with different pronunciations and meanings, money, a trade or career, and a boil, and which could only be identified by their phonetic or accentual variations. Since they are not synonyms nor antonyms nor even phonemic homonyms, each of these terms still has its distinctive lexical and contextual meanings. One translating or interpreting the Bible into or in this African language thus faces a twofold task in his/her application of the linguistic semantic method. On the one hand is the struggle with the proper meaning of words in the biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek), while on the other hand the challenge of choosing appropriate Yoruba word symbols becomes inevitable. Citing a few examples here may further clarify this illustration. First, in the Exod. 20:12 command, the Hebrew Pi’el imperative # $ rendered in English as “honor” is signified as f’wfún or b’wfún [the contractions of fi w fún meaning literally “give honor to” and bu w ki o fi í fún meaning literally “draw (a portion of) honor and give it to”] in Yoruba. Second, the Hebrew # in Isa. 59:1 represented in English as “hand” becomes w in Yoruba. Third, the Hebrew %  which major English Bible versions translate as “boils” is rendered as ôwo in the Yoruba Bible (see Exod. 9:9–11; Deut. 28:27, 35; and Job 2:7). And fourth, the Hebrew '*$ , which is assigned the English term “money” has the Yoruba term owó (see Eccl. 7:12; 10:19; cf. Ps. 15:5; Job 31:39; and Prov. 7:20). The preceding illustration and subsequent examples are purposefully to show how words transcend mere symbols, for “words are not signs,” as

32

CHAPTER TWO

Walter Ong states, “. . . a textual, visual representation of a word is not a real word, but a ‘secondary modeling system’ . . . . Thought is nested in speech, not in texts, all of which have their meanings through reference of the visible symbol to the world of sound.”31 Of course, Ong’s whole argument is set in defense of the oral traditions of languages. He claims that all written languages once existed in sounds and some carry along their power of orality into their documented texts (although sometimes without phonetic qualities as in the case of biblical Hebrew). He cites as an example the vocalization of the Bible (in modern language) during liturgical services whereby worshippers still see the sacred scriptures as God’s word spoken but not written to them.32 Being an unspoken (or a so-called “dead”) language that left virtually no clues to its original phonemic and phonetic properties, however, biblical Hebrew scholars generally have given minimal attention to the study of the phonetics and phonology of this ancient language. Some scholars actually discourage teaching it to Old Testament Hebrew students as a living (spoken) language, especially through a modern language laboratory apparatus, for such a venture amounts to a waste of time in their opinion.33 Nevertheless, Ong’s work is helpful to the extent that it further sensitizes biblical exegetes to the fragility of biblical texts: that meaning does not lie within an array of substitute words (“glosses” or “translational equivalents”). To arrive at the realm of meanings, therefore, “biblical terminology should be seen ‘within the context of ‘ biblical thought as a whole.”34 Tradition-Historical Approach to the Study Every language has a history of development—a historical pattern of growth which includes oral and literary conventions. As expressed above, biblical semanticists do not discount the historical (diachronic) study of the biblical Hebrew. They only discourage a preoccupation with its etymological features and demand for an ineluctable enhancement of the old method by the descriptive (synchronic) approach. That historical considerations are not out of place in biblical linguistic semantics is evident in Barr’s own argument in favor of etymology as a valuable aspect of lexical semantics. He posits that etymology studies the history of a word with the understanding that such history is not an “infallible guide” to the word’s present meaning. The current semantic worth of words stems out of their current usage and not from their uncovered roots through etymological investigation. However, he admits that knowing the etymology of a word in use is valuable: “The use of words is often deeply influenced by their past history

CHAPTER TWO

33

of use, and the etymology may give helpful indications of how the word has developed and shifted in sense.”35 To me, this idea of historical value in biblical semantics suggests that the tradition-historical method is somewhat akin to the linguistic approach. As Roger Lapointe observes, biblical truth is questionable both on philological grounds and “on account of our imperfect and limited knowledge of tradition.” These deficiencies necessitate the tradition-historical approach, whose main concern is to delineate historical reality of life situations of the Old Testament texts. Lapointe thus indicates and stresses the significance of tradition in relation to language: “It is as necessary to biblical exegesis as extra-linguistic situations are necessary to language.” Just as spoken or written language derives normal and complete meaning in real life situations, “the biblical text needs to be reset in the historical context that produced it in order to attain true intelligibility.36 Inherent in the concept of tradition are multifarious connotations which must be sorted out in order to ensure a proper application of the term. As Douglas Knight broadly describes it, “[tradition] is anything in the heritage from the past [generation(s) of a people] that is delivered down to the present [generation] and can contribute to the makeup of the new ethos.” Such a thing may be “customs, habits, beliefs, moral standards, cultural attitudes and values, [or] social and religious institutions.”37 The term “tradition” itself (which is of Latin origin) has two facets: traditio which refers to the process of transmission or transferring something, and traditum which refers to the actual object being transmitted.38 Since language is an intrinsic medium of transmitting traditions, the term tradition has been commonly applied to both oral and written materials transmitted. In biblical studies, we are concerned mainly with verbal tradition, that is, “words and texts which are transmitted from one generation to the next by oral and/or written means”or in other words, with “oral and written tradition which narrates, instructs, regulates, interprets, and is constitutive for faith and community life.”39 According to Robert Di Vito, some examples of oral and literary constituents of tradition include “proverbs, riddles, songs, poems, epics, and various kinds of folk narratives.”40 These various expressions about the term “tradition history” have been formulated by biblical scholars for biblical and theological investigations of the Hebrew Bible such as the one being undertaken in the present research. “Tradition History” or “Tradition-historical Criticism”41 as a research method stemmed out of source-critical studies in the Pentateuch which reached their plateau at the end of the nineteenth century with Julius Wellhausen’s “Documentary Hypothesis.”42 Challenging Wellhausen’s view

34

CHAPTER TWO

of the “authors” of the Pentateuch, Hermann Gunkel rather saw these writers not as “authors” but as collectors (or “redactors”) of the ancient Israelite traditions. Beyond this challenge, however, Gunkel originated the formcritical method through which he aimed at recovering the earliest form of a tradition or a tradition unit. This basic tradition, which he calls “inner history,” paved the way for conceptualizing the entire history of a tradition.43 For this epochal move of thrusting the issue of transmission and tradition onto the scholarly platform of awareness, Knight declares Gunkel as “the chief pioneer of traditio-historical research.”44 Although Gunkel’s form-critical studies focused only on the smallest units of tradition, he left a strong impression on two major scholars who gave tradition-historical criticism its proper coating. In the 1930s, Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth ushered in a new era in Old Testament research with regard to a consistent investigation of the history of its traditions and transmission. Von Rad addresses both traditiõ and traditum in his evaluation of the traditionhistorical and theological problems of the “Hexateuch,” the results of which he applies to his subsequent extensive studies in Old Testament theology.45 Noth was the first scholar to posit Überlieferungsgeschichte or tradition history in a precise definitive context. He focused his investigation of the history of Pentateuchal traditions on identifying the entire process of formation and growth of individual traditions (that is, from the preliterary stage to the redaction stage). Contrary to von Rad’s idea of “Hexateuch,” Noth conceives of the idea of “Pentateuch” essentially as a “tetrateuch.”46 Because of the substantial contributions that von Rad and Noth have made in Old Testament research, Knight has named them “the fathers of traditiohistorical research.”47 Space does not permit here a detailed account of numerous other tradition-historical approaches to the Old Testament, among whom were the Scandinavian scholars such as Sigmund Mowinckel (1884– 1965), Ivan Engnell (1906–64), and the Uppsala guild (Helmer Ringgren and his colleagues).48 As reflected in chapter one, one current trend in the study of Old Testament theology is the investigation of various individual themes, a practice which also becomes operative in my treatment of wisdom and old age in the Hebrew Bible. The works of scholars referenced in the preceding paragraphs have demonstrated the appropriateness of the tradition-historical method in this respect. As indicated by Richard Soulen, the scope of tradition history is broad and not limited to focusing “on specific units of Scripture or on particular oral forms,” for tradition historians also have applied the method to “certain ideas, themes, or motifs, and their development.”49 Walter Rast’s observation on this approach is also fascinating: He sees thematic study of

CHAPTER TWO

35

the Old Testament as a very relevant aspect of tradition-historical research, in the quest for Old Testament content and message. Such inquiry entails meticulous examination of how specific themes are shaped, and how they continued to function overtime in different contexts.50 Again, to illustrate the relevance of tradition history in an exegetical thematic study of the Old Testament that I undertake in this project, I refer here to the history of the term námbà or nmbà (a transliteration of the English term “number”) in the Yoruba (West African) language. During the last decade of the colonial era, mass vaccination against a small-pox epidemic was administered in Nigeria in 1956. Due to time pressure, the medical teams who vaccinated the people adopted an easier record-keeping method of registering a penstroke for each vaccinee, instead of writing down his/her name and other personal information. Although his/her identity remains anonymous to this day, the originator of the Yoruba expression evidently misconstrued the lashes recorded for “number” of vaccination incisions (slashes) each patient was to receive. In an attempt to encourage his/her kinfolk to go for vaccination, he/she probably said: “ l k námbà,” which literally means, “Go and carve a number.” Those who responded to this appeal thus went to the vaccinators requesting to be vaccinated: “A wá k námbà,” meaning literally: “We’ve come to carve numbers.” Of course, long before the small-pox episode that popularized vaccination, the Yoruba language had already adopted a descriptive word for the medical practice, which is ibupá (that literally means “the slashing of an arm”). Thus, “to vaccinate” or “be vaccinated” is bupá, while a “vaccinator” is bupábupá or abupá.51 By and large, however, the new expression námbà was adopted by health authorities as the colloquial slogan used in vaccination campaigns: “Wá k námbà” (literally, “come and carve a number”) denoting “come and be vaccinated;” and “námbà dára” (literally, “number carving is good”) meaning “vaccination is good.” In the course of years, this new signification for vaccination became more popular than the former term in the colloquial Yoruba language. However, it has virtually lost its historical literal meaning which only very few of the present generation of the Yorubas seem to know. The reason for this oblivion is apparently the failure of the expression námbà over the years to gain a literary passage into the Yoruba literature, more especially, the Yoruba grammar texts that I am currently aware of.52 No doubt, the terms “wisdom” and “old age” have their respective histories of development and usage in the Hebrew tradition. It is expected therefore that the tradition-historical approach to this study would shed light

36

CHAPTER TWO

on the background of these biblical themes in some significant ways. For example, scholars have debated the existence of a seeming discontinuity between the spoken and the written word. Lapointe sees “such a gap or discontinuity” as appealing to the tradition-historical method whose task is to attempt reaching beyond the written text.53 Social-Anthropological Approach to the Study The third aspect of the triad methodological approach which I intend to apply to my study of wisdom and old age concerns evaluating the social and cultural dimensions of these words. As these terms are linguistic properties with a history or histories of semantic tradition, their traditions also contain socio-cultural elements which warrant some scholarly exploration. Advocates of both tradition-historical and semantic approaches to biblical studies generally recognize the close connection between tradition, culture and language. For instance, Lapointe argues that as “culture is a child of tradition, . . . it is no less clearly and necessarily related to language.”54 In a similar mode, Rast examines the dynamics on which a tradition’s origin, development and transmission depend. His conclusion is that the “[traditionhistorical] approach to the Old Testament material demands, therefore, an intimate acquaintance with the sociology of ancient Israel and the history of her political and cultic institutions.”55 And on semantics, Barr, Sawyer, and Hospers respectively convey the importance of these three paths in biblical studies. Seeing “the social nature of language as a [necessary] means of communication,” Barr demands that “semantic statements must be based on the social linguistic consciousness related to usage.”56 Arguing for the “context of situation” as being “a more important factor in determining the meaning of a word than the lexical context,” Sawyer draws some support from J. R. Firth, a chief exponent of “sociological linguistics,” who had addressed earlier the concept of the situation or social contexts of words.57 Finally, as Hospers presses for a legitimate teaching of an alleged “dead” language as biblical Hebrew since this also could be “a means of communication” (though with some precautions), he concludes: “For the fact is, that language always functions in a certain social and cultural context, and this should be kept in mind all the time in the teaching-process.”58 In light of these views, my choice of social anthropology along with linguistic semantics and tradition history as an eclectic medium of research is thus in order. What then is social anthropology? As with any other concept, a thorough definitive look at a multifaceted discipline as anthropology is a difficult task which is evidently uncalled for in the present research. For

CHAPTER TWO

37

example, it has two major divisions recognized as “physical anthropology” and “cultural anthropology.” Cultural anthropology further includes subdivisions as ethnology, ethnography, archaeology, linguistic anthropology, structural anthropology, and social anthropology.59 Both sociology and anthropology are ranked prominent among all other social sciences. In one sense, they both embrace other social sciences including history, political science, economics, geography, and psychology. In another sense, only these two methods “have persistently exerted an influence on biblical studies.”60 The functions of both social sciences so intertwine that scholars lack a consensus on the idea of subjecting one to the other. For instance, Norman Gottwald declares that “sociological method includes all the methods of inquiry proper to the social sciences (e. g., anthropology, sociology, political science, economics),”61 whereas A. L. Kroeber had indicated previously that sociology represents an aspect of anthropology.62 One broad definition of sociology states that it is “the study of human social behaviour, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.”63 Also broadly defined, anthropology is “the study of all facets of life and culture and deals with questions of human origins, social organization, customs, folklore, and beliefs.”64 In light of the similarities in their nature, the elements of these two sciences are fused in social anthropology which some scholars have described as “comparative sociology.”65 In fact, Edward Evans-Pritchard’s definition of social anthropology seems to capture this elemental blend: [Social anthropology] studies . . . social behaviour, generally in institutionalized forms, such as the family, kinship systems, political organization, legal procedures, religious cults, and the like, and the relations between such institutions; and it studies them either in contemporaneous societies or in historical societies for which there is adequate information of the kind to make such studies feasi66 ble.

Thus, the term “socio-anthropological method,” to me, conveys the same idea as “anthropo-sociological method.” Although they are delineated often in modern literature as distinct disciplines, the histories of both sociological and anthropological approaches to Old Testament studies also contain somewhat blended features. In other words, scholars known to be biblical sociologists practically incorporate anthropological discussions in their studies, while known biblical anthropologists frequently discuss sociological themes. Even long before social sciences came to be given their distinct identities, biblical writers themselves practiced what could be called proto-sociology or proto-anthropology

38

CHAPTER TWO

as reflected in their interests in social- and anthropo- theological issues. For instance, the Pentateuchal accounts include certain anthropological origins of family trades [such as Jabal’s being the ancestor of herders and tentmakers, Jubal’s being the ancestor of harp and flute players (artists), and Zilkah’s being the father of bronze and iron tool makers (see Gen. 4:20–22)] and etiologies [such as of ancient Israel’s traditions of not eating the “tendon” or “thigh muscle” of an animal hip socket (see Gen. 32:22–32) and of the Passover (see Exod. 12:43–13:16)]. Also, the Deuteronomic historian hints at the title of “a seer” by which “a prophet” was called originally in ancient Israel (see I Sam. 9:9). Biblical studies before the critical era also often consisted of discussions of socio-anthropological themes. Some examples of such medieval biblical exegetes include Jewish scholar Rashi (c. 1040–1105) and his disciples, Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) and Joseph Bekhor Shor, and Hugh of St. Victor (c. 1141).67 Representative biblical scholars of the Renaissance who examined to some extent the social world of ancient Israel include Cornelius Bertramus (1574), Cavolus Sigonius (1583), Martinus Geier (1656), Johannes Henricus Ursinus (1663), and Hadrianus Relandus (1716).68 And in the eighteenth century, such sociological/anthropological studies included the works of J. D. Michaelis (1770–5) on cultural relativism of the Mosaic laws and of J. G. Herder (1784–91) on Israel’s post-exilic misfortunes of social disorganization.69 Modern sociology and anthropology began to take their footings as distinct social sciences in the nineteenth century. Of all their acknowledged founding fathers (such as Herbert Spencer, 1820–1903; Karl Marx, 1818– 83; William R. Smith, 1846–94; Julius Wellhausen, 1844–1918; Max Weber, 1864–1920; and Emile Durkheim, 1858–1917), Weber and Durkheim have exerted long-lasting influences on the social scientific studies of the Hebrew Bible. Each of these two scholars is credited with a sociological tradition: the conflict tradition for Weber and the functionalist tradition for Durkheim.70 Many twentieth century biblical scholars also have utilized sociological and anthropological methods in their various studies. Some of the leading Old Testament scholars of this era who appear to have culminated the pioneering of these approaches to biblical interpretation include: Hermann Gunkel on biblical folklore (1917), Alfred Bertholet (1919), Johannes Pedersen (1920), and Gustaf Dalman (1928–39) on ancient Israel’s culture.71 Since the 1950s, several other significant works have appeared, such as Martin Noth on biblical Israel’s tribal system (1960), Roland de Vaux on ancient Israel’s life and institutions (1961), Hans Wolff on Old Testament basic anthropological concepts (1974), John Rogerson on the

CHAPTER TWO

39

British functionalist (social-anthropological) studies of the Hebrew Bible (1978), and Norman Gottwald who seems in this latter part of the twentieth century to be the leading scholar of the functionalist approach which started with Durkheim’s works.72 An attempt will be made in this research to evaluate ancient Israel’s socio-anthropological phenomena of wisdom and old age in their theological contexts. Being a study of biblical theme(s), a somewhat holistic functionalist approach from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives seems most appropriate to me.73 On the one hand, this kind of socio-anthropological focus is necessary, since both ancient Israel and her religion and sacred text which Yahweh gave her through human agents constitute a significant aspect of an intricate cultural system. Thus, as Wilson puts it, “it is no longer possible to engage in theological reflection without taking into account the role of the Old Testament’s social matrix.”74 On the other hand, functional social anthropology is congruent with the eclectic methodological path that I choose for this project. Robert Culley has attributed the “growing interest among biblical scholars in social sciences like anthropology and sociology” to “the fact that the Bible is language and literature” and that both “language and literature are social [elements]” which “do not exist in a vacuum.”75 As expressed above, Knight maintains that the historical context of a given biblical text cannot be ignored for biblical exegesis to be truly intelligible.76 Gottwald also has made a similar statement: “Any interpreter who claims continuity with the biblical texts must also assume the continuity of the history of social forms as an indispensable precondition of the hermeneutical task.”77 In summary, it is expected therefore that this configuration of research methods will yield significant informative results in the following chapters. For instance, through the linguistic approach, the semantic spectra of both wisdom and old age will be explored in chapters three and four. This exploration will include etymological features (such as the roots and histories of development and usage) as well as cognate elements of both terms. The purpose of these lexical analyses is to present some definitive scopes of the themes being investigated, which will serve as guideposts in chapters five, six and seven, wherein both tradition-historical and socialanthropological approaches will be concurrently applied to selected texts from the Hebrew Bible and the intertestamental literature. In these chapters, the history of the tradition behind the dual concept of wisdom and old age (that is, how both themes were employed and associated with and/or dissociated from each other in ancient Israel) will be evaluated. Also in the same context, wisdom and old age will be examined as anthropological

40

CHAPTER TWO

phenomena in order to identify their social and theological functions in the ancient society.

CHAPTER TWO

41

NOTES 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Walter R. Bodine, “The Study of Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 1 n. 3. See also Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Academie Books/Zondervan, 1983), 35–37. On the contrary, Bodine locates the beginning of modern linguistics in the nineteenth century era of the historical-comparative study of languages, since that exercise constitutes “the normal understanding of what is meant by ‘linguistics’.” See p. 1 n. 2 of his work cited in this paragraph. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1991 ed., s. v. “linguistics.” For a broader definition, see Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2nd rev. & expand. ed. (Atlanta: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1981), 112–13. James Barr, “Semitic Philology and the Interpretation of the Old Testament,” in Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, ed. G. W. Anderson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 31. Ibid., 63 (see pp. 31–64 for details). The term “etymology” refers to the branch of linguistics that deals with “the origin and historical development of a linguistic form (word) as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.” See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd. ed., s. v. “etymology.” On Barr’s argument for distinguishing between two types of etymology, see p. 43 below. As a branch of linguistics, semantics is the science or “study of meaning, including the ways meaning is structured in language and changes in meaning and form over time.” As a branch of semiotics (semasiology) or logic, it is the study of the relationships “between signs and symbols and what they denote.” See Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1991 ed., s. v. “semantics.” The French linguist Bréal [who studied the historical (diachronic) development of the meaning of language forms] coined the term “semantics” in 1897. See Michel Bréal, Essai de sémantique (Paris: Hachette, 1897) = Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning, trans. Nina Henry Cust, with a preface by J. P. Postgate (London: William Heinemann, 1900), 8. See also Soulen, Handbook, 174–75. The linguistic semantics is what this research employs as a method. Its typical domain, according to Scanlin, consists essentially of a group of meanings (by no means restricted to these reflected in single words) which share certain semantic components.” See Harold P. Scanlin, “The Study of Semantics in General Linguistics,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 135. Barr, “Semitic Philology,” 61–63. See also, Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1991 ed., s. v. “philology.” See James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1961). Such assertions as: “The Semitic languages are as perfect expressions of Semitic thinking as the European languages of European thinking” by Johannes Pedersen in Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1920/1926), 513; and “the unique character (Eigenart) of a people or of a family of peoples, a race, finds its expression in its own language” by Thorleif Boman

42

8

9

10

11 12 13

14

15

16

17

18 19

CHAPTER TWO in Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem Grieshischen, 2nd. ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 18 = Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, trans. Jules L. Moreau (London: SCM Press, 1960), 27, sound absurd to Barr (see Semantics, 8–45). For instance, see Hermann Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlischen Gräzität, 3rd. ed. (Gotha, 1886) = Biblico-theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, 3rd. ed. (Edinburgh, 1886); and Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906/Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1907). Barr, Semantics, 218, 222. For detailed argument, see pp. 206–62. See also Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum neuen Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933) = Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: 1965–6); and cf. his Lexicographia Sacra, Theology Occasional Papers 7 (London, 1938): 91–109. See James Barr, Biblical Words for Time, 2nd. (rev.) ed., Studies in Biblical Theology 1/33 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1969), 21–85. Cullmann considers the idea of time in relation to Christology, comparing among his list of Greek words for time what he holds as the two most common concepts: + (“duration of time”). See Oscar Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit; die urchristliche Zeit und Geschichtsauffasung (Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1962) = Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, trans. Floyd V. Filson, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964). Marsh also focuses his own study on two Greek words: @\^ and @